zzrider

JBSF, I'm honestly surprised that you were unaware of the usage of that word in this context at the time. Saorsa has brought it up several times, as have I.
 
For further reading, I'd recommend US v Miller, where you will find some of the actual rules from back then mandating that citizens appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of a type in common (military) use. That was the practical implementation of "well regulated" at the time: mandating that citizens have their own military weapons, along with ammo and other paraphernalia. They would fine you if you did not have them and use the money to pay for weapons for the indigent.
 
By the way, Publius' reference to a "select militia" scared and horrified the Anti-Federalists back then.

A 'select militia' comes dangerously close to standing army. Not good.

And after seeing how it went down in Boston, I'd say our urban police forces are pretty much "standing armies" now as well.

 

So, to quickly summarise the big wall of text at the top: JBSF has an feeble amazing grasp of english.  And since I have nothing to contribute or refute his astute observations, I'm going to just be quiet and let the adults talk for a while.

Thank you, I appreciate you not being your usual Stuchebag self.

 

If you read a bit more, rather than just mouthing off, you wouldn't need to start threads whenever you discovered new ways of using a word.

Cheese, JBSF is right on with this.  You and your elk are the one attempting to twist historical context and meaning. 

Again, given that Lexington and Concord was an attempt by the government to disarm the citizens and the Revolution was fought to dismantle that government, were the founders were thinking, "Ok, now that we got rid of that government, we really need to be sure only the government has guns"? 

Explain the logic of that.

...

 

And YES - I think we would be fine "surviving" 36 moderately trained terrorists in 36 cities.  I would hope they would lock the cities down just like this, hunt them down ruthelessly and kill or capture them and then remove the police presence as soon as it was over.  JUST LIKE BOSTON DID. 

 

ZZ, I honestly don't get what your problem is on this one.......  I'm as small gov't as it gets around these parts and I don't have an issue with how it was handled. ...

 

I have several problems with the way it was handled, but none are related to the equipment used by police, although that Benelli with the folding stock was pretty scary looking.

 

1. The lockdown didn't work. The guy was not found by the cops during the lockdown, but by a citizen afterwards.

 

2. The house to house searches and searches of citizens in the area seem to me to be a huge fourth amendment problem (not to mention the fact that the perp was outside the search area at the time).

 

3. A No-Fly Zone? Why?

^^ This

My other objection to this full blown lock-down is that I honestly don't see how we can continue functioning as a society and as an economy if this is what we do every time something like this happens.  What if these guys had been just a little bit smarter and had gone to ground after planting their bombs?  What if there were 4 or 6 of them, and they actually had a clue and a plan?  Boston would STILL be locked-down.

Now, I'm not yet convinced that these guys were totally independent... I would not be at all suprised to hear it was an FBI sting gone bad, or that these two had other jihadi connections.  But whatever the case is, if someone else was involved they clearly didn't have an exit plan or any assistance after the bombing.

If you DO think this is a healthy and appropriate response, explain how we as a nation would survive an attack from just 36 moderately well-disciplined, organized, and equipped whackjobs hitting 6 cities at once.

 

That's odd, I smell Fear in such a sentiment... Sounds an awful like the sort of rationale presented in the wake of 9/11, to justify the creation of DHS, the Patriot Act, and the equipping of municipalities with precisely the sort of capability you've pictured...

.... and all those responses - DHS, Patriot Act, militarization of our local police forces - are things that I opposed, then and now.

Olsonist, again, you are totally dodging the point.  The point is, TWO AMATEUR TERRORISTS brought an entire city to its knees and shut it down.  The ONLY reason it was over in just a few days is because they were amatuers that didn't have any sort of exit plan or active outside assistance, not because of the paramilitary lockdown. 

Answer the questions:

Do you think this sort of militarized response was healthy and appropriate?

If you DO think this is a healthy and appropriate response, explain how we as a nation would survive an attack from just 36 moderately well-disciplined, organized, and equipped whackjobs hitting 6 cities at once.

 

 What is there, like 50+ people still in the hospital from those blasts? Google up the shots of Bauman, ZZ.  

 

I've seen them.  Look Mark, I'm a first responder myself.  I'm an EMT.  Right here in Massachusetts.  Do not presume to lecture me on the horror of what these two pukes did. 

 

Your point is non-sequitur. 

 

Do you think this kind of poilce state paramilitary response was healthy and appropriate?  You want to take a stab at answering my question posed in the last paragraph of my post #86 above? 

 

   Just because there are things about this event that are inconvenient for the ideological point you wish to make doesn't make them non-sequiturs.  

Can't answer the question, can you?