The Militia Act of 1792 made no provision for any type of select militia such as the National Guard.
* U.S. Senate Subcommittee Report (1982). "In the Militia Act of 1792, the second Congress defined ‘militia of the United States’ to include almost every free adult male in the United States. These persons were obligated by law to possess a [military-style] firearm and a minimum supply of ammunition and military equipment. . . . There can be little doubt from this that when the Congress and the people spoke of the a ‘militia,’ they had reference to the traditional concept of the entire populace capable of bearing arms, and not to any formal group such as what is today called the National Guard."187
* Current Federal Law: 10 U.S.C. Sec. 311. "The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and . . . under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States . . . ."
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The_Jazz
Proof? I've never seen anything remotely resembling this kind of survey - meaning I don't know how you (or any pollster) can accurately collect that sort of qualitative data. Where are you getting your information or are you pulling this out of your ass? Apologies will be issued upon receipt of independent, verifiable data.
|
Myth: Innocent bystanders are often killed by guns
Fact: Less than 1% of all gun homicides involve innocent bystanders.
158
158: Sherman, Steele, Laufersweiler, Hoffer and Julian, “Stray bullets and ‘mushrooms’”, 1989, Journal of Quantitative Criminology
Myth: Citizens are too incompetent to use guns for
protection
Fact: About 11% of police shootings kill an innocent person - about 2% of shootings by
citizens kill an innocent person. The odds of a defensive gun user killing an innocent
person are less than 1 in 26,000.
159 And that is with citizens using guns to prevent
crimes almost 2,500,000 times every year.
159: C. Cramer, and D. Kopel "Shall Issue: The New Wave of Concealed Handgun Permit Laws”. Independence Institute Issue Paper. October 17, 1994
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The_Jazz
I don't follow your arguement. If society should be armed, which seems to be what your advocating, then why shouldn't everybody carry their weapon in the open? Personally, I'd prefer to know if someone was armed rather than having to guess. I also think that as a business owner, I have the right to not allow people who are armed into my place of business. Check your gun at the door if you need to, but don't bring it in here. It's the same as a lit cigarette or pornography. If I don't want them in here, I can ban them.
|
A few states allow open carry at this time. Of those states, two of them (WI and WA) have no state pre-emption which means localities can have their own ordinances concerning open carry and have done so in a way that all the police need to have to arrest you for 'causing alarm' is for ANY person to freak out because you are wearing a gun and call 911. This is the primary reason that CCW either should be allowed OR all open carry states to have pre-emption statutes so the local sheriff can't decide that he'd rather not have the people in his town or city armed and arrest them. As a private business owner, you do indeed have the right not to have weapons in your store, but will the armed robber(s) follow your humble request and move on to the next store? probably not and IF/WHEN they should decide that your place of business looks profitable, do you think that it would be helpful if one or more of your 'law abiding customers' were there and armed to help you defend yourself and place of business? I certainly would.