Really? I did have to determine how they applied in real life more then once in 22 years as a police officer in Illinois.
Glad you had the right to open carry your gun as a police officer. You know how the saying goes, I carry a gun, because I Cannot carry a police officer with me. To bad you cannot be in all places at all times. Unfortunately , some of us civilians, e.g. in Illinois, have to leave our guns at home. You can carry yours in your car and on your side openly, we cannot. Los Angeles Police officers carry M-16s in their cars, most Los Angeles residents cannot even own an AR-15. Don't compare apples and oranges.
Our constitution has states in the beginning what:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
WE THE PEOPLE
If you think that a well regulated militia is some form of citizen's check on the government, then you don't have any idea of what the law on militias has been since the country was founded. the militia is not a check on the government, it is part of the government. Start with the US Constitution here:
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A2Sec1
Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
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.
If this is not in reference to the a well organized group of citizens bearing arms, why does it say in the 2nd amendment that the well regulated militia is necessary for people to keep and bear arms? Did our founding fathers not think that one day the government may be infiltrated by those who seek to destroy our constitution and the foundations of this country?
BTW, many of my relatives in Europe are dead thanks to the logic, that governments are always good and will protect them. Our founding fathers didn't enjoy having their wealth and dignity raped by the redhat goons who made up their own oppressive rules and were at the mercy of a tyrannical autocrat thousands of miles away.
Here is a statistic of what happens when sheep have their God given rights as gun owners hindered or removed:
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM
In the last 100 years , murdered by totalitarian governments, who denied citizens rights of self-defense:
Thus, the new world total: old total 1900-1999 = 174,000,000. New World total = 174,000,000 + 38,000,000 (new for China) + 50,000,000 (new for Colonies) = 262,000,000.
Look up Article I Section 8, then look up Article II Section 2. After you discover that congress is responsible for the organization, equipping and training of the militia and the president commands the militia, then look up the Militia Act of 1792 to see the first law the United States ever passed concerning the militia. The militia is part of the government, not a check against it.
YEs, but canot overlook the rules of governing the milita in Article I Sec 8, which is written in the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment speaks of civilians not having their rights of arms infringed. SO, if the president is going against the 2nd Amendment, he also nullfies his power as being the president. Even though he has the authority to monitor and keep the militia in check ,the people also have the right to keep the president in check. THe president is not a king and I don't see where the constitution gives him de facto power over everyone to modify and change the rules of the constitution. Our current president and leadershiip is going against the doctrines written in the constitution and also brreaking their oath they took being sworn into office. The militia is also mentioned seperately from the army, navy and other armed forces.
Many liberals are actually advocating your argument as an excuse for citizens not to have guns. They state militia is synonymous with the National Guard or other military branch and the citizens should have to rely only on the military for support, they should not be armed. I disagree with this logic and history in this country itself disproves it.
Also, people fail to see that all men over 18 years of age, probably even younger, in those days wer part of the militia. Any man who was in good health, not elderly and capable of fighting would join the militia in these early days. Military conscription was compulsory for all men, so the militia you are reading about is more or less composed of civilians. In this modern world, a majority of civilians are not associated with the military in any way. This actually becomes quite dangerous, since the military is very seperate entity from the people. Look at China, how a small number of men from a far away province were able to massacre so many citizens who protested for their freedoms. These were not their own people, they were foreigenrs to them and it was not hard to execute the government's demands of wiping out the dissenters for protesting for their God given rights of freedom of speech. I speak of Tiananmen Square massacre of course.
How are guns overly regulated in Illinois? Outside of Cook County (doesn't count as part of Illinois in my book) you can buy whatever kind of firearm you want except for class III. Other states that are never bashed here as being restrictive have worse laws then Illinois. Until a couple years ago you had to get the permission of the county Sheriff to buy each and every handgun you wanted across the river in Missouri. In Michigan you must submit each and every handgun you own to the police for a safety inspection creating defacto registration. Both more restrictive then a FOID card.
What good is a being able to buy whatever gun you want, when you are not legally allowed to carry it when you need it most? Are you trying to tell me conceal carry is legal in the state of illinois? I like to know? If not, then you are only proving my point, that people have been denied their rights as citizens to self-defense, regardless if whether or not they could have saved the pastor who was slain at the church today. You say it was a place of business, but in a state that prohibits conceal carry, I wonder how it would look if someone used their gun for self-defense in a church in that state. Most people living in a state fo fear of government regulations, would probably be too fearful to be armed in a church. Since you call it a business, are church patrons any different than customers? If customers can carry in a business, then what on earth do we need conceal carry laws for, the parking lot?
Really? William Hickcock won at least eight gunfights and died with his two Navy Colts in his waistband. Being armed sure didn't save him did it? A gun is a tool, nothing more, nothing less. It's not a magic talisman and it's mere presence will not up anyone's chance of survival.
Better to survive eight, than be dead on the first.
Really? What do they do, show their Muggers and Rapists Local 715 card in the gun shop in lieu of a FOID card?
Well gee, I guess there is no such thing as street guns and of course criminals would never sell ammo on the blackmarket. After all thats why CHicago has such a low crime rate, because the criminals are so honest.
I said the pastor and employees could carry. The church is where they work, it is their fixed place of business.
All citizens should have the right to carry. What if the pastor has a disability and the people who work there just aren't made with iron souls to stand up against a gunmen. If you notice, it was the church patrons who had to fight the guy hand in hand, not any church security guard or employee. Those people should have been armed and they are not employees. Don't forget it is not just pastors and deacons who get shot in churches, many churchgoers also are victims. Usually, it is the churchgoers, not the pastors who are victims in these brutal slayings. Here , you can review a previous incident:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27874881/
Also, I think you miss the point of my point. These rules in place didn't end any killing, so why have them at all? They only inhibit our rights as citizens and go against the constitution of this country.
If you weren't there, then this is just speculation on your part. 
