How do you interpret the 2nd Amendment?

Mother of God...

:D

Are we talking he 2nd Constitutional Amendment with this photo or the 2nd Marriage Commandment - Thou shalt never leave the toilet seat up? Either way, the eyes have it!

Why is this even debated? "Shall not be infringed!" its simple! You have your divine right to protect yourself, and if you choose not to do so with a rifle or gun, than thats your choice as well. As for me, I would rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it!

SPC Robinson,

Be careful quoting Jefferson:

Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right. It may be said, that the succeeding generation exercising, in fact, the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law had been expressly limited to nineteen years only. In the first place, this objection admits the right, in proposing an equivalent. But the power of repeal is not an equivalent. It might be, indeed, if every form of government were so perfectly contrived, that the will of the majority could always be obtained, fairly and without impediment. But this is true of no form. The people cannot assemble themselves; their representation is unequal and vicious. Various checks are opposed to every legislative proposition. Factions get possession of the public councils, bribery corrupts them, personal interests lead them astray from the general interests of their constituents; and other impediments arise, so as to prove to every practical man, that a law of limited duration is much more manageable than one which needs a repeal." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:459, Papers 15:396

It is not our job to interpret the 2nd amendment. The intent was made clear by those who argued for its inclusion. Any further machinations to limit it's meaning are simply trying to squeeze some meaning out of the words that aren't there.

Indeed, those who argued against it did so with the idea that the right of the people to be armed was SO self evident, that including this language in the bill of rights was superfluous. Lucky for us, the cautious among the framers won out.

Here's the picture.

Agree, a double standard for everything. However, I don't put a lot of stock into such lawsuits as they will likely not pan out. Anyone can sue anyone else for anything, just depends on if the court accepts it and/or sides w/ the plaintiff.

I'm curious what will happen in this instance what, if anything, will be paid out. As I've always understood it, Fire and Police Depts don't have any legal obligation to risk their own safety in the course of their work. I know this goes against the common understanding of public services.
He may win part of the suit, however, for negligence IF they endangered him more, in the course of their actions.

I've heard people, not from America, criticize the amount of silly policies that American society has. Your examples are a perfect case in point of contradictions.

there's also Good Samaritan laws in most states that protects people from lawsuits....this lawyer's interpretation of mistake=negligence is pretty close-minded and the mistake only=negligence if it can be proven that a harm occurred. I would argue that in this case(w/o knowing all the facts) there was no harm committed or, at least, none can be proven satisfactorily....his medical bills sounds pretty inflated and i can't imagine what injuries he would have sustained that cost that much. Of course if he's arguing trauma I'd argue he created his own trauma when he drove into the water covered roadway. In any event, I'll lay odds he gets nowhere and Good Samaritan laws will kick in and make this another waste of time and money...too bad we don't charge the loser fees for losing a court case

Sir, I agree. My wife and I have been discussing this. We both are sickened at all these ridiculous lawsuits. While Good Samaritan laws are in place in many areas, people will STILL sue. These lawsuits need to be dismissed with extreme prejudice and the plaintiff made to pay ALL court costs to include fees for the defendants. Maybe it'll help to stem this pandemic of suing at the first sign of issues, as well as these greedy shysters.

It already happened when the government said we could not purchase our service rifles. We are not allowed more than semi automatic with out saying ATF can raid your home any time they feel like it on top of the costs fingerprints and registration.

SFC Blagojevich, I concur with MAJ Ballinger your professor has it dead wrong. Your overall comment though is pretty decent especially the very last paragraph. That simple fact is what truly eludes those who are against freedom.

Could have also thrown out the definition of "militia" as stated by Title 10, which is essentially any able bodied male who is not currently enlisted in the standing military. So by extrapolation, the militia is "everybody".

I find it difficult to understand the parallel he drew from "shall not be infringed" to "regulated by law." If anyone could clear that up for me...

Maj Ballinger,
No, this was in 2002, like I said, I was 19 at the time and didn't know how to counter attack his thought then.

SSG Redondo,

While not attempting to hijack the thread, I would say that even though you might not be formally trained to pilot an aircraft (I do have my fixed wing license and about 5 hours of OH-58A/C time when I was a cadet), there is nothing to say that you couldn't fly it without violating the rights of others.

Actually, that can dovetail into the firearms discussion still - although I highly advocate getting the best training you can, arbitrary training requirements shouldn't be required in order to be able to defend yourself, as there is nothing to say an individual couldn't educate/train themselves in the use of firearms so they aren't negligent.


...hopefully this train isn't off its tracks.

Sir, I can mostly agree with that but it does still go back to responsibility and accountability. Yes, I can make the choice to TRY to fly a plane. I say try because I honestly have very little knowledge on piloting an aircraft although I would do my best to just figure it out. Despite that though, it would still be irresponsible of me to TRY without proper supervision. Now we can extrapolate so many different scenarios but for the sake of the thread I'll stick to the two most relevant ones. First, if there are passengers on the plane then I am most definitely negligent since I do not have the proper training to SAFELY operate an aircraft. Even if I actually do take-off, fly and land safely, I am still negligent in my responsibility and must be held accountable.

The second scenario is not quite as catastrophic but it still has potential. If I was by myself, no one else in the plane, I am still negligent since I am putting others (on the ground) in jeopardy if I should happen to crash. If that case also, I am irresponsible and must be held accountable. Regardless of either scenario, the fault is NOT with the plane but solely with MY choices and actions. I posit that with both scenarios I would be violating the rights of others to life since I would have unduly put THEIR lives in danger through my negligence.

The same can be said of firearms.

I most definitely agree with receiving additional training and education. It goes back to being responsible which so many don't understand. When I decided to take up the shooting sports many years ago, I knew there could be dire consequences if I misused any firearm I touched. I learned through others, especially the SF NCOs, various methods of safety and shooting techniques. Later on when I decided to conceal carry, I elevated my awareness and training. I won't go into details since this is a public forum because i don't discuss certain things as such.

Sir, that is exactly the point. Sounds nefariously and insidiously like Minority Report.

I couldn't concur more Major!

Well said sir Well said, I just think we should have the choice to train and not be restricted to what people paying for armed body guards that pass laws carry while they expect the rest of us to shut up and comply with everything passed and have no voice

CW2 Joseph Evans, I unfortunately find myself fresh out of up-votes.
The Constitutional Militia is the single most neglected and misunderstood institution in our Republic.

Yes, especially a hostile government.

Yeah, it literally was written to allow the people to fight back against anyone... invader or their own government (keeping in mind who our founders were, and why they came here)

I gotta' agree with LT. Gillman.

The Constitution and and Amendments were not developed to limit States rights but to insure that the Federal Government does not infringe on individual rights. That is exactly why the United States was inhabited. By people that didn't agree with British rule and came to this country to get away from a Government that infringed on everyone. In fact, the individual States were all basically Republics until the Continental Congress convened (1789 - almost 15 years after declaring their independence from Britain) and brought them together to fight off any force that tried to impose their rule on us.

All of the Amendments were specifically designed to limit the power and authority of the Federal Government over States and Individuals.

MAJ Woods, darn those pesky facts can be annoying. LOL.

If one has a right to defend themselves... what bearing would the fact that one flees from in this instance "Britain" is not fighting... It is an egress from a more powerful opponent. As far as the fight in the Revolutionary war, three victories in the entire war means they just got tired of beating the crap out of us.... We never fought off anyone during the war more so than bored them to tears in the fact that their victory would be hollow.... If you are using that as an argument then you are stating that we are strong because we can take a beating and not give one....

MAJ. I do believe the Sheriff in my county is the high law officer. I have known him a long time and sked him what he would do if it came to the day. His reply was he ws following the Constitution so there will be no gun take up in our county.

MAJ Dews:

I disagree that the Article I section 8 enumerated powers of Congress encompasses defining language of the term militia as it is used in the second amendment for two reasons. One is that Article I was written first, and grants authority to Congress to fund and raise a National Military to be utilized with respect to maintaining Sovereignty and protecting our borders/interests. The Second Amendment was written with the intent of providing the opportunity for the People to secure themselves from threat of the exterior AND of Congress and their Armies. I would like to note that Congress is limited from even maintaining a standing Army or Navy, and no such limitation is made for the "People's militia." Rather than a limitation, the People are given "shall not be infringed." The second reason is that they are two completely different “militias.” The powers to levy an Army granted to Congress is for the provision of defense of our borders. This is historically a natural duty of all forms of Government. The Bill of Rights then allows for the people to be capable of forming militia in order to provide for the common defense of the People themselves, especially from the Government's Militia. Noting that there is no appropriation of power in Article II to protect the People, the purpose of the Congress' land and naval forces are to execute law, suppress insurrection, and repel invasion. Of course, title 10 u.s.c. doesn't allow the Governments land and naval forces to execute domestic law (with the exception of Coast Guard), but if the Government's forces are busy suppressing insurrection who is defending the People? It is clear to me that this is the purpose of the Second Amendment, following the Checks and Balances foundation on which the rest of our Government limiting Constitution rests. This is also a historically natural necessity, which at the time had a very recent precedent (i.e. Minutemen, Redcoats, Revolutionary War, etc.). It is without question that the People were intended to be able to protect themselves from (again) a tyrannical Government. The founders knew that no model of Government could be perfect, morally sound, and ever-lasting. Considering this, the Government ability to suppress insurrection cannot be absolute if it is without the will of the People to whom the Government ultimately answers. The only provision within the Constitution that limits the absolution of that power, is the right of the People (the ultimate authority) to keep and bear arms. Otherwise the Government would maintain all the arms and would be without obstacle to act arbitrarily in every way. It is also based on this concept that I do firmly believe in the People’s right to maintain small arms similar in size and capability to that of Government troops. Within reason that is…the People clearly don’t need Tanks, Jets, Javelins and Submarines. And truthfully they don’t need them. If Afghanistan has shown us anything, a successful insurgency can take place without equal equipment/technology. Now I am not someone who in any way believes some kind of Government take-over should be staged, nor do I agree with anyone advocating violent acts towards the Government so don’t get me wrong. But I swore an oath to the Constitution and believe whole-heartedly that the People can and should be ABLE to do what is necessary to stay a FREE people, and the Constitution as I have explained protects that right.

Sorry about the book...

CPT Maurelli, awesome picture.

MAJ Ballinger, well said. There's that emotionality again. Somehow logic, reasoning and science isn't in their vocabulary. The bizarre thing is their standard for the 2A, somehow miraculously doesn't apply to the 1A or any other parts of the Constitution. If the 2A doesn't apply to modern firearms, then how can the 1A apply to modern methods of communication??? Strange.

SSG Allen, very very well said. In fact, the critical part many miss are the very first three words of the Constitution, which clearly establishes who has the supreme power: "We the PEOPLE". It's not "We the government".

Roger that, sir. As I like to say, logic, reasoning and science is irrationally discarded.

CW3 (Join to see), you have some great thoughts. I beg to differ on your idea of "common sense" in court and religious buildings -- it sounds like you think that private citizens should not be permitted to carry in those places. There may be some room for argument about the courtroom, since there could be an intimidation factor with swaying of witnesses or the jury, and at least there there is some kind of armed security. Still, even with armed guards and metal detectors at the entrances, shootings happen in court buildings. They happen in churches, too. Anywhere that someone says should be a 'gun-free' zone, what they are really saying is that criminals should be given a safe work environment there. Look up Jeanne Assam and Charl von Wyck.

I was being tongue and cheek when I said this.

MSG Floyd Williams rights come with responsibilities. Exercising the right to bear arms means accepting the responsibility to do so safely. It means keeping them secure. It means keeping them away from those who should not handle them. It means accepting that I am responsible for any harm caused to the innocent by that firearm. That being said, the same responsibility applies to a wood chipper, hammer, saw, or spoon.

Well said, sir.

Mr. Walker,

I would argue that any individual trusted to be outside of confinement should have the ability to possess a firearm.

You state the right to life is worth more than any other right. Would not the right to be able to defend yourself with the most effective tool fall under that right to life? Should that change if you were convicted, served your time, and then released?

I would agree that those who are dangerous should be prohibited from having access to *anything* that can be used to harm others - however, those are the people that should be incarcerated permanently, if not already taken down by someone defending themselves.


As someone who works in the web hosting industry, I could turn around the argument that specific demographics should be prohibited from owning firearms due to a concern for them being possibly violent into an argument that we should also have background checks and require licensure to have access to a computer. Couldn't a violent individual, who was released from incarceration (or someone who is mentally unstable), and has the technical know how severely harm others (and possibly en mass) via the internet - identity theft, for example.

Then we disagree on the meaning of infringement, and there's really nothing left for me to talk about in this discussion.

I am weighing the amount of time you or I would have to wait while the background check is conducted against the possibility that a violent felon or mentally unstable person could obtain a firearm sans background check and kill someone's loved one.

Waiting time vs. life.....I know which side of the fence I'm on.

CW2 Walker, I think it's fairly safe to say NO ONE wants violent felons or the mentally unstable to acquire a firearm. Before I continue on though, I'd like to ask you a question. Why do we want that?

"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both." - Benjamin Franklin

Well played, Sir, though mine was simply an opinion. I think, however, that while certainly there were private merchant ships that had cannon, and individuals may have owned a few, I would take more issue with the fact that then, like now, it would be inadvisable for a private citizen to be capable of owning an entire battery. Great discussion, though.

Well, Sir, I'd say the fear of ownership was misstated - more accurately, the USE of an entire artillery battery by a private citizen could be problematic. Realistically though, I really believe that gun laws don't really affect criminals, and are instead, just a way to hamper law-abiding citizens from obtaining weapons. As a Baltimore resident, I'm constantly reminded that felons, drug dealers, and habitual criminals all have guns - I'm not sure many if any of them obtained those firearms legally. My opinion remains, though, that we should have the right to bear small arms in order to protect ourselves, our families, and our belongings from those who which to do us harm.

SFC Walsh, I would say the MISUSE of ANY tool is problematic. it all boils down to responsibility and accountability. Gun laws definitely don't affect criminals because they are just that: criminals. they DON'T obey laws. Ultimately, it's about control of the populace. One thing that is really funny, for example, is how does restricting the number of cartridges in a magazine help society? Take NY's latest law, the SAFE Act. How is it that a magazine with 10 cartridges is safe but put one more then it's all of a sudden dangerous??? No logic there. The danger lies in the INTENT of the person operating the mechanism, not the mechanism itself. By the same token, having ONE cannon is no different than having 10 cannons, except in quantity. Yes, the more cannons the more destruction but again the problem isn't the mechanisms, it's the willful choice of the person to cause harm.

Great point, SSG.

SSG H. Your contention is out of line with the thoughts and considerations of those who framed our Constitution, and it's principles... Here are a few quotes to put things into perspective for you regarding WHO are the militia, and their purpose for being, as argued by those who argued, framed, and ratified the Document which defines our governmental system and explicitly limits the powers granted to the General government.

Richard Henry Lee: “A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms.” (Additional letters from the Federal Farmer, at 169, 1788)

George Mason: “I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people.” (Elliott, Debates, 425-426)

Tenche Coxe: “Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American… The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” – Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

Alexander Hamilton: “…that standing army can never be formidable (threatening) to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in the use of arms.” (Federalist Paper #29)

Patrick Henry: “The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.” 3 Elliot, Debates at 386.

George Washington: “A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.”

Lastly, a not on what the word "regulated" meant with regards to military action in the days when the Constitution was written.

IMPORTANT NOTE: Back in the 18th century, a “regular” army meant an army that had standard military equipment. So a “well regulated” army was simply one that was “well equipped” and organized. It does not refer to a professional army. The 17th century folks used the term “standing army” or “regulars” to describe a professional army. Therefore, “a well regulated militia” only means a well equipped militia that was organized and maintained internal discipline. It does not imply the modern meaning of “regulated,” which means controlled or administered by some superior entity.

YES

SSG Hasburn - one correction (nothing to do with the 2A discussions). The "State Armies" are not the National Guard, but rather the State Defense Forces (all are authorized, but less than half the states actually have a SDF).

The National Guard of today (the full name is the National Guard of the United States, but hardly anyone ever uses that) traces its roots back to the militias, but has evolved through various laws (notably the National Defense Act of 1916 and later with the National Guard Mobilization Act) to what it is today.

Also, I suggest that you read the Military Laws of your State. The Militias of the various States do include but are not limited to the National Guard. Title 44 Code of Virginia - the Military Law of Virginia lists four elements to the Virginia Militia: (1) the Army and Air National Guard; (2) The Virginia State Defense Force; (3) The Naval Militia and (4) The Unorganized Militia. The last being essentially all able bodied citizens and residents intending to become citizens between 16 and 55 years of age (see Title 44, Ch 1, Art 1 Codenof Virginia). That being said, if Ammendment 2 U.S. Constitution was referring to the "right" of the States rather than the Right of individuals, I believe the Founders would have said so.

It just makes a revelation, ban firearms and people start hucking molatovs and piped bombs at each other... or just toss make a hydrazine fogger in public area.... I would rather have them shooting at each other...

The militia is defined in Title 10 of the United States Code. The portion of the militia referred to in the 2nd Amendment is those male Citizens not otherwise a part of the active military, reserves, or national guard. Those militia are male Citizens and are the final check and balance to keep our government properly in servitude to the People. This militia is the original militia that took arms against the tyranny of King George and subsequent tyrannous individuals who may try to place themselves in the position of king.

Ifthe militia is meant to be for the preservationof a "free" state. how can it maintain the integrity of a free state and serve an occupier at the same time??? Just because it is a law does not make it sensible.

I would like to also like to say that I find "a "Well regulated Militia" separate from "Keep and bear arms. The modifier issue aside, they are two main clauses that should be separated with a semi colon... Since they are independent... the right to bear arms has absolutely nothing to do with Maintaining a militia. Just my two cents on that.

My interpretation; every one has the right to own a pair of bear arms.....

Also It can be regarded as a squinting modifier... does regulation apply to the first clause (Right to bear arms) or the second clause (Well regulated militia... Free state)?

"Well Regulated" as it refers to the militia means individual private Citizens who are well trained because they have a wide variety of military weapons at their disposal to become very proficient with.

Corroborate with facts MSG.... how does causation of regulation correlate to being well trained because of wide variety of weapons? Without evidence you merely are at post hoc logic.

I just dont understand why courts want to give people that are here illegally and are not citizens the same rights as those that follow the law or are US Citizens. These are the same people that want to violate the law and bring enemy combatants to US Prisons. This is against the LAW! Presidents, politicians and judges that refuse to follow or enforce the law should be removed from office NOW. I took my oath seriously, WHY dont these A$$wipes??

Actually, it's just the opposite. Our Natural Rights, referred to in the Declaration of Independence as 'inalienable rights', precede government and men establish governments for their protection. The fundamental Natural Rights, as defined by John Locke whom the Founders plagiarized, are Life, Liberty and Property. They're fundamental because they apply even if you're totally alone. These, in turn, form the basis of other Natural Rights that apply when in the company of others to include Privacy, Trade, Movement, Association etc.

Our fundamental equality of rights forms their natural limit; since my rights do not, by nature, trump anybody else's nor do their rights trump mine, the limit of their exercise is that nobody may violate the rights of anybody else. However, it's well-understood that people will do this. Therefore, another Natural Right that precedes government is that of Self-Defense; if a person will threaten or apply force against another in violation of their rights, that person has an absolute right to respond in kind.

The Founders recognized this philosophy as well as the fact that the government is also the worst violator of the rights of its people. To wit, they crafted the Constitution to include democratic representation, division of power between the Federal government and the states and between the branches of the Federal government and a whole slew of others. In addition, they added the Bill of Rights which applies to the Federal government and reads like the Ten Commandments. Each one is a 'thou shalt not' aimed at the government. In this manner, the Constitution establishes LEGAL rights, at the highest level of law, to prevent the government from infringing on pre-existing NATURAL rights.

I guess I come from a different school of thought. Yes there are terrible people out there who use weapons for the wrong reasons. But if we have a police force, I don't personally see a NEED to be armed & carrying. I don't oppose those who do, but I also don't see the NEED to be carrying an assault weapon - IMHO - anything over 10 rounds. I am well aware that anyone of us can come faced to face with an armed criminal at any time or be in a position when one's life and well being is in imminent danger and a police officer will not be right there. I feel that violence will beget more violence and me drawing in a bad situation could still get me or someone around me injured or worse. Same issue I have with carrying on post - another discussion here on RP.

The scenario that goes through my mind and why I mention ROE is this. I come across an individual drawn and shouting, are they the perpetrator or the suppressor? They fire, still can't see who or what they are firing at because I just dove for cover - Am I on the right or wrong side of the tracks? Will I get taken down because I'm carrying too? they turn towards my direction and see me, carrying and drawn, do I shoot first and ask questions later because I may be in imminent danger? do I have the training to asses the individual's intent and make that fatal decision?

I'm carrying and cross state lines? It's my responsibility to know the laws & regs there, am I on the right side of the law for carrying, does imminent danger apply here?

Sir, to be fair, the law enforcement officer that finds himself in the same scenario you just described is not any more prepared than you are to deal with that situation and likely faces the same questions. So why would it be advantageous to take no action and wait for a Policeman to arrive? That police officer is armed for his safety, not yours, so why is it reasonable that you aren't armed for the same reason. And if you are armed in that situation with a gun and a brain, (just like the cop), is it not reasonable for you to take action accordingly? I'm just saying it sounds as if bullets are flying in your scenario and you are in immediate potential danger. I'm not sure how doing nothing would be better in that situation than weighing your options while armed. I understand why you don't want to make a bad decision, but no decision is often worse. Whose to say you have to shoot anyone? There are many different options in your scenario. I can guarantee you one thing though, having a gun in your hand wont interfere with your ability to think outside the box. If you do nothing, well, bad things are already happening. And even worse, that guy could see you and mean you harm even without a gun. What happens when you decide you need to do something beyond a shadow of doubt, but you are ill equipped to do anything. Limiting your options doesn't limit risk, it magnifies it.

Also, I'm not sure "assault weapon" actually defines anything, but if you are referring to anything over ten rounds I believe I can justify all day every day. It is simple. I don't want to run out before the bad guy, and neither does anyone else. Having been in many firefights I can attest that bullets often become spent as quickly as adrenaline, and I have been shocked at how quickly I am looking for an opportunity to reload. With thirty round magazines. I currently carry 15 rounds (when I carry), and that makes me nervous. I cannot imagine being in a close quarters fight for the lives of myself and my family and being reliant on only ten opportunities to neutralize a threat. Hell I have hit my target more than 6 times before and the individual was still able bodied enough to kill me if he could. Imagine if I had missed all those shots and only have 4 left!

I don't carry because I believe I will save the day sometime or because I live in constant fear. I carry because it is my responsibility to make sure my family and myself are protected should the worst day happen. Frankly I find it inappropriate the idea of expecting a police officer (or anyone else) with his own family to place his life in harms way for me simply because I oppose being responsible for the task myself. Do I want the police to investigate crime and detain criminals who infringe on our liberty? Yes. Do I need the police to be there if an armed assailant decides he is going to make an attempt on my life or that of my family? No. And that is not their job. Contrarily, I would say that officer is actually less qualified than I am to be killed in defense of my loved ones.

The truth is, we actually make our community and each other safer by taking responsibility and refusing to be victims, without even squeezing a trigger. You just have to be willing to squeeze a trigger in order to take responsibility and refuse to be a victim.

Of course, these are just the ramblings of a neanderthal Infantryman and former LEO.

Thank you, SSG Allen! I have never met a "Neanderthal Infantryman" and I highly doubt you qualify after this, quite astounding essay. Like I said, I have different train of thought, as we all do, and I never considered the point of view, that you discuss. I think I always saw arming one's self as a risk as opposed to a responsibility. The scenario I discussed was my attempt to demonstrate my fear of what could happen. You are absolutely correct in that no one knows how a scenario can play out. I'm more a "commo puke" so it was very interesting to get color commentary on my scenario from someone more in the know.

I still feel that a police force is there to perform a similar function locally, to what armed forces do in a combat zone. You have a strong opinion on that and I do respect it. Your last paragraph, "the truth is...", is very intriguing and makes a very compelling statement. This gives me some very fulfilling food for thought. I greatly appreciate your input on this

I also wanted to add SSG Allen , that this entire discussion on the 2nd Amendment is a demonstration of the strength of RallyPoint. On Facebook, opposing opinions like this would lead to endless streams of profane inanity - been there on the giving and receiving end of a variety of topics - but here we mostly tend to behave as civilized adults because of our common bond.