Dan Carpenter: We love our guns -- and have the deaths to show for it

May 11, 2013 Full story: The Indianapolis Star 223

Law enforcers at the city and federal levels have taken the offensive against rampant gun violence in several Indianapolis neighborhoods.

Full Story

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#218 Jun 5, 2013
more deaf than dumb wrote:
<quoted text>
What you don't know of our founding fathers has filled many libraries.
Funny how you cannot refute anything I have posted.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#219 Jun 5, 2013
more deaf than dumb wrote:
No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms.
Thomas Jefferson
Jefferson own 600 human beings in his life.

What is a freeman, honey?

Here's a clue: in 1780s, it was a CITIZEN and that would mean he was WHITE and a person of property.

PS: this was his version... which was whittled down by state legislature...

"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms within his own lands or tenements"

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#220 Jun 5, 2013
more deaf than dumb wrote:
Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state.
Thomas Jefferson
Yea, of course, he was speaking of WHITE citizens and MEN only and of course at no time ever was the US close to having every citizen being a soldier.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#221 Jun 5, 2013
Virginia does not speak for all or most founders. Virginia speaks for virginia.

As for the army--from your post: "Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state.
Thomas Jefferson"
Soldiers refer to the army, not a militia.
Anti-Fascism wrote:
<quoted text>
They wanted the body of the people armed, no matter how one tries to twist it.
Read:
"That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power." - 13th Amendment, Virginia Bill of Rights; 1776
-
As for joining "the army"?
The [private] militia was, AND IS, separate from "the army" (government ran military).
Anti-Fascism

Anonymous Proxy

#222 Jun 6, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
Virginia does not speak for all or most founders. Virginia speaks for virginia.
As for the army--from your post: "Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state.
Thomas Jefferson"
Soldiers refer to the army, not a militia.
<quoted text>
Today you consider "soldier" to be apart of government military; back then I'm sure there were different types of "soldiers" - soldiers for the government military and soldiers for private militias (which are rare today); that's why they're called MILITIAs! They're MILITAry related, only not government controlled, but private.

Virginia was one of the main States which THOMAS JEFFERSON (one of the main founding fathers, of whom became the third president of the U.S.) resided. I use the Amendment since it goes into more detail concerning what most of them agreed upon concerning the body of people in MILITIAS back then; how they split them up from the [government controlled] MILITARY - "standing armies."

Stop trying to twist it. You just hate the truth - no getting around it here, in my presence.:-)

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#223 Jun 6, 2013
Actually, jefferson was important, but didn't write the constitution and had limited input into it. You cannot argue the federal constitution based on state constitutions; they are separate processes.

Members of a militia were called "militiamen" specifically to separate them from the federal government's army. Militia and military are related words but by no means synonyms; they share a common root. So do pomegranate and grenade, but they are hardly the same thing either.
Anti-Fascism wrote:
<quoted text>
Today you consider "soldier" to be apart of government military; back then I'm sure there were different types of "soldiers" - soldiers for the government military and soldiers for private militias (which are rare today); that's why they're called MILITIAs! They're MILITAry related, only not government controlled, but private.
Virginia was one of the main States which THOMAS JEFFERSON (one of the main founding fathers, of whom became the third president of the U.S.) resided. I use the Amendment since it goes into more detail concerning what most of them agreed upon concerning the body of people in MILITIAS back then; how they split them up from the [government controlled] MILITARY - "standing armies."
Stop trying to twist it. You just hate the truth - no getting around it here, in my presence.:-)
Anti-Fascism

Anonymous Proxy

#224 Jun 6, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
Actually, jefferson was important, but didn't write the constitution and had limited input into it. You cannot argue the federal constitution based on state constitutions; they are separate processes.
Members of a militia were called "militiamen" specifically to separate them from the federal government's army. Militia and military are related words but by no means synonyms; they share a common root. So do pomegranate and grenade, but they are hardly the same thing either.
<quoted text>
As I can also claim to be "a soldier" in my "militia" though and it'd not be contradictory, nor would it be incorrect. Sorry but, I can also say "militiamen" was just one of the words used for them, "soldier" could've been (and it seems true to be) another.

Two soldiers: one is specifically controlled by government when, where and who to fight; the other is not.

The private militia soldier, train to arms, is there to protect the peoples' liberties from enemy governments, foreign and domestic, if they ever needed to in worst case scenario.

Seeing as how Thomas Jefferson had a big part in passing the Virginia Bill of Rights, and as I'm sure he also deemed government military "standing armies" were threats to the peoples' liberties then, I extremely doubt Jefferson would hope the entire people all be soldiers to fight for the government? lol! Contradiction there, kid. Don't bother. You cannot snake around this one.

They are technically "separate" processes but it still shows a continuation of mindset through all of them; you're trying to deny this and it's not going to work. The 13th Amendment of the VA Bill of Rights has the same context which the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution has: That the militia of the body of people be armed in defense of a free state - it's plain as day to see... for those *not* living in denial of the obvious truth. ;-)

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#225 Jun 6, 2013
You can call yourself anything you want to, but words have meanings and you would still be using it incorrectly. But in reality, "militiaman" and "soldier" are not synonyms. Go to an army base and identify yourself as a soldier; let the fun begin.

Contrary to your belief, jefferson was neither the revolution nor THE founder. Adams and franklin were just as instrumental, and adams had more influence once the revolution was over. What virginia says may well express jefferson's thoughts, but the constitution didn't have much input from jefferson.

And, just to shut you up, it's not even relevant. In the sphere of law, what is written is the law; what you believe about it is irrelevant. Trying to overthrow the government is treason and you will be punished regardless of how "corrupt" you think it is. A militia that attacks the government has a name: terrorist cell.
Anti-Fascism wrote:
<quoted text>
As I can also claim to be "a soldier" in my "militia" though and it'd not be contradictory, nor would it be incorrect. Sorry but, I can also say "militiamen" was just one of the words used for them, "soldier" could've been (and it seems true to be) another.
Two soldiers: one is specifically controlled by government when, where and who to fight; the other is not.
The private militia soldier, train to arms, is there to protect the peoples' liberties from enemy governments, foreign and domestic, if they ever needed to in worst case scenario.
Seeing as how Thomas Jefferson had a big part in passing the Virginia Bill of Rights, and as I'm sure he also deemed government military "standing armies" were threats to the peoples' liberties then, I extremely doubt Jefferson would hope the entire people all be soldiers to fight for the government? lol! Contradiction there, kid. Don't bother. You cannot snake around this one.
They are technically "separate" processes but it still shows a continuation of mindset through all of them; you're trying to deny this and it's not going to work. The 13th Amendment of the VA Bill of Rights has the same context which the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution has: That the militia of the body of people be armed in defense of a free state - it's plain as day to see... for those *not* living in denial of the obvious truth. ;-)
Anti-Fascism

Anonymous Proxy

#226 Jun 6, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
You can call yourself anything you want to, but words have meanings and you would still be using it incorrectly. But in reality, "militiaman" and "soldier" are not synonyms. Go to an army base and identify yourself as a soldier; let the fun begin.
Contrary to your belief, jefferson was neither the revolution nor THE founder. Adams and franklin were just as instrumental, and adams had more influence once the revolution was over. What virginia says may well express jefferson's thoughts, but the constitution didn't have much input from jefferson.
And, just to shut you up, it's not even relevant. In the sphere of law, what is written is the law; what you believe about it is irrelevant. Trying to overthrow the government is treason and you will be punished regardless of how "corrupt" you think it is. A militia that attacks the government has a name: terrorist cell.
<quoted text>
Well duh, because today most people don't even have "militias" on their mind; like you, most consider anything "military" to be only government controlled; it wasn't so back then; I thought you'd understand that by now but, I guess you're not that intelligent. ;)

Well, Thomas Jefferson had a big part in the Declaration of Independence, so...

No one said I'm talking about overthrowing the government, you snake. You're "putting words in my mouth" to attempt to shut me up but it's not going to work, fearmonger fascist.:-)

The founders believed in the people being all armed for their protection from a possible fascist domestic government; that's 100% fact. If you don't believe that, you only show your lack of intelligence and/or studies on what they wrote many times over back then. Go study, snake, then come back and talk.

They, like I, believe the people being armed is for our DEFENSE, not for criminally OFFENDING any government whenever we supposedly feel like it. It's only set up in case the government ever feels like OFFENDING our liberties by force upon the entire body of people, like a Hitler or Stalin of some sort would be an example of when an armed militia would be needed to defend our liberties.

You're a propagandist snake; you've no credibility. You're a fascist government sympathizer who seeks to use partial truths in thus weakening our defense.

I personally believe PEACEFUL protests should be one of our first things to do to get things done. Violence is an absolute last resort and should only be for worst case scenario. Before that, we can change through peace and that's how I like it. You don't know me so don't bother ASSuming you know what's running through my mind, then idiotically putting words in my mouth, snake. ;-)
Anti-Fascism

Anonymous Proxy

#228 Jun 6, 2013
"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Whenever governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." - Elbridge Gerry, speaking on the 2nd Amendment
more deaf than dumb

Indianapolis, IN

#229 Jun 11, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny how you cannot refute anything I have posted.
"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good"

-- George Washington

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."

-- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

Men trained in arms from their infancy, and animated by the love of liberty, will afford neither a cheap or easy conquest.

-- From the Declaration of the Continental Congress, July 1775.

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined."

-- Patrick Henry, speech of June 5 1788

That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United states who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms...

-- Samuel Adams, in "Phila. Independent Gazetteer", August 20, 1789

Not an exhaustive list, but I doubt that any such list, or even conjuring up the dearly departed founding fathers from their graves, would relieve you of your ideological induced ignorance.

I don't really have to refute what you said...the Bill of Rights does.

Do you not understand that isn't wasn't any One man's opinion on gun ownership?
Do you really fail to understand that the Constitution, along with the Bill of Rights, were voted on and accepted by an overwhelming majority of the delegates AND an overwhelming majority of the original colonies that became the United States?
more deaf than dumb

Indianapolis, IN

#230 Jun 11, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yea, of course, he was speaking of WHITE citizens and MEN only and of course at no time ever was the US close to having every citizen being a soldier.
Apparently, the fate of Crispus Attucks that led to the Shot Heard 'Round the World, is over your head...sad to say, sometimes we do forget.
Besara

Omaha, NE

#231 Jun 12, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
You can call yourself anything you want to, but words have meanings and you would still be using it incorrectly. But in reality, "militiaman" and "soldier" are not synonyms. Go to an army base and identify yourself as a soldier; let the fun begin.
Contrary to your belief, jefferson was neither the revolution nor THE founder. Adams and franklin were just as instrumental, and adams had more influence once the revolution was over. What virginia says may well express jefferson's thoughts, but the constitution didn't have much input from jefferson.
And, just to shut you up, it's not even relevant. In the sphere of law, what is written is the law; what you believe about it is irrelevant. Trying to overthrow the government is treason and you will be punished regardless of how "corrupt" you think it is. A militia that attacks the government has a name: terrorist cell.
<quoted text>
If stupidity was painful, you'd be on a morphine drip.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#232 Jun 12, 2013
I note you can't refute my post. Just because some backwoods bumpkins call themselves soldiers doesn't make it true.
Besara wrote:
<quoted text>If stupidity was painful, you'd be on a morphine drip.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#234 Jun 12, 2013
So jefferson didn't believe in a standing army--the very thing that won us our independence? Rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrriiiiiiiiiiiggh tttt.
Anti-Fascism wrote:
<quoted text>
Your obvious ignorance and denial of truth won't hide you from the eyes of those who do know much more than you assume they do.
Thomas Jefferson spoke of people being skeptical of, and never trusting, the government; so why would he ever wish that we'd be "soldiers" to be specifically given orders of where to go, what to do and so on by said government? That's a clear contradiction of what he always spoke of, thus you prove yourself to either be uneducated concerning the other quotes and writings of Thomas Jefferson or, you're a silly propagandist who seeks to muddy the waters for such a dishonest, unjust agenda.
Your choice, snake.:-)
Thomas Jefferson meant to be a "soldier" of the individual who would be apart of the private militia, composed of the body of people. Not controlled by the government against their will, no matter what. That might be your wish; I guess you're mixing your brainwashed, fascist mindset up with what you hope would be his.
Too bad that *reality* is against you, deceptive little snake.
more deaf than dumb

Indianapolis, IN

#235 Jun 15, 2013
It's funny that the people who claim that Article Two of the Bill of Rights is only for militias, would be the very ones complaining the loudest that people were organizing militias.

Hypocrites to the bitter end.

more deaf than dumb

Indianapolis, IN

#236 Jun 15, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Jefferson own 600 human beings in his life.
What is a freeman, honey?
Here's a clue: in 1780s, it was a CITIZEN and that would mean he was WHITE and a person of property.
PS: this was his version... which was whittled down by state legislature...
"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms within his own lands or tenements"
You are confusing "citizen" (We the People) with "voter" (White Land Owner).
And yes, there were a few Black "Freedmen". Some owned property (including slaves).
Anti-Fascism

United States

#237 Jun 15, 2013
These people actually think that those who wrote the Bill of Rights, with the clear context of questioning, being skeptical of and thus seeking to limit domestic governments' power... "somehow" they thought text on paper (Constitution) would keep it this way?

Haha! Very funny! VERY, very funny!

If that were so,'I guess' they destroyed their firearms once they wrote that Declaration of Independence, thinking the King (their domestic government back then) would simply agree to that written text alone and it'd be over with from thereon? lol! As if the founders didn't think that they needed force to back up their words?

This is precisely why they wrote the 2nd Amendment, as a clear law, telling the domestic government(s) that they cannot infringe upon We The Peoples' right to keep and bear arms for our protection, as last resort. That's the literal context and intent for what they wrote.

I mean, these people have to be amongst the most clueless, misled puppets on Earth. Truly. Or, of course, they're propagandists who know damn well that the truth is on our side on this issue, yet they still seek to undermine it.

Either those two options for these people to pick from; both embarrass them, either way, as I say.

So they say "They didn't know we'd have automatic rifles though!"

I say "Neither did they know the government would have automatic rifles, either, Sherlock! Their intent was clear: Whatever it takes to help protect the body of people as last resort, they've a right to their self-defense of liberty and rights. For if you cannot trust the body of people with such power, then you don't believe the actual government is of, by and for the people, but rather a separate entity who seeks their own agenda apart from the actual good of the people concerning liberty and rights. Then this is all the more reason for the people to be armed for their defense."
Anti-Fascism

United States

#238 Jun 15, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
So jefferson didn't believe in a standing army--the very thing that won us our independence? Rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrriiiiiiiiiiiggh tttt.
<quoted text>
It speaks of "standing armies" in time of peace, as being dangerous to liberty. They acknowledged that a standing army would also be needed for war in case any foreign government sought to invade them again in the future.

Their clear acknowledgement is that government "standing armies" were like two-edged swords: on one hand, they can be used for good of the nation, in helping to defend it from outside, tyrannical foreign invaders; yet on the other hand, they could also be used by a tyrannical domestic government 'at home' to threaten the liberty and rights of the We The People citizens themselves... thus why they still wanted all of the people citizens, who are the masters of the government, to be armed for their protection, as last resort. They learned from history and their present threat. Too bad you're not sharp of mind enough to even understand this simple concept.

Are you doing any drugs? Or drinking a lot of alcohol? Be honest because, seriously, I'm trying to look for a good enough excuse for you to not get this so quickly?

I'm baffled here.

Please, give me a good reason for your lack of clear logic?

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#239 Jun 15, 2013
I'm not going along with your ridiculous baloney because I have a 3-diit IQ and an education.
Anti-Fascism wrote:
<quoted text>
It speaks of "standing armies" in time of peace, as being dangerous to liberty. They acknowledged that a standing army would also be needed for war in case any foreign government sought to invade them again in the future.
Their clear acknowledgement is that government "standing armies" were like two-edged swords: on one hand, they can be used for good of the nation, in helping to defend it from outside, tyrannical foreign invaders; yet on the other hand, they could also be used by a tyrannical domestic government 'at home' to threaten the liberty and rights of the We The People citizens themselves... thus why they still wanted all of the people citizens, who are the masters of the government, to be armed for their protection, as last resort. They learned from history and their present threat. Too bad you're not sharp of mind enough to even understand this simple concept.
Are you doing any drugs? Or drinking a lot of alcohol? Be honest because, seriously, I'm trying to look for a good enough excuse for you to not get this so quickly?
I'm baffled here.
Please, give me a good reason for your lack of clear logic?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Indianapolis Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
The Black Race Fights Injustice and for the com... 1 hr Alonzo X 1
Landlord registration in Indianapolis: Section ... 16 hr NoZipCodeLeftBhind 7
Foundation to pay off mortgages of slain NYPD o... 19 hr Linda Bedsore 2
Where to get herbal incense/spice/potpourri in ... (May '13) Fri matt 52
Why do most Blacks hate Whites? (Jul '13) Thu Go Blue Forever 448
Chuck should be gone Jim should be In Dec 25 bikerbob 1
white girls Dec 24 RZA 1
Indianapolis Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Indianapolis People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Indianapolis News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Indianapolis

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 11:57 am PST

ESPN11:57AM
Bengals TE Eifert will not return this season
Bleacher Report11:44 PM
Denver Broncos: Why the Run Defense Isn't a Concern
Bleacher Report 5:39 PM
Steelers' DB Health Could Swing AFC North Finale
NBC Sports 9:21 PM
Ten with Tafoya: Andrew Whitworth
ESPN 6:08 AM
Bengals, eyeing division title, take aim at flu