How did the 2nd amendment move so far from the intended militia meaning from when militias were used for national security?
Hum, seems that People is the key word.
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
Correlation doesn't imply causation. Lower shooting rates in regions with stricter gun control laws doesn't prove those laws work. It's just as likely that a difference in the morals and values in those regions reduces the rates.
I'm not pro or con but I do believe the issues isn't a national one. The values of the people affected should inform what if any action should restrict gun access.
When I listened to Kerry Miller's show this morning, I was disappointed by how she was unaware of our own MN and in particular the AZ gun permit requirements, which are readily available online.
Does she do any background checking on the details of her stories before she gets on the air?
If she had, she would have known that MN permit applicants are instructed by current or former police officers. In those classes, we are instructed by these officers under which circumstances we can legally defend ourselves. We were instructed we should only draw our weapons if our own lives were in immediate danger. In cases like the AZ shooting, an armed bystander would possibly have put themselves in legal jeopardy if they had drawn their weapon and shot the assailant.
Also, I heard you mention a story you'd picked up online about a bystander that was armed in AZ that allegedly shot at the wrong person. Normally, the news business doesn't mention things like that that can't be substantiated. Making mentions of rumors like this only serve to throw fuel on the fire, and is in my mind irresponsible journalism.
@Shaun: What data should we use then to decide whether gun control (or loosening gun control) laws succeed? Or if not data, what standards should be used?
I'll go out on a limb here and predict in the next year 30,000 people will die from gunshots in 2011 and nothing will be done about it. I also predict there will be another mass shooting in 2011. The gun lobby will never allow any change in the gun laws. Our politicians are too afraid of them to do anything.
To Tony from the chat:
Fortunately, I have never needed to use my weapon to defend myself, or anyone else and I hope I never have to. However, I train regularly so that if the situation ever arises where I need to, I will be able to do so as effectively as possible.
The level of training I do exceeds that of the vast majority of LEOs and military. That said, both LEO's & the Military's standard training with handguns is appallingly low.
TJ: I'm guessing you didn't read the blog. What I said was someone just posted a link in Slate saying that happened. That I was unaware of any such incident and the link is online if people want to check it out. That was certain well qualified with the proper disclaimers.
Having read the article, it appears it's based on an interview a gentleman gave to FoxNews. So what's your point? Did it not happen?
IRT Kerri not knowing something about the conceal carry law, you'll have to point me exactly to what she said that was contrary to what fact you're citing.
I listened to your program this morning and found it informative. According to the NRA members who called in, many members are for reasonable reform. In the name of civility perhaps the best way to bring about gun law reform is to hand the NRA leadership an olive branch and ask them to come up with a reasonable gun law reform proposal. Surely, if the leaders are asked in an objective way, they will come up with a proposal. Maybe we need to work on members to pressure their leaders.
In regards to the article in Slate regarding the person on scene who gave an interview, the article needs to be taken for what it's worth, an OP-ED. Slate is an opinion forum, and that article is used to illustrate one person's viewpoint, and as such is very slanted. The person in question simply stated that he had to make a split second decision on whether or not to fire at someone whom he perceived to be a threat, and after choosing not to understood the person to be another bystander. He said he felt lucky to have made the right decision in those circumstances.
This instance could be taken both ways... he could be heralded as a perfect example of a citizen making the right choice under dire circumstances, proving that the masses are capable and if needed can help keep us safe, or can be just another gun toting idiot who doesn't have the training to make the right call when it counts and just happened to get lucky this time. It all depends on how you approach from the start.
I would be curious to compare the number of mistaken identity shootings by law enforcement vs. the general public who exercises a right to carry a firearm. Josh's post is right on, most law enforcement officers are not required to train as much as they should once out of the required training for that state. Anyone, either LEO or civilian must go above and beyond the requirements.