More shooting in schools
- Thread starter timojin
- Start date
I wonder how many times we in the US are going to let this happen.
This was not happening in my generation, probably not in your either . It started in Texas at the college tower
Origin said:
As long as enough of us are willing to accept this price for "freedom".
Umpqua is the forty-fifth school shooting this year.
Umpqua is the one hundred forty-second school shooting since Newtown.
But, hey, the politicians are praying about it↱.
This is happening for any number of reasons, but we also have plenty of arguments for why we shouldn't talk about it, and, frankly, a lot of those have to do with our specific and overriding obligation to not hurt the feelings of American political conservatives.
We endured and are still cleaning up a harrowing economic disaster; that contributed to tremendous ill sentiment in our society.
And we are witnessing what appears to be a threshold of societal transformation. It is one thing to say social conservatives are losing certain political fights they always lose, but they are hemorrhaging right now. Their revisitation of birth control sparked hope of re-establishing their waning societal influence; male chauvinism and supremacism are under siege; the Confederacy still refuses to admit defeat; the people are led to believe dire news that isn't true, only increasing ill sentiment. It is difficult to pin down the exact reasons this is happening, but it is a confluence of factors involving basic socioeconomics and a complex presentation of an unknown future in which empowerment of traditional supremacism appears to be fading across a broad spectrum.
And in places where people have lots of guns, there is a higher statistical probability that they will be used to express this festering ill sentiment.
Factor in the fact of a society of three hundred million people with virtually no useful mental health infrastructure, and suddenly the chance of lethal violence skyrockets.
Our society isn't in as bad of shape as people perceive; unfortunately, neither is it in such sparkling, wonderful condition as to calm people down.
It's almost like Americans have wearied of being American.
From June 29 2015:
The source for the claim then, and for Murphy’s recent statement, is a report by Everytown for Gun Safety
There are many ways to define school shooting. But applying the “reasonable person” standard, as is the standard at The Fact Checker, it is difficult to see how many of the incidents included in Everytown’s list — such as suicide in a car parked on a campus or a student accidentally shooting himself when emptying his gun and putting it away in his car before school — would be considered a “school shooting” in the context of Sandy Hook.
We wavered between Three and Four Pinocchios. But this is a definition of “school shooting” that was widely disputed a year ago, and lawmakers need to present information — especially for such a controversial topic as gun control — in a clear, responsible and accurate way. Murphy’s failure to do so tipped the rating to Four.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ne-school-shooting-per-week-since-sandy-hook/
Tiassa said:
There are many places in the usa with high gun ownership and low murder rates. 4 of the top 10 lowest murder rates in USA have > 50% gun ownership.
states with > 50% gun ownership (10)
Murder rate -- 2.95 per 100K (averaged)
Gun Murder rate -- 1.87 per 100K (averaged)
States with < 25% gun ownership* (10)
Murder rate -- 4.07 per 100K (averaged)
Gun murder rate -- 2.72 per 100K (averaged)
*Excluded D.C. statistics. D.C. not a state BUT just to demonstrate its place here:
Gun ownership - 3.6% Murder rate per 100K - 21.8 Gun Murder rate per 100K - 16.5
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state
Difficult to pin down, sure is. But I dont think its an 'unknown future'. An unknown future gives you options. It is a belief that the future is dismal.
Milkweed said:
There's a reason I'm not a fan of WaPo's "Fact Checker" department; Michelle Ye Hee Lee provides examples of why. Note the latter part of your quote, where she lectures on the controversy of the topic, and then look back up to the previous paragraph by which she sets her own standard.
It's an effort to shape the issue.
And an effort to make people look away from the problem. WaPo can hand out all the pinnocchios it wants, but I call bullshit on the arbitrary methods fact-checkers are using to convince people there isn't as much violence in schools as there is. Any standard that requires, "This is a shooting that took place at a school, but it doesn't qualify as a 'school shooting'", is pretty stupid. And in this case, it's also really, really dangerous.
You're trying to hide all the mass shootings inside the rest of gun violence. I consider that sleight inappropriate. Addressing violence in schools across the country will require different solutions than dealing with, say, gang and other violence in Chicago. Just like fistfights in schoolyards have different implications and require different solutions.
You forget that many people find the prospect of the unknown frightening and even dangerous. To wit, look at how difficult it is for American Christians to understand a future in which gay people have human rights. And look at how long they've been unable to figure the implications of the idea that women have human rights. And look at how much people have freaked out over the arrival of the first black president. Traditional, comfortable empowerment to supremacy is eroding quickly, and these people are panicking. Observationally, it is true that people do in fact, fear the unknown.
And if you actually pay attention to the public discourse, this fear is everywhere. In gay rights, for instance, listen to the social conservatives fear the future; their marriages will mean nothing, martial law is coming, Christians will be forced to have sex with dogs, and so on. Not that they can explain rationally how any of their dire predictions actually work, but still, these appeals to fear are very, very effective.
† † †
Mass shootings are so routine in the United States these days that it is often unsettling to consider just how routine they are. A mass shooting, for legal and statistical purposes, is a shooting in which four or more people are killed.
I don't know, maybe we can start redefining that, too. You know, like, sure, people were killed with bullets fired from guns, but this doesn't count as a shooting, because ....
Fill in the blank, I guess. But this is starting to look like one of those occasions in which reality itself is bigoted against certain outlooks, so naturally we must start redefining reality in order to be (ahem!) "fair".
____________________
Notes:
Ingraham, Christopher. "Shooting in Oregon: So far in 2015, we’ve had 274 days and 294 mass shootings". The Washington Post. 1 October 2015. WashingtonPost.com. 2 October 2015. http://wapo.st/1jDjTel
Well, its not just the WaPo fact checker that is questioning the methods used by Everytown.
http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/06/how_many_school_shooting_incid.html
http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/11/us/school-shootings-cnn-number/
Tiassa said:
From Everytowns List: In another 2013 incident on the list, a 23-year-old Morehouse College student in Atlanta was shot and killed. His body was found near the college, according to news reports, but not on campus.
And Everytown (you source) is trying to include suicides with school shootings.Tiassa said:
But Fear of the Unknown does not Lead to Mass Murder.Tiassa said:
Well a simple fact check (done by myself) on your claim above indicates a slight of hand performed by you, here, right now. The source:
http://shootingtracker.com/wiki/Mass_Shootings_in_2015
The reality is they list mass shootings with or without death. Gang violence, domestic violence, workplace violence, bar fights ... But those are not school shootings.
Bells
Staff member
Yes, but we are talking about a country that enshrines gun ownership. People there do not see it as we see it here.
I was watching the live cross of Obama's speech on ABC24 and the two morning show hosts said what is always said here each time there is a mass shooting in the US.. That maybe this time, people will get it and actually do something about it. But they will not.
It will never cease to astonish me just how much people keep defending this right to bear arms that frankly, should not belong outside of the military. But it is a completely different attitude towards guns. Australians tend to not see the necessity of owning a gun. Americans do. And perhaps it is based on fear. Fear of having to defend one's home and family against an intruder, to fear of a Government take over (apparently a Government that was elected into power needs to use the military to take over the country and these guns are necessary to defend themselves against a well armed and nuclear armed military that will apparently bow to the possibility of a mad President who plans to take over the country) and if the reaction to some to military exercises like Jade Helm is any indication, this fear is deeply entrenched. As Brad Emery notes:
Just outside Greenville South Carolina, a good 'ol boy hopped aboard and plonked himself down next to me. He had two teeth missing, smelt of bourbon and was sporting the ubiquitous red truckers' baseball cap with the confederate flag on the front.
After some nervous banter, we embarked on a free-flowing conversation about life in the South compared to life in Australia. Eventually, the discussion turned to guns. South Carolina had just passed a law allowing citizens with a gun permit to carry their weapon in a concealed holster in public.
I explained how Australian gun laws worked and how they had changed in recent years. No semi-automatic rifles unless you were the primary landholder in a rural area. All assault style weapons outlawed. No handguns unless you were a member of a gun club and went through a rigorous screening process.
"Gee," he said, "I wish we had that. But this country is too far gone. The guy robbing my house has a colt .45 and so I need me a colt .45. If he's got a pump, I need a semi-auto 12 gauge."
Therein lies the problem. While there is the rusted-on element in the 'gun towns' of the United States, who see owning assault weapons as an inalienable right, many are simply afraid to tighten gun laws, lest they be unable to defend themselves and their family.
And the powerful gun lobby knows it. They regularly produce propaganda that plays on the fear of being 'invaded' -- your home, your kids' school, your place of business, your country. Those people seeking to invade your world have high-powered hand guns -- so you sure as hell better get one.
And so we still see ten massacred at the Umpqua Community College in Oregon; seven dead at a prayer group in Charleston South Carolina; ten dead and 20 reported wounded at a high school in Columbine; daily hand-gun related deaths in every major US city.
What will it take to change? What will it take for the US to move toward the tighter gun laws that we have in Australia, where the freedom to own guns is balanced against the greater public good?
First and foremost it will take a political leader who is willing to sacrifice their career to do what's right. Until politicians in the US are prepared to risk their own political scalp, stand up to the powerful gun lobby and even anger their own voting base to limit the general public's access to certain types of weapons, America will continue to drown in gun blood.
After some nervous banter, we embarked on a free-flowing conversation about life in the South compared to life in Australia. Eventually, the discussion turned to guns. South Carolina had just passed a law allowing citizens with a gun permit to carry their weapon in a concealed holster in public.
I explained how Australian gun laws worked and how they had changed in recent years. No semi-automatic rifles unless you were the primary landholder in a rural area. All assault style weapons outlawed. No handguns unless you were a member of a gun club and went through a rigorous screening process.
"Gee," he said, "I wish we had that. But this country is too far gone. The guy robbing my house has a colt .45 and so I need me a colt .45. If he's got a pump, I need a semi-auto 12 gauge."
Therein lies the problem. While there is the rusted-on element in the 'gun towns' of the United States, who see owning assault weapons as an inalienable right, many are simply afraid to tighten gun laws, lest they be unable to defend themselves and their family.
And the powerful gun lobby knows it. They regularly produce propaganda that plays on the fear of being 'invaded' -- your home, your kids' school, your place of business, your country. Those people seeking to invade your world have high-powered hand guns -- so you sure as hell better get one.
And so we still see ten massacred at the Umpqua Community College in Oregon; seven dead at a prayer group in Charleston South Carolina; ten dead and 20 reported wounded at a high school in Columbine; daily hand-gun related deaths in every major US city.
What will it take to change? What will it take for the US to move toward the tighter gun laws that we have in Australia, where the freedom to own guns is balanced against the greater public good?
First and foremost it will take a political leader who is willing to sacrifice their career to do what's right. Until politicians in the US are prepared to risk their own political scalp, stand up to the powerful gun lobby and even anger their own voting base to limit the general public's access to certain types of weapons, America will continue to drown in gun blood.
And he isn't wrong. But no one will do it. Even simple restrictions and tightening who can access a firearm has people screaming that they will not give up their guns. Restrict access to automatics and semi-automatics and Americans react as if you are asking them to kill their first born as a sacrifice to a moon god. Apparently they need these weapons to defend their homes from intruders... What the hell kind of intruders require such weapons is beyond me, but hey, it's there, so they must have them.
It is based on fear. Fear of neighbours, community and Government. Even when the use for self defense is low, it does not matter. They must have them!
A 2015 study found that when guns are used to kill people in the United States, they are overwhelmingly used for murder rather than self-defense. That study found that in 2012, there were only 259 justifiable homicides, or what is commonly referred to as self-defense, compared to 8,342 criminal firearm homicides. In 2008-2012, the report says, guns were used in 42,419 criminal homicides and only 1,108 justifiable homicides.
So if Americans aren’t using their guns for self-defense, does it make sense to do away with the charade of “sensible gun restrictions” talk and just get real about banning at least some guns outright?
So if Americans aren’t using their guns for self-defense, does it make sense to do away with the charade of “sensible gun restrictions” talk and just get real about banning at least some guns outright?
It is attitude. And absolute fear. Look at us.. The spate of mass killings and then finally the Port Arthur Massacre saw us say enough was enough and within weeks, new laws were passed to deal with the issue. It was necessary and needed.
No one here is kidding themselves. We know there are illegal guns in the populace. We know this because criminals sometimes use them. But crimes committed with guns are rare.
A 2012 study estimated 260,000 illegal guns were still in circulation Down Under, and a more recent report from Rupert Murdoch’s NewsCorp (I can sense the eye rolls) found that 37,000 new gun licenses were issued in the last five years, reportedly resulting in no increased gun related crimes.
Of course, under Australia’s reformed gun regulatory scheme, a licensed firearm owner is required to be reevaluated every five years and if authorities discovery any “reliable evidence” of a mental or physical barrier to responsible gun ownership, the license is revoked.
In the years after the Port Arthur massacre, gun-related homicides decreased 7.5 percent per year while suicide by gun dropped by a whopping 80 percent until the the risk of dying by gunshot in Australia fell by more than 50 percent in the decade following the attacks.
Pretty remarkable statistics.
Of course, mass shootings haven’t been eliminated in Australia. In 2011 three people were killed and three were wounded in the Hectorville siege and last year three people (including the gunman) were killed during the Sydney hostage crisis. But compare those numbers to the 112 people killed during the 13 mass shootings in the 18 years prior to the passage of Australia’s National Firearms Agreement and Buyback Program.
Of course, under Australia’s reformed gun regulatory scheme, a licensed firearm owner is required to be reevaluated every five years and if authorities discovery any “reliable evidence” of a mental or physical barrier to responsible gun ownership, the license is revoked.
In the years after the Port Arthur massacre, gun-related homicides decreased 7.5 percent per year while suicide by gun dropped by a whopping 80 percent until the the risk of dying by gunshot in Australia fell by more than 50 percent in the decade following the attacks.
Pretty remarkable statistics.
Of course, mass shootings haven’t been eliminated in Australia. In 2011 three people were killed and three were wounded in the Hectorville siege and last year three people (including the gunman) were killed during the Sydney hostage crisis. But compare those numbers to the 112 people killed during the 13 mass shootings in the 18 years prior to the passage of Australia’s National Firearms Agreement and Buyback Program.
The difference is that we were not collectively afraid to give up our guns. Americans are.
Obama was right on the money. But they will not see it that way.
"A well armed militia" is not individual owners of guns, and can be useful, as it was (and still is) in Switzerland. Hitler conqured all of mainland Europe, except Switzerland. - He bypassed Switzerland as with its well trained, local militia groups, who drilled together week-ends and knew the local terrain, Hitler knew he would lose at least 10 German solders for ever member of Switzerland's militia his forces could kill.
Take most of the guns away from those who don't need them to protect their businesses (or art collections, etc. in homes of the wealthy that would be targets for robbers) but allow then for local militias that routinely drill together - as the 2nd amendment requires.
What might help is a few class action suits brought by sets of parents who have lost children, etc. in mass killings by the mentally disturbed. Targets of these suits could be the local governments that failed to limit gun ownership to businesses needing them, etc. and participants in "well armed militia." If local taxes go up then many now neutral or even "pro" the NRA, may change their POVs. I don't know if the NRA gets any "tax breaks" but if it does, they should be cancelled - This stupidity, costing 100+ times more lives than terrorist take, must end.
Take most of the guns away from those who don't need them to protect their businesses (or art collections, etc. in homes of the wealthy that would be targets for robbers) but allow then for local militias that routinely drill together - as the 2nd amendment requires.
What might help is a few class action suits brought by sets of parents who have lost children, etc. in mass killings by the mentally disturbed. Targets of these suits could be the local governments that failed to limit gun ownership to businesses needing them, etc. and participants in "well armed militia." If local taxes go up then many now neutral or even "pro" the NRA, may change their POVs. I don't know if the NRA gets any "tax breaks" but if it does, they should be cancelled - This stupidity, costing 100+ times more lives than terrorist take, must end.
Exactly.
I was once told by an American that he was glad he was armed when he was walking the streets of Vancouver. I reminded him that millions of Canadians walk those same streets every day unarmed.
It was also panicky and impossible to imitate in the US.
Two points:
1) the "fear" pejorative works both ways - having an entire society panic over a statistically negligible risk of some psycho running amok, and then passing a whole bunch of laws that do nothing about that risk anyway, is not an example of firm resolve and sane response.
2) the misuse of statistics, the bad arguments, the irrational blathering and slandering and hype and nonsense so common among gun-control proponents, does not recommend them for political power, regardless of the need for gun control.
Yes we need better gun regulation in the US. But people clueless enough to think that comparing official murder rates by gun to official self-defense killings by gun is an indication of the value of guns in self defense should not be in positions of power and involved in regulating guns. I don't want this:
anywhere near political power over me.
Americans are more fearful of their neighbors than most people. They are also more fearful of their government than most people with decent governments. And this is not sane. But neither is the weird fear of guns, as some kind of magic evil objects whose very possession by one's neighbors is cause for alarm and government intervention. And in a country as thoroughly infused with firearms as the US, with a government as predisposed to authoritarian abuse as governments in the US tend to be, amid all the racial stresses and economic pressures of US society in the current decline, setting out to disarm one's neighbors on the basis of such irrational fears is a bad idea.
Yes, it is.Billy said:
This is not up for debate. This is literacy in the English language, in which the Constitution was written. Militias are raised by and from the private citizenry at need, citizenry who are expected to bring much of their own gear - including weapons - when they show up to train or fight. That is why the right to keep and bear arms was guaranteed to the people, not the militias, in the Constitution.
Last edited:
A militia is more than many people owning guns. They train as a community defense group on a regular basis. We do not have that in the US. Instead we have guns available, no questions asked at gun shows. So of course the community is not protected, but exposed to 100+ times more deaths than by terrorist acts.
I am all for the 2nd amendment's well armed and trained militia, but not for what the US has.
Last edited:
But it is not less than many people owning guns. You understand the concept of "necessary, but not sufficient".
No, they don't. They can, if they want to, but most don't - the ones directly addressed by the 2nd Amendment did not, for example.billy said:
And they specifically and significantly do not require that the State set the standards for their existence.
Bells
Staff member
Panicky? No.
It was seeing sense that we did not need to be able to walk into a gun shop and purchase a gun with little to no regulation. We saw a spate of massacres before the gun laws were brought in and we had had enough. It wasn't panic that saw us want stricter gun laws. It was the realisation that our society would be safer with less guns in the populace. We understand that we do not need guns to remain safe in our day to day lives.
And yes, it is impossible to imitate in the US. Because you are so entrenched in it that you cannot see your lives without guns at the ready and on hand. It is impossible to imitate because you live in a fearful society where you believe guns can provide you with safety. The reality is that your society is more dangerous because of the guns.
The point, iceaura, is to prevent said psychos from being able to access those guns in the first place. At present, they can. The latest shooter had over 10 guns in his possession, on him and in his home. All purchased legally. There are no regulations in what type of weapons you can buy or how many.
And people still defend the right to be able to access these weapons, while arguing that laws that would seek to address this is just a panicked response and won't do anything at all.
Other countries responded to such shootings and it curbed the gun violence by a tremendous amount.
A sane response is to actually respond to the high levels of gun violence. A non-sane response is to view any form of response or legislation that would curb access to these weapons as being 'panic'.
The statistics are not misused. They are there for all to see. Frankly, you are living up to exactly what I said. It's the attitude. The rest of the world watches agog as your countrymen and women arm themselves to the eyeballs with weapons that should not be circulating in the general population, for what? Protection? From what? From whom?
An attacker? What? People need assault rifles to guard their homes? Do you live in a war zone? What the hell do people think is going to come over their fence and into their property? Spouse? Women and men are more likely to die if there is a gun in the home in a house where domestic violence is an issue. A raving lunatic that was allowed and able to walk into a gun shop and purchase weapons without so much of 'why do you need these types of weapons' or any form of check into their actual background and mental state?
And frankly, a terrified society that is in "panic" should not be allowed to have guns to begin with, because people who are afraid tend to react stupidly and respond dangerously.
No, really?
Which is why you will never have gun regulations.
But tell me, you are one of the most well armed societies in the world. And how is that gun violence thing going? Because from what we can see, it's not getting any better. You are at more risk if you own a gun in the home.
The statistics are real and exist. 45 school shootings since the start of this year. 45. I cannot even understand how it can get so bad and people still argue that people should not be comparing statistics. Why shouldn't those figures be compared? Is it because it gives an indication that perhaps, just perhaps, you don't need an assault firearm in your home to defend it or that perhaps you should not be allowed to be able to access such weapons for self defense? It will never cease to astonish me just fucked up this whole debate is.
What is it going to take for people to understand that many of the guns in your society have to be removed from said society and that bans and stricter regulations need to be put in place as to what can be accessed and by whom? 20 little kids being massacred in their classrooms wasn't enough for that realisation. So what will it take? How bad does it need to get before this sinks in? 50 kids killed? 100 in one go?
As I said, your argument is indicative of your society as a whole. Nothing will ever be done about it because the merest hint of reducing your access to guns has people reacting as if you are being collectively asked to sacrifice your first born to whatever deity of the day.
We aren't afraid of guns. We just understand that we don't need them.
You understand that difference?
Do you honestly believe that you need your guns to keep your Government in check?
Do you seriously believe that this is what is keeping your Government from being authoritarian?
Because I can assure you, it isn't. In fact, it is a laughable proposition. And frankly, a dangerous one.
Yes many people owning (or at least in possession of)* guns is necessary but not sufficient for a militia. Why US does not have a militia.
You are welcome to both your idea that "militias don't need to train" and your version of US history, but the founding fathers wanted (and made as 2nd amendment) a well trained militia as they feared federal power excesses. (See quote at end for proof.) Militias differ from large fraction of the people owning guns by virtue of periodic drilling together and practice in military exercises.
I don't have data, but suspect, mental disorders in Swiss men occur at about the same rate as in US men; But the fact that they routinely train together, once a week or so, and then afterwards often go to a bar for a few drinks lets them notice when some one of the group may be getting into mental trouble. They can and do report him. Following an investigation, if the reported fears are valid, his gun(s) are confiscated by the local authorities.
This is why, despite more than twice a many guns per male, Switzerland does not even have 1%, per capita, of the US's crazies going off the "deep end," and making mass murders with guns.
True, In fact in Switzerland there are "cantons," is the term, that are the government, more than any federal government except for currency, banking and foreign affairs.
* In Switzerland the weapons of the militia are government issued, but many also own their own. In fact the are more (about twice) as many guns per capita as in the US.
https://itistreason.wordpress.com/2011/02/27/the-swiss-militia-a-model-for-america/ said:
PS - I think Elbridge was 100% correct. The US military costs more than the next largest 20 and is large reason for the US's unpayable debt. Ike was also correct - the greatest danger the US faces, comes not from external "enemies" but from the self-serving "military industrial complex."
Last edited:
It is hard to believe what you are saying . O lived in Austria were people are of similar mentality . Austrian people have guns . The culture and mentality is different than American. American are influenced by movie
cowboys shooting other humans, now in detectives shooting the bad guys and now we have the police sharp shooters , pretty soon they will bring tanks to the sean. . Certainly the continuous foreign wars give less respect for human life.
And who is it that this typical gun control advocate plans to have take upon themselves the task of "allowing", or mayhap not "allowing", this amorphous society in panic to have weapons?bells said:
And by what means will those not allowed weapons, by this ever so well-intentioned and suitably powerful authority, be disarmed? In the US, the land of 300 million guns, we're talking.
They are by turns abused, dishonest, meaningless, exaggerated, and thrown around by irresponsible crusaders who simply don't care whether they are arguing from reality or not. And yes, that is right there for all to see. So why the blinkers?bells said:
So you sideslip the actual statistical comparison I pointed out was completely invalid, substitute a completely different and context free and incoherently intended number you haven't checked, talk about how bad things have become in comparison with something never specified (other countries would be invalid, other comparable regions less disturbing, its own past a matter of your ignorance, etc), call for emergency and immediate and dramatic response to something that you have taken out of context and elevated to some kind of horrible threat to civilization - "drowning in gun blood" as America is supposed to be, in your quotes -,bells said:
and then complain that the discussion has become fucked up.
Of course not. But I seriously believe that kind of misreading and incomprehension reveals the actual viewpoint of far too many gun control advocates, and I don't want vindictive and deluded irrationality to acquire power over me for any reason, good or bad.bells said:
So there is a choking of reasonable debate. As has been noted for years now, in these threads.
A reasonable prediction.
There are a few, here and there. But that misses the point: one can be raised. Easily. On a few hours notice, in almost any region of the US.billy said:
The US militia of the time did no such thing. And most of them consisted, in theory, of every able bodied man living in the area defined - when raised, which was at need, they drew from the entire community and not any preselected fraction. This is completely typical of militias. The word means what it means, and what was meant by the authors of the 2nd Amendment is not debatable.billy said:
What these militias were defending against, btw, was not merely the threat of Federal government power - which had no standing army anyway - but the military threats from the various European and Tribal forces right there on the borders.
Last edited: