Shots were fired at the rescuers in the New Orleans superdome

[fpb]

Well, this, according to the majority of Americans, is what the "right to bear arms" is really about: to be able to point them at government if government gets uppity. Like trying to organize a rescue.

Comments

[adeodatus.livejournal.com]

if every gun owner can tell me his squad's commander's name, and whose the platoon leader and company commander, and how often they drill and how often they go for shooting practice, and who's responsible for kitchens and food supplies and cars and fuel and what is their designed network of communication - all of which can be organized using civilian supplies only, but be ready if the "militia unit" is ready, then I'll say, okay man, keep your gun.

You lost me somewhere in there. I own several firearms. I go out target shooting/practice quite often. I am not part of a militia but that term has a much different modern usage than that used by my constitution.

of which can be organized using civilian supplies only,

Not true at all. In fact, quite the opposite is true in the country. There is a fair amount of cooperation between civilian and federal/state military assets but they also are often quite separate from each other.

[(Anonymous)]

It's not surprising you were lost, giving my poor grammar. And you've answered yourself in the post below.
Right, my point was:
There are people, who support their arm ownership with the "militia" argument. Well, I ask, are thy militiamen? By merits of training and structure, not by some long forgotten badge in some dusty drawer (if they bother to get one at all)?

Now, I suppose you wouldn't claim "I have right to get a gun, because I'm a militiaman" if you were not one. You want a gun, 'cause you're a target-shooter.In every country, also with rather stringent laws, there are provisions for people like you - e.g. they can join the shooter or hunters club, lots of tedious paperwork and such, but they'll got their licence and can have their weapon. The idea is of course, that some less stable ones will be helpfully denied a weapon; and to keep the number of weapons at generally low level (thus helping to lower accident/suicide by firearm level; also crime-inflicted death/harm level).

Not true at all. In fact, quite the opposite is true in the country. There is a fair amount of cooperation between civilian and federal/state military assets but they also are often quite separate from each other.

You're right, but it doesn't make my comment untrue - only badly expressed. What I meant is that the things I listed as possibly necessary for militia unit can be organized without using any military equipment/state help. Only using the resources of the militia members themselves. E.g. transport by cars (the owner of a minibus gets to be a squad driver and he's reguired to provide transportation if the unit needs to go somewhere), the owner of a food shop is required to organize food supplies, when two other guys, who camp often, are to look after accomodation (tents) and cooking equipment (gas stoves) etc.

Of course the state, if it so wishes, can make some of its surplus equipment available to militiamen, if necessary, or even provide some for them from the beginning. But that's another matter.

[bufo-viridis.livejournal.com]

Sorry, the above was me, of course, forgot to log in.