Hi Pax. Nice name, by the way.
A few things in rebuttal:
Actually we do have state funded militia, called National Guard. They are under control of the state they belong to but can serve as regular military units in overseas campaigns.
Good point. You do sound like you have a regulated militia capable of mobilization. Similar to the Canadian Army Reserves, it sounds. The second Amendment sounds like it directly relates to them, and anyone in it.
I have no idea how it relates to the average gun owner though.
It was official stated in the report by the medical examiner, that there were no bullets over 10mm used in the shootings.
To my knowledge, there hasn't been an official report released... do you have a link? Except for conspiracy blogs and other questionable sources, everything I have read from reputable news agencies has the same quotes: The medical examiner said it was a long gun. You might be confusing the suicide weapon, which was a hand gun and shot a 10mm bullet.
It is also reported that he taped magazines together to have faster loading. Such a set-up would only work with the Bushmaster, as the magazine is mostly external. The hand guns, I believe, require the magazine to be completely inserted.
To be honest, I don't really care what weapon was used. I think the States needs some additional regulation across the board.
You do realize, in most assault rifles, a trained person can reload (any size magazine) in under 4 seconds? So why do you say that there is no way that much damage could have been done? You can easily purchase webbing in which you can store up to 12 magazines.
4 seconds is a very long time in life or death. If he required 4 seconds after each 5 round clip was spent, there would be a lot of down time. He only needed to change clips after 30 rounds, however. Since he apparently taped magazines together, however, it was even faster.
How can you say that for sure? If it hasn't been for the creation of the US, Britain would still of had no reason to allow for independent nations to break away from its empire.
You quoted me out of context, which altered the meaning entirely. That being said, I admit that I didn't write that section of my post as cleanly as I could have. I will revise it to be more clear.
I was speaking to Derp's claim that the American Bill of Rights is the reason that the States isn't a British colony today. I was pointing out that that statement didn't make any sense, as you had independence before the Bill was created. The section you quoted (and which I will edit) meant that even if the British could have
re-taken the States, it is highly unlikely that we would all be colonies in this day and age.
In fact, the British would have been hard pressed to re-take the States. British weaknesses would be something America would try to capitalize on 20 years later. Luckily for us Canadians, the States wasn't as strong as they thought they were.
Beyond that, I was suggesting that the Bill itself didn't even have anything to do with your maintaining independence, as the Bill didn't create any new rights. It simply put into law the implied rights that you had... rights that you DID have as British citizens prior to independence (the right to bear arms, for instance) as a good portion of the American Bill of Rights is based on the English Bill of Rights of 1689. So while you were in a technical vacuum for a few years after independence, the Bill put those rights back into play... everyone assumed the rights in the interim, however.
Some personal information.
That's interesting. I would be careful about posting that sort of information on a public forum though. You might consider editing your post.
