...a couple staffers had been armed?
Replies are closed for this discussion.
Most people do not understand the baseline risk that we all carry, just by being alive. I expect that everything we do, and take for granted, has an underlying 'risk' that could be computed with good statistics gathering. Some of us might consider staying at home to be 'safer' than driving or crossing the street. But we are only used to the risks of staying in the 'home' environment.
Sadly, we will each 'die' of something. Being scared of dieing, would only decrease our quality of life, but being aware of our risky behaviors, might, increase our life span and how our old age is spent. Knowing how to much 'risk' we carry, seems be dependent upon 'knowledge', and inversely related to 'bravado'.
Well put James.
Where did this notion that every live is sacred come from, anyway.
The sad thing is that saying something like this immediately paints you as immoral to some people. Of course that's nonsense, but it's an easy bail-out for disingenuous people who like to use the sappy "life is sacred" argument. They also use children as a replacement for a proper argument.
"Oh what about dead children bla bla bla." - as though there were an active genocide on children going on - and if you dare to be realistic about it, you are the made out to be a cold hearted evil immoral prick.
It's poisoning the well, nothing more.
That's the difficult part about having a reasoned discussion when people are wound up emotionally by a tragic event.
Everyone is distressed and shocked by what occurred at Sandy Hook, I have heard NO ONE supportive of that kind of mindless mayhem and slaughter of innocent children.
And yet if someone supports the 2nd Amendment as a means of deterrence to Tyranny and a means to self preservation and defense of one's own life and property, they will be cast as a mindless despicable gun nut.
I personally think we can have both a strong acknowledgment of our Rights under the 2nd Amendment AND reduce the possibility of deranged individuals committing similar acts like this in the future.
What??? Our Army can never be used against the people of the United States of America?
Have you never heard of the Civil War?
An armed populous is not the first line of defense to Tyranny, it is the last line.
The other things you have listed come before the "last line".
But the Supreme Court has already set the precedence that the 2nd Amendment also protects the individuals Right of "Keep and Bear Arms" for personal defense of life and property, which is not about tyranny.
The 2nd Amendment is there so that there can be "a well-regulated militia." What that means is subject to interpretation. Does it mean our current armed forces or does it mean some citizen militia, whether formed yet or not?
At any rate, it boggles the mind to think that a bunch of civilians could stand up to an army with fully-armed soldiers, tanks, piloted aircraft, drones, and a virtually unlimited supply of ammunition.
@Unseen - The government only has as much power as the people LET it have. To think that in our day and age of everyone running around being more worried about hurting someone feelings than doing whats right, that you could conceivably see our own military turning on the citizens.....
As for "a bunch of civilians could stand up to an army with fully-armed soldiers, tanks, piloted aircraft, drones, and a virtually unlimited supply of ammunition.".... I guess the conflict in Afghanistan has completely passed you by right?
@Timothy A. Miller
You're ignoring some facts. The U.S. isn't there as an elected government. The U.S. isn't on its home ground. The U.S. isn't a freely elected government placed there by the Afghan people through a free election (though that is a goal).
How do you see a freely elected, legitimate government as parallel in any way to an occupation force? If it ever happened that the U.S. was governed by a tyranny, I think there would be a counter coup to reestablish democratic rule carried out by the regular military.
I was talking about, say, some right wing militia in Kentucky, for example, trying to stand up to the full force of the American military. They probably would have a hard enough time standing up to the state police or National Guard, much less the regular armed forces.
These independent militia are little more than military daydreamers one step removed from paintballers.
The Federalist Papers are where anyone who is willing to read will find the Founding Fathers reasoning behind the wording of the 2nd Amendment. (and the rest of the Constitution for that matter)
As I read them the concern was a Federal Army use against the people of a State. (Homeland Security's recent purchase of enough bullets to shoot every person in America 4 times is disconcerting.)
@Unseen - Again, I guess I was incorrect in my thoughts that I was clear enough. You made the statement that a bunch of guys with rifles could not stand up to a full on military (Thats the jist, right?), and my reply was to merely indicate that the Taliban and Al Quaeda are doing just that. And on top of that, they are going to be successful, because in an insugency, all you have to do is survive and wait out the occupying force. Once they leave you have won, on the other hand, the do-gooders have to completely erradicate you from the country in order to claim a victory. THAT is what I was talking about. But nice try attempting to twist what I replied to you. :)
@Blaine - Read above.
I'm thinking that since Tim here has a picture up from Afghanistan, has been in 13 years, and is on a 5th deployment. Also, given the fact that he's got a full beard, is stationed out of NC, and is up on a lone ridge without any body armor... I'm going to venture to say that there is nothing you can tell him about military operations in Afghanistan that he hasn't lived through.
@Hawk - Thank you for actually taking the time to look at who is talking and recognizing those things, I do have the obligation to point out I am wearing body armor, but it is a plate carrier and does not really show in the picture. :-)