'Well Regulated Militia' Robbed, then opens fire with spare gun in St. Louis

[NxNW]

one can't deny the reality that there is a nugget of truth in the sentiment that "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"

But now it seems the good guy needs a gun plus a spare gun for when the bad guy takes the first gun, plus a buddy nearby with a third gun in case the spare gun isn't enough, and the bystanders need to get outta the way.

Trying to keep these things well-regulated is getting more and more complicated.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

But now it seems the good guy needs a gun plus a spare gun for when the bad guy takes the first gun, plus a buddy nearby with a third gun in case the spare gun isn't enough, and the bystanders need to get outta the way.

Trying to keep these things well-regulated is getting more and more complicated.

I think "well regulated" can be achieved (over time, it's not going to happen overnight), but "perfectly regulated" can't be.

There have even been instances where a bad guy has stolen a police officer's gun.

That doesn't change the underlying dynamic that a "good guy" having equal force to a "bad guy" is more advantageous in most cases than a bad guy have a tremendous advantage.

 

[hislegacy]

Major Ron Martin with the North County Police said a customer with a rifle had entered the grocery store. The patron was "open carrying" the rifle in a gun sleeve underneath an article of clothing and did not threaten anyone while inside the store. As the customer left the store and stepped outside, Booker held a pistol to the back of his head and robbed him of his rifle and jacket, according to a probable cause statement.

First, - open carry means just that - carrying in the open, which in a gun case concealed under and article of clothing is not.

Second, what makes you think he is part of a militia?

Third, was he charged?

Fourth, how many lives did he save by preventing an armed robber from leaving with a rifle?

 

[smittymatt]

Just imagine how badly things could have gone if they hadn't been well regulated!

Man charged in shootout after robbing Wellston store patron of rifle, police say

A 31-year-old man has been charged after police said he stole a rifle outside a St. Louis County grocery store Friday, leading to a shootout in which he and two bystanders were injured. Bobby Lee Booker Jr. is charged with armed criminal action, first-degree robbery and two counts each of unlawful use of a weapon and unlawful possession of a firearm.

Major Ron Martin with the North County Police said a customer with a rifle had entered the grocery store. The patron was "open carrying" the rifle in a gun sleeve underneath an article of clothing and did not threaten anyone while inside the store. As the customer left the store and stepped outside, Booker held a pistol to the back of his head and robbed him of his rifle and jacket, according to a probable cause statement.

After giving up the rifle, the victim went to his vehicle and grabbed another gun as Booker was walking away, Martin said. He fired at the robber, and a shootout between the two began. Booker was shot several times. Two innocent bystanders, both women, had just pulled up to the market and were also shot, Martin said. Their injuries were not life-threatening.

The man who was robbed of his rifle fled the scene. Moments later, police believe a third man came and shot the alleged robber again, then left.

Look up the 18th century definition of "well regulated"! And the militia clause doesn't have anything to do with what happened. Both men should be held responsible for their actions.

 

[smittymatt]

You can always find situations like this...however, it's not the norm and shouldn't be considered reflective of the situation as a whole.

There are some changes we need to make with regards to guns.

But at the same time, one can't deny the reality that there is a nugget of truth in the sentiment that "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun", much like there's a nugget of truth in the sentiment "when a dangerous situation is seconds from happening, police are only minutes away"

Our sad state of affairs in this country is that a lot of bad guys already have guns...the legislative efforts that would've needed to be implemented to prevent that would've had to have been implemented decades ago. The window has somewhat closed on that.

There are things that could be done that would correct some of the problems moving forward, but it's not going to be a "problem gets solved overnight" sort of thing.

Knowing that, I'm not giving up mine as long as a bunch of bad guys already have them.

These guys sum of the situation pretty accurately

An atheist who I can strongly agree with!

 

[NxNW]

Look up the 18th century definition of "well regulated"!

Should we go with the 18th century meaning of "arms" as well, and limit ownership to flintlocks?

And the militia clause doesn't have anything to do with what happened. Both men should be held responsible for their actions.

By "militia clause" you must be referring to the Second Amendment.

 

[smittymatt]

Should we go with the 18th century meaning of "arms" as well, and limit ownership to flintlocks?

By "militia clause" you must be referring to the Second Amendment.

Forefathers couldn't possibly have foreseen the type of weaponry that would be available in the future.

Also, pretty sure that many court precedents and even the founding fathers themselves ruled and intended that the people bearing arms was separate from the militia.

And even if not, what would the militia today look like to you? They couldn't possibly have meant the government's standing army as that would go without saying.

 

[NxNW]

Forefathers couldn't possibly have foreseen the type of weaponry that would be available in the future.

So we have to go with the 18th century meaning.

Also, pretty sure that many court precedents and even the founding fathers themselves ruled and intended that the people bearing arms was separate from the militia.

Arms meaning flintlocks, as concluded above.

And even if not, what would the militia today look like to you? They couldn't possibly have meant the government's standing army as that would go without saying.

They couldn't possibly expect a few hillbillies in the woods to defeat the US military, though.

 

[Paulos23]

So we have to go with the 18th century meaning.



Arms meaning flintlocks, as concluded above.



They couldn't possibly expect a few hillbillies in the woods to defeat the US military, though.

It nearly came to that over the whiskey rebelion. But then, it was flintlocks against flintlocks. The only difference, and likely the biggest difference today as well, was training and disaplin.