Posted on 07/17/2009 7:32:16 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Me too...
Hardly, China and India have much larger armies.
Our Navy is larger than any other Navy, as befits a country with two long coastlines, and a long maritime tradition. Our Air Force is third, in terms of number of aircraft, out Army is 6th in number of troops.
We do have an extremely large "reserve militia".
Molan Labe, commie pinko fags! Come and get them!
But in their arrogance, they think they can, and eventually they'll decide the "time is right". Likely after the other major items of Obama's agenda have passed. Health care is still someone up in the air, although it appears it will pass in some form and soon. He's already taken over GM and many banks. The other major item on his plate is Cap and Trade, and it too appears destined for passage. Although the Health care and Envirowacko agendas may have to proceed without significant Republican help, and with a few Dim's also in opposition.
When those are done, Molon Labe.
Actually it's forces not part of the regular and reserve military establish ment. establishment. Like the BATFE, FBI HRT, and various SWAT units.
They of course do dress up and run drills, but some of the militia does that too.
In addtion to your federal definition of militia, each state has it's own definition. In Texas it's ages 18-60 and, as in most states, includes women.
Cannot imagine why the author chose scare quotes around the word right, it's not as if he doubts we have that right is it? Amazingly what he ignores is the benefit of an armed society, there may indeed be more bad guys with holes in them but many innocents will be saved. Matter of fact, the bad guys may be motivated to actually get productively employed if the cost of crime becomes too high, i.e. death. I see a benefit there, anyone else?
I don't know if such a thing can be calculated, because it's not possible to estimate how much money will be spent to arrest, prosecute, imprison, and parole a scumbag after I kill him for trying to mug me. I do know that it will cost about $15.00 for a full mag of Golden Saber hollow points, so there is a baseline.
I also know that we can compare the cost of gun control without even examining European cesspools of genocide. The number of murders in the United States peaked in 1993 at 24,526 (F.B.I. Uniform Crime Report spreadsheet.) At that time, a few states allowed people to exercise their constitutional right to carry a deadly weapon for self defense. The number of rapes in 1993 was 106,014 and there were 659,870 armed robberies.
The F.B.I. U.C.R. for 2007 is published. At that time, about 35 states had concealed carry laws. Many states also adopted laws protecting people who killed attackers. There were 16,900 murders, 90133 rapes, and 445,034 robberies.
That stupid Clinton assault weapon law had been gone for 5 years, too. So what did gun control cost? 1993 had more crime than 2007 even though the population was smaller. Gun control caused there to be 7,626 more murders, 15,881 more rapes, and 214,836 more armed robberies in 1993 than in 2007.
The 2008 report is not finalized, but the preliminary report is on the F.B.I. Bureau of Justice Statistics website. It says that violent crime declined 2.5% overall in 2008.
Gun Club: Silly gun control article ping. The facts I provided in post 67 are easily verified and may be useful.
The Graduate Institute of International Studies in Geneva, which produces the annual survey says, "Firearms are also important contributors to crime and societal violence. They are used in 40% of homicides worldwide. The prevalence of small-arms misuse, both in conflict and crime, is leading analysts to examine the economic costs of gun violence, in an effort to assess the cost-effectiveness of interventions designed to reduce it."Impossible: everyone *knows* that handgun violence is the direct result of not enough income redistribution. Thanks Ernest.
Acknowledged.
Dear “Graduate Institute of International Studies in Geneva”
I don’t care WHAT the cost to society is, I don’t buy into that collectivist garbage. They are my guns, my rights, and no matter what “study” you publish, you will NOT take them away from me.
They will sit down and add up the immediate "health care costs" of patching up criminals, gang members, assorted criminals shot by both other criminals and by police, honest people, and people defending themselves, homes, and families.
They will add up the 'social costs' of "lost income, disability, SSI, survivors benefits, welfare for the families where applicable, etc., etc., etc.
Then, on "health care cost" grounds, and the "social costs", they will make their case before the taxpayer of how much money can be saved by eliminating firearms.
The same gambit was used in an attempt to push universal motorcycle helmet laws, and in some places it worked, even though the costs were inflated by at least a factor of four, and there were assumptions made which simply did not fly (that half of the costs would be saved, even though the costs cited in the study were claimed to be preventable, when the study did not state (nor was it known) how many of the injured were in fact wearing or not wearing a helmet.)
Proposals (that "reasonable restriction stuff") short of banning firearms and repealing the Second Amendment will include horrific taxes on arms and ammo (perhaps even on arms and ammo you already own), liability insurance requirements, and taxes/regulations on firearms to "offset the costs", without regard for the money saved by eliminating criminals, defending self, family, home or property, etc.
Just wait.
This is as predictable as water running down hill, and the advent of Obamacare will be the hook they use to dig in everyone's wallet if we let them.
Bookmarking. Very good analysis,sig. I’m very obsessive-compulsive (bordering on fanatic) about my own safety and of those I care about.
I forgot to mention that over 100,000,000 firearms have been sold at retail in the years since 1993. Would that be “rubbing it in”? :)
wait till the anti-gun nuts get this, they will use it to destroy our second amendment
Law-abiding gun owners are a minority in this nation. Ask a smoker what happens to a member of a minority. For that matter, ask a taxpayer. The tyranny of the majority will come down on all our heads.
Sounds like it's time to ban it
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.