Excellent! Stats on gun violence

[stanc]

It's about emotions.

[video=youtube;f4r8tuYJ3Ug]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4r8tuYJ3Ug[/video]

[JASmith]

The numbers behind those stat's is highly in question.

For example:
https://www.al.com/news/birmingham/2017/...in_us.html
Alabama had 400 murders in 2017. I rather highly doubt only 1 of those was done with a firearm.

A common error when trying to make a case to a potentially hostile audience, is to throw a bunch of items and hope something sticks. That's not how it works, when you list 11 things as items of complaints, or supporting data, and any one of those is either absurd or outright wrong; then the entire case is considered suspect and often dismissed if it's already a hostile audience, even if the other 10 points are spot on.

Well said!

Worse, we are so deluged with faulty and distorted statistics that even absolutely accurate numbers are frequently ignored.

That might be a contributing factor to the current trend that the loudest voices prevail rather than the ones in the right.

[Fess]

I got curious about the Alabama stat of 1 firearm death. It looked too good to be true. It was. The writer of this article either decided to mislead the readers or is an idiot. Instead of Alabama being one of the least likely places in the US to be killed by a firearm, it is one of the most likely. Articles like this one are designed to rev up the people who already agree with their premise and who are not very likely to doubt the numbers. It is a classic example of "fake news." We need to look at articles like this with a critical eye, just to be sure.

This is what I found after a couple of hours of research. It is likely that the 1 firearm death data point probably comes from an FBI "Crime in the United States Annual Report" sometime since 2010, but those reports clearly note that "Limited supplemental homicide data were received" from Alabama. For some reason, Alabama stopped sending accurate data to the FBI's National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) in 2010. Before that, Alabama reported a significant number of murders by firearm. In 2009, that number was 229. It sent no data in 2011 and since then report shows 1 or 2 firearm murders per year. It also shows only 1 to 3 total murders for the state for the entire year.

I though it important to find credible data after all this mess. Sadly it is not good. I wonder if that is why Alabama stopped sending info to the FBI and why their Department of Health removed "mortality data" from the site menus in 2017. That made it a pain to find any official numbers. Here is the most recent information I found on an "official" state website, al.com:
"In 2017 in Alabama, 1,100 people died from complications of gunshot wounds?573 suicides, 506 homicides, and 21 accidental discharges, according to the Alabama Department of Public Health (ADPH).
Each of those deaths contributed to the Center for Disease Control naming Alabama second deadliest in the nation for firearm fatalities." https://www.al.com/news/2019/06/alabama-...eaths.html

The most recent official Alabama Dept of Public Health written report that I could find had data was from 2016: It listed "Homocide by discharge of firearms " at 454 for the year.
http://www.alabamapublichealth.gov/healt...VS2016.pdf

I think that it is important to make factual arguments. Putting foreword "facts" that are easily disproved erodes our credibility and does not help our case for the 2A at all.

[montana]

I never did like fishing, anyway.

Okay, maybe "disciple" was too strong, but it was a fair question, considering the similarities between you and AOC.

AOC would rather be "morally right" than factually correct. You would rather be "morally right" than factually correct.

AOC wants to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. You want to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.

Stan, I never once endorsed infringing on the right to bear arms, so knock it off. Requiring back ground checks and training such as required for concealed carry is not infringing on that right IMO. I believe," un-like you" it would fall under well regulated of the 2ndA. We have debated with out end on the meaning and intent of the 2ndA which we will never agree. I have always advocated that once a person was trained and past a back ground check, they should be able to purchase, own and carry any fire arm their hearts desired. There are people who should not own firearms, "whether you agree or not" and mandatory training with back ground checks is preferable to gun bans we already see in California and other places. I have never or will I ever endorse mandatory back ground checks on private firearm sales with the current system. This would become a de-facto gun registration, which I will never support. If the stats I posted are not correct, "then they should be exposed as false", but it was not done on purpose. I will take it up with Gary the next time I talk to him. As far as comparing me to a communist, piece of ...., nice try but no cigar!! Facts do matter Stan, but unfortunately, "emotion rather than logic sometimes does prevail,"which is the whole mental process of the democratic party and the Trump derangement syndrome effecting so many today.

[stanc]

Stan, I never once endorsed infringing on the right to bear arms, so knock it off. Requiring back ground checks and training such as required for concealed carry is not infringing on that right IMO.

The Second Amendment does not say, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall be subject to whatever requirements and restrictions are deemed appropriate by the government."

I cannot fathom how you think requiring government approval to buy and carry arms is not infringing. What you advocate would turn an unalienable right into a government-granted (and revokable) privilege.

And having read what I typed, it dawns on me that the right to keep and bear arms ceased being a right, and became a privilege the moment that background checks were required in order to buy firearms.

I believe," un-like you" it would fall under well regulated of the 2ndA.

Believing a falsehood does not make it true. State militias were required to be "well regulated" (i.e., properly organized, disciplined, and trained), but citizens were not required to meet militia training standards -- or indeed any standards -- in order to buy, keep and bear arms.

...mandatory training with back ground checks is preferable to gun bans we already see in California and other places.

Except we wouldn't have one or the other. We would have both.

I have never or will I ever endorse mandatory back ground checks on private firearm sales with the current system.

Then you're leaving open a source for nut jobs to get the guns they want to do mass shootings.

This would become a de-facto gun registration...

LOL. It already is de facto gun registration. About 25 years ago a gun I had owned was used to kill someone. One day a homicide detective showed up at my apartment to question me about it, obviously having used the recorded info to locate me.

...which I will never support.

And yet you advocate an idea that would create a registry of every law-abiding gun owner in the country...

[montana]

The Second Amendment does not say, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall be subject to whatever requirements and restrictions are deemed appropriate by the government."..

You forgot well regulated, what does that apply for Stan??

I cannot fathom how you think requiring government approval to buy and carry arms is not infringing. What you advocate would turn an unalienable right into a government-granted (and revokable) privilege.

Stan, committing a felony is giving up such rights, "but like I stated before" this should have no consequence according to you.

And having read what I typed, it dawns on me that the right to keep and bear arms ceased being a right, and became a privilege the moment that background checks were required in order to buy firearms.

Dong a criminal back ground check ceases a right from being a right?? Some logic you have there Stan.

Believing a falsehood does not make it true..

So why do you keep believing in falsehoods??

State militias were required to be "well regulated" (i.e., properly organized, disciplined, and trained), but citizens were not required to meet militia training standards -- or indeed any standards -- in order to buy, keep and bear arms..

Did you really just say that lol. Properly organized, disciplined, and trained??? So if you are not properly organized, disciplined, and trained then what???? Oh that's right, you don't believe the whole people are the militia, but just the national guard. If a person commits a felony then those rights are no longer applicable, or should we dispense with prisons,criminal records and all punishments?? Your logic, not mine.

Except we wouldn't have one or the other. We would have both.

Yes, in California you do..

Then you're leaving open a source for nut jobs to get the guns they want to do mass shootings.

Sorry Stan, but only .08% of firearms used in crimes came from private sales. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/suficspi16.pdf Not a problem.

LOL. It already is de facto gun registration. About 25 years ago a gun I had owned was used to kill someone. One day a homicide detective showed up at my apartment to question me about it, obviously having used the recorded info to locate me..

California, not Montana! By the way, who did you sell your firearm too??

And yet you advocate an idea that would create a registry of every law-abiding gun owner in the country...

If a person has served in government in any capacity they are on a registry. If a person drives, owns a home, votes etc they are on a registry. Is not owning property a right, voting, having a job, getting married, etc etc??? Guess what Stan, you are put on a registry of some form with all these activities that are rights.

[stanc]

You forgot well regulated, what does that apply for Stan??

"Well regulated" applies to State militia units (not to the entire population). A militia was considered "well regulated" when it was properly organized and trained for military operations.

There was no requirement for the entire population to be organized and trained to conduct military operations, and citizens were not required to have militia training to purchase guns.

Stan, committing a felony is giving up such rights...

Illogical statement. By definition, one cannot give up an unalienable right.

Dong a criminal back ground check ceases a right from being a right??

Definitely. When government approval and authorization is required to do something, it is not a right. It is a government-granted privilege.

Some logic you have there Stan.

Right back at ya.

State militias were required to be "well regulated" (i.e., properly organized, disciplined, and trained), but citizens were not required to meet militia training standards -- or indeed any standards -- in order to buy, keep and bear arms.

Did you really just say that lol. Properly organized, disciplined, and trained??? So if you are not properly organized, disciplined, and trained then what????

What would happen if a State militia unit in the 18th Century was not properly organized, disciplined, and trained? I don't know. Perhaps the unit commander would've been replaced?

Oh that's right, you don't believe the whole people are the militia, but just the national guard.

(a) I operate on facts, not belief, and (b) you're conflating a couple of different matters, as well as making a false claim about what I said.

Fact: The "whole people" never was the militia. Even in the 18th Century, the militia was comprised only of those citizens who were expected to perform military service when called upon. Women were not expected to wage war and suppress rebellion. Neither were children. And the vast majority of black people were not even allowed to keep and bear arms. When the Bill of Rights was written, "the militia" was adult white males, not the whole people.

And I never said the National Guard is the militia. I said the National Guard superseded the State militia system established by the Founders.

Sorry Stan, but only .08% of firearms used in crimes came from private sales. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/suficspi16.pdf Not a problem.

Certainly not a major problem, but if you're serious about preventing mass shootings, I see no logic to intentionally leaving a source for nut jobs to get a gun.

California, not Montana! By the way, who did you sell your firearm too??

I sold it to the gun shop I bought it from. They resold it to a guy, who resold it privately to the killer. Which demonstrates why, if you're going to advocate background checks, it should logically apply to private transactions as well as purchases from a store.

[montana]

"Well regulated" applies to State militia units (not to the entire population). A militia was considered "well regulated" when it was properly organized and trained for military operations.

There was no requirement for the entire population to be organized and trained to conduct military operations, and citizens were not required to have militia training to purchase guns.

We have debated this with no resolve so let it go.

Illogical statement. By definition, one cannot give up an unalienable right.

So felons, child predators, murders have no forfeiture of their rights of freedom, voting, gun ownership, choice of residence?? Yup, you are illogical.

Definitely. When government approval and authorization is required to do something, it is not a right. It is a government-granted privilege.

So name one thing a free person can do that doesn't have a government regulation or punishment if it violates the law enacted by government??

What would happen if a State militia unit in the 18th Century was not properly organized, disciplined, and trained? I don't know. Perhaps the unit commander would've been replaced?.

Exactly and the reason well regulated involves the 2ndA.

(a) I operate on facts, not belief, and (b) you're conflating a couple of different matters, as well as making a false claim about what I said.

Well I have always known you had a high regard of yourself and opinion.....

Fact: The "whole people" never was the militia. Even in the 18th Century, the militia was comprised only of those citizens who were expected to perform military service when called upon. Women were not expected to wage war and suppress rebellion. Neither were children. And the vast majority of black people were not even allowed to keep and bear arms. When the Bill of Rights was written, "the militia" was adult white males, not the whole people.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426) Must have forgotten that fact Stan. What constituted a citizen back then has been rectified today. We already had that discussion.

And I never said the National Guard is the militia. I said the National Guard superseded the State militia system established by the Founders.

Yes and I proved in past debates the militia laws are still active and legal. They have never been repealed.

Certainly not a major problem, but if you're serious about preventing mass shootings, I see no logic to intentionally leaving a source for nut jobs to get a gun..

Even though the odds are almost zero this will happen, what is your solution Stan since you are so against any back ground checks that would infringe on our gun rights??

I sold it to the gun shop I bought it from. They resold it to a guy, who resold it privately to the killer. Which demonstrates why, if you're going to advocate background checks, it should logically apply to private transactions as well as purchases from a store.

Where were you living then Stan?? Yes, monkeys do fall out of trees from time to time.

[montana]

The gun facts I posted were from John Lott I found out after I contacted Gary Marbut. I contacted John Lott and he gave me the brush off when I asked him about the Alabama statistics. Here was his reply I received when I specifically asked about the Alabama gun death rate of 1:

johnrlott crimeresearch.org

12:25 PM (23 minutes ago)

to me

Lots of errors here (such as the bold underlined below). This is much more complete than what you sent me before that I couldn?t figure out what was being said.

I don?t really have time to deal with this. It is stuff that we have gone over many times in our emails to people.

John R. Lott, Jr., Ph.D.
President
Crime Prevention Research Center
http://crimeresearch.org
johnrlott@crimeresearch.o

I have no idea what he is talking about : lots of errors and bold underlined below??? I sent him the exact gun facts I posted on this forum. I cant believe it would be hard to explain his Alabama statistics, since they were obviously not correct after doing a little research. I will be much more careful when posting statistics from now on, especially from John Lott. I apologize for the mistake.

[stanc]

"Well regulated" applies to State militia units (not to the entire population). A militia was considered "well regulated" when it was properly organized and trained for military operations.

There was no requirement for the entire population to be organized and trained to conduct military operations, and citizens were not required to have militia training to purchase guns.

We have debated this with no resolve so let it go.

What I said is historical fact. If you're going to ignore it, and continue to hold on to the erroneous belief that the Second Amendment's stated need for a "well regulated" Militia means that the government can therefore regulate the purchase and possession of weapons by private citizens -- which is the same argument that the anti-gun crowd has long espoused -- then I don't know what to say.

Stan, committing a felony is giving up such rights...

Illogical statement. By definition, one cannot give up an unalienable right.

So felons, child predators, murders have no forfeiture of their rights of freedom, voting, gun ownership, choice of residence?? Yup, you are illogical.

unalienable adjective

chiefly US, formal : impossible to take away or give up

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unalienable

Definitely. When government approval and authorization is required to do something, it is not a right. It is a government-granted privilege.

So name one thing a free person can do that doesn't have a government regulation or punishment if it violates the law enacted by government??

Breathing?

What would happen if a State militia unit in the 18th Century was not properly organized, disciplined, and trained? I don't know. Perhaps the unit commander would've been replaced?

Exactly and the reason well regulated involves the 2ndA.

:confused: Huh?

Well I have always known you had a high regard of yourself and opinion.....

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426) Must have forgotten that fact Stan.

No, I didn't forget it. What you (and others) fail to understand is that in the 18th Century, "the whole people" did not have the same meaning it has today. In Mason's time, "the whole people" did not mean the entire populace. It meant only adult white males. And that meaning was codified in the Second Militia Act of 1792.

What constituted a citizen back then has been rectified today.

Not relevant to a discussion about what the Founders' generation did.

And I never said the National Guard is the militia. I said the National Guard superseded the State militia system established by the Founders.

Yes and I proved in past debates the militia laws are still active and legal.

Please enlighten me. In which States are citizens still conscripted into militia service, and required to furnish their own individual weapons?

Even though the odds are almost zero this will happen, what is your solution Stan...??

Previously answered.

Where were you living then Stan??

SoCal. Why do you ask?

[montana]

What I said is historical fact. If you're going to ignore it, and continue to hold on to the erroneous belief that the Second Amendment's stated need for a "well regulated" Militia means that the government can therefore regulate the purchase and possession of weapons by private citizens -- which is the same argument that the anti-gun crowd has long espoused -- then I don't know what to say.

No, well regulated means trained in my opinion. I could be wrong since there are so many different opinions on this issue . The 2nd A has been interpreted from every angle possible to fill what ever political motive is sought. Claiming your interpretation is fact while dismissing others is quite comical. Here is another take of the 2ndA that agrees and disagrees with both of our interpretations .https://mises.org/wire/why-we-cant-ignor...-amendment I will quote Abraham Lincoln:Molding public opinion is the most important factor. Abraham Lincoln, debating slavery, said in 1858, ?Public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it, nothing can succeed. Consequently he who molds public sentiment goes deeper than he who enacts statutes or pronounces decisions. He makes statutes and decisions possible or impossible to be executed.? The triumph of gun rights reminds us today: If you want to win in the court of law, first win in the court of public opinion. The whole premise of our debate was emotion vs facts. I'm starting to understand how one is used to manipulate the other.

unalienable adjective

chiefly US, formal : impossible to take away or give up

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unalienable

Yet capital crimes will take away everything including a persons life.

Breathing?

Depends on what you are breathing in now doesn't it?

:confused:

Huh? You do not understand properly organized, disciplined, and trained?

No, I didn't forget it. What you (and others) fail to understand is that in the 18th Century, "the whole people" did not have the same meaning it has today. In Mason's time, "the whole people" did not mean the entire populace. It meant only adult white males. And that meaning was codified in the Second Militia Act of 1792.

So we have included everybody today as equals yet that somehow negates the principle of the militia??

Not relevant to a discussion about what the Founders' generation did.

How is that?

Please enlighten me. In which States are citizens still conscripted into militia service, and required to furnish their own individual weapons?

The laws are still there unless you can show me where they have ended them..

Previously answered.

Previously answered is not an answer, it is a dodge of a question.

SoCal. Why do you ask?

California has a mandatory back ground check even for private sales. If the seller sold it without a back ground check then he committed a crime. If he did, the back ground check failed.

[stanc]

No, well regulated means trained in my opinion. I could be wrong...

You not only could be wrong, you are wrong. While training in marksmanship and the safe use of firearms is a part of what constitutes a well regulated militia, such individual training is not the sole determining factor. If it were, the Second Militia Act of 1792 would need to have been only one sentence.

The 2nd A has been interpreted from every angle possible to fill what ever political motive is sought. Claiming your interpretation is fact while dismissing others is quite comical. Here is another take of the 2ndA that agrees and disagrees with both of our interpretations .https://mises.org/wire/why-we-cant-ignor...-amendment

I don't see anything whatsoever in that article which supports your notion that "well regulated" = "trained"

However, it certainly agrees with what I have said. It was almost as if I was reading one of my own posts.

The National Guard, as created by the the Militia Act, would spell the doom of the unorganized militia in the US, and serve to completely undermine the Second Amendment and its defense of decentralized military power in the US.

After 1903, the federalization of the state militias only accelerated until, as Yassky concludes, "Today's National Guard is thus a far cry from what the Founders' understood a militia to be" and the result of these changes has brought about "the disappearance of anything the Founders would have recognized as a militia."

You do not understand properly organized, disciplined, and trained?

Sure, I understand properly organized, disciplined, and trained. What I no comprendo is how your statement "Exactly and the reason well regulated involves the 2ndA" makes any sense in response to my comment that "Perhaps the unit commander would've been replaced?"

So we have included everybody today as equals yet that somehow negates the principle of the militia??

:confused: I did not say it negates the principle of the militia. I said that "the whole people" did not have the same meaning in the 18th Century, that it has today.

Please enlighten me. In which States are citizens still conscripted into militia service, and required to furnish their own individual weapons?

The laws are still there unless you can show me where they have ended them.

That's an evasion, not an answer.

Previously answered is not an answer, it is a dodge of a question.

Experiencing short term memory loss? http://www.65grendel.com/forum/showthrea...post236329

California has a mandatory back ground check even for private sales. If the seller sold it without a back ground check then he committed a crime. If he did, the back ground check failed.

California did not then require background checks for private sales.

[Fess]

I have no idea what he is talking about : lots of errors and bold underlined below??? I sent him the exact gun facts I posted on this forum. I cant believe it would be hard to explain his Alabama statistics, since they were obviously not correct after doing a little research. I will be much more careful when posting statistics from now on, especially from John Lott. I apologize for the mistake.

Given the 30,000 number for firearm related deaths mentioned, I suspect that the data is a number of years old. The CDC number for firearm-related deaths in 2019 has climbed to 39,773. Again this is based on "cause of death" listed on death certificates so it is not just for murders. If indeed the 1-firearm-murder-in-Alabama info is from Mr. Lott, it has been brought to his attention many times over the years, that could explain the terse response. It is old news to him. This is a business for him. He makes a lot of money from speaking engagements and commenting at places like Fox News about firearms and crime data, so his income is largely tied to being sensational. Mr Lott is a very smart guy and has published books filled with firearms statistics since 1998, so it is nearly impossible that he believed Alabama data was correct. He also knew that as long as he could correctly claim that his data is from an FBI report, he was ok from a legal standpoint. Merely misleading people without telling an outright lie is not against the law. Very clever people can still be sneaky.

Over the years I have learned to be suspicious of "facts" that seem too extreme, imply that the opposing group is either corrupt or incredibly stupid, or that are designed to elicit an emotional response. Especially that last one. If a speaker can get a group chanting, he knows they are no longer thinking critically. My wife is relatively liberal, so I see things like this from both the left and the right. My physical activities are often restricted these days, so I have more time than most people to research topics like this. I apologize if I get too wordy. My Dad was right when he said "ask that boy what time it is and he will tell you how to build a watch!"

[Double Naught Spy]

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426) Must have forgotten that fact Stan. What constituted a citizen back then has been rectified today. We already had that discussion.

George Mason and many of the founding fathers had various opinions on what a militia should be, but that isn't necessarily what the country recognized as such.

The earliest federal legal definition I find in US law for 'militia' that is close to the time of the Constitution was the second Militia Act of 1792. It conscripted every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company. It also required each to own a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a box able to contain not less than 24 suitable cartridges, and a knapsack: or a rifle, powder horn, ? pound of gunpowder, 20 rifle balls, a shot-pouch, etc., thereby taking away the right to keep and bear arms by making it a stipulation of conscripts.

In 1862, that was updated to include males of all races between the ages of 18 and 54. In 1903, the militia became the National Guard.

[stanc]

The earliest federal legal definition I find in US law for 'militia' that is close to the time of the Constitution was the second Militia Act of 1792. It conscripted every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company. It also required each to own a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a box able to contain not less than 24 suitable cartridges, and a knapsack: or a rifle, powder horn, ? pound of gunpowder, 20 rifle balls, a shot-pouch, etc., thereby taking away the right to keep and bear arms by making it a stipulation of conscripts.

Uh, no. Requiring militia members to keep and bear arms, does not prevent them from keeping and bearing arms.

It does take away their freedom of choice, though.

[montana]

George Mason and many of the founding fathers had various opinions on what a militia should be, but that isn't necessarily what the country recognized as such.

The earliest federal legal definition I find in US law for 'militia' that is close to the time of the Constitution was the second Militia Act of 1792. It conscripted every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company. It also required each to own a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a box able to contain not less than 24 suitable cartridges, and a knapsack: or a rifle, powder horn, ? pound of gunpowder, 20 rifle balls, a shot-pouch, etc., thereby taking away the right to keep and bear arms by making it a stipulation of conscripts.

In 1862, that was updated to include males of all races between the ages of 18 and 54. In 1903, the militia became the National Guard.

I have posted this before, but there is a difference between the organized and un-organised militia. The national guard is still under the Federal governments control.https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-10-ar...t-311.html

[montana]

Given the 30,000 number for firearm related deaths mentioned, I suspect that the data is a number of years old. The CDC number for firearm-related deaths in 2019 has climbed to 39,773. Again this is based on "cause of death" listed on death certificates so it is not just for murders. If indeed the 1-firearm-murder-in-Alabama info is from Mr. Lott, it has been brought to his attention many times over the years, that could explain the terse response. It is old news to him. This is a business for him. He makes a lot of money from speaking engagements and commenting at places like Fox News about firearms and crime data, so his income is largely tied to being sensational. Mr Lott is a very smart guy and has published books filled with firearms statistics since 1998, so it is nearly impossible that he believed Alabama data was correct. He also knew that as long as he could correctly claim that his data is from an FBI report, he was ok from a legal standpoint. Merely misleading people without telling an outright lie is not against the law. Very clever people can still be sneaky.

Over the years I have learned to be suspicious of "facts" that seem too extreme, imply that the opposing group is either corrupt or incredibly stupid, or that are designed to elicit an emotional response. Especially that last one. If a speaker can get a group chanting, he knows they are no longer thinking critically. My wife is relatively liberal, so I see things like this from both the left and the right. My physical activities are often restricted these days, so I have more time than most people to research topics like this. I apologize if I get too wordy. My Dad was right when he said "ask that boy what time it is and he will tell you how to build a watch!"

I enjoy differing opinions and discussions, but it irks me when some people like Lott champion a cause with dubious information. He may have a lot of accurate info, but with even one fact that is deliberately deceiving, it discredits his name and information which is unforgivable IMO. I have many liberal friends,"not the new antifa group think" and have had some heated, but respectful debates. In the end, we all want what is best for our family and community. Freedom and choice, "not collectivism" has always been my motivator.

[montana]

You not only could be wrong, you are wrong. While training in marksmanship and the safe use of firearms is a part of what constitutes a well regulated militia, such individual training is not the sole determining factor. If it were, the Second Militia Act of 1792 would need to have been only one sentence.

I never said it was, but like you just stated, it is a part of it.

I don't see anything whatsoever in that article which supports your notion that "well regulated" = "trained
However, it certainly agrees with what I have said. It was almost as if I was reading one of my own posts."

I quote" As noted by Jeffrey Rogers Hummel, many states experimented with various measures designed to increase the training and readiness of this militia. That is, there were efforts to make the unorganized militia moderately more "organized." Well regulated or organized.

Sure, I understand properly organized, disciplined, and trained. What I no comprendo is how your statement "Exactly and the reason well regulated involves the 2ndA" makes any sense in response to my comment that "Perhaps the unit commander would've been replaced?"

Well regulated, trained and organized is a part of the militia, which is subject to the laws and regulations set for for the un-organised militia by the states..The "Unorganized Militia" and Private Gun Ownership

As Brion McClanahan has shown, the Second Amendment ? like the First Amendment ? was never written to apply to the states themselves, but to Congress. The states were still free to regulate the ownership of weaponry in their own constitutions and by their own legislatures. Most state governments, however, elected to include provisions in their own constitutions protecting private gun ownership as an element of the state's overall militia strategy.

:confused: I did not say it negates the principle of the militia. I said that "the whole people" did not have the same meaning in the 18th Century, that it has today.

I misunderstood your point, so you are correct.

Please enlighten me. In which States are citizens still conscripted into militia service, and required to furnish their own individual weapons?
That's an evasion, not an answer.And I never said the National Guard is the militia. I said the National Guard superseded the State militia system established by the Founders.

The national guard did not supersede the militia, it is the organized militia. I never stated they have recently conscripted the un-organized militia into service, but the laws are still on the books if needed.

Experiencing short term memory loss? http://www.65grendel.com/forum/showthrea...post236329

That is quite possible, I am getting older. I forgot you had no solutions, just criticisms.

California did not then require background checks for private sales.

OK

[stanc]

I have posted this before, but there is a difference between the organized and un-organised militia.

Indeed, there is a considerable difference.

Members of the organized militia were required to have suitable weapons, and participate in military training and operations.

The unorganized militia was really just a manpower pool, and its members were not required to own weapons or be trained.

The national guard is still under the Federal governments control.https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-10-ar...t-311.html

Notice that even today, the militia is not "the whole people." It is males of military age, and female citizens who are members of the National Guard.

[stanc]

The national guard did not supersede the militia, it is the organized militia.

The National Guard is the organized militia today precisely because it superseded -- replaced -- the State militia system established by the Founders.

"Today's National Guard is thus a far cry from what the Founders' understood a militia to be" https://mises.org/wire/why-we-cant-ignor...-amendment