They Carry Guns

In reading some of the comments here, there seems to be some confusion due to a misunderstanding regarding what the term "well regulated" meant in 1776 vs. what it means today. A history professor in college many moons ago explained to the class I was in that some words change their definition over time and trying to fit the past definition to the current one can cause confusion and misunderstanding. He used as one example the word lousy. Today, we might say someone is lousy meaning he does a poor job or is not a nice person, but back in the days of old, we would have been saying that the man was infested with lice. Big difference between then and now when using this word. He then gave a second example referring to the meaning of the words "well regulated" as used today vs. its meaning when the Bill of Rights was written. Today, we use the term well regulated to mean well controlled or structured or such. However, when the Framers of the Constitution used this phrase, they were referring to the militia being properly outfitted, that is, having arms in their possession and available for immediate use. Let us review the Amendment. It says, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. " Note, if they had meant controlled or structured under some authority, they would Not have talked about equipment (arms) but rather named some type of chain of command (authority) or such. But rather they said to be "well regulated" every citizen had the right to keep and bear arms which meant they would be well regulated as in the possession of equipment. Again, like lousy, a big difference.
— July 29, 2009 2:54 a.m.

They Carry Guns

Re: Comments 120 & 121 where one man believes police do not have to protect us and a second scoffs at his idea: Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone. New York Times ^ | June 28, 2005 | Linda Greenhouse "WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday, overturning a ruling by a federal appeals court in Colorado... police d[o] not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm..." Specifically in California Two Items and a Comment from 1."Ruth Brunell called the police on 20 different occasions to plead for protection from her husband. He was arrested only one time. One evening Mr. Brunell telephoned his wife and told her he was coming over to kill her. When she called the police, they refused her request that they come to protect her. They told her to call back when he got there. Mr. Brunell stabbed his wife to death before she could call the police to tell them that he was there. The court held that the San Jose police were not liable for ignoring Mrs. Brunell's pleas for help. Hartzler v. City of San Jose, 46 Cal. App. 3d 6 (1st Dist. 1975). 2. California even put this into a Statute - California's Government Code, Sections 821, 845, and 846 which state, in part: "Neither a public entity or a public employee [may be sued] for failure to provide adequate police protection or service, failure to prevent the commission of crimes and failure to apprehend criminals.'' COMMENT: "In light of court decisions ... You have no right to expect the police to protect you from crime. Incredible as it may seem, the courts have ruled that the police are not obligated to even respond to your calls for help, even in life threatening situations!. To be fair to our men in blue, I think most officers really do want to save lives and stop dangerous situations before people get hurt. But the key point to remember is that they are under no legal obligation to do so."
— July 28, 2009 5:24 a.m.

Win a $25 Gift Card to
The Broken Yolk Cafe

Join our newsletter list

Each newsletter subscription means another chance to win!