Excellent! Stats on gun violence

[montana]

The National Guard is the organized militia today precisely because it superseded -- replaced -- the State militia system established by the Founders.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

Fearful that a large federal military could be used to destroy the freedoms of the states themselves, Anti-Federalists and other Americans fearful of centralized power in the US government designed the Second Amendment accordingly. It was designed to guarantee that the states would be free to raise and train their own militias as a defense against federal power, and as a means of keeping a defensive military force available to Americans while remaining outside the direct control of the federal government.
The unorganized militia was imagined as a sort of potential militia, that could be, as made clear in numerous state constitutions, called to assemble, with arms, to "aid the civil power.

Yes, the use and idea of the un-organized militia is not thought well of today by centralist and revisionist, but the militia laws have not been repealed and it has recently been proven to fight a corrupt federal government.https://www.dailyyonder.com/5-years-bund.../12/31385/

[stanc]

The National Guard is the organized militia today precisely because it superseded -- replaced -- the State militia system established by the Founders.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

Fearful that a large federal military could be used to destroy the freedoms of the states themselves, Anti-Federalists and other Americans fearful of centralized power in the US government designed the Second Amendment accordingly. It was designed to guarantee that the states would be free to raise and train their own militias as a defense against federal power, and as a means of keeping a defensive military force available to Americans while remaining outside the direct control of the federal government.
The unorganized militia was imagined as a sort of potential militia, that could be, as made clear in numerous state constitutions, called to assemble, with arms, to "aid the civil power.

Yes, the use and idea of the un-organized militia is not thought well of today by centralist and revisionist, but the militia laws have not been repealed and it has recently been proven to fight a corrupt federal government.https://www.dailyyonder.com/5-years-bund.../12/31385/

LOL. That was not the militia at the Bundy Ranch. It was an armed mob, and they were certainly not there to "aid the civil power." Just the opposite, they were there to prevent law enforcement agents from doing their job.

If George Washington had been President, he would've called up the militia -- the real militia -- which would have arrested any of those miscreants who were dumb enough to still be there when the National Guard arrived on the scene. https://billofrightsinstitute.org/educat...rebellion/

And FYI, the militia laws were about the formation and employment of State military forces. Those laws do not, in any way, advocate or condone private citizens taking up arms against the government. That is called insurrection, which the militia can be -- and has been -- used to suppress.

[montana]

[

And FYI, the militia laws were about the formation and employment of State military forces. Those laws do not, in any way, advocate or condone private citizens taking up arms against the government. That is called insurrection, which the militia can be -- and has been -- used to suppress.

That was not the militia at the Bundy Ranch. It was an armed mob, and they were certainly not there to "aid the civil power." Just the opposite, they were there to prevent law enforcement agents from doing their job.

Mob or militia, they forced the over reaching feds to back down with their armed assault. It is too bad they were not at the Weaver fiasco and maybe Vicki, and Sammy Weaver would still be alive today.. He would have been 27 years old this year.https://law.jrank.org/pages/3562/Randy-W...fense.html Bundy and sons won their trial if you needed a little up date, as did Randy Weaver. The feds tried to give Weaver and friend the death sentence. Ironic how no government person was ever convicted after two innocent people were murdered by them. https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-bun...story.html These are the exact misuse of federal powers and over reach the militia was suppose to guard against.
Like I have stated before, the 2ndA is about division of power, "whether people wish to exercise that right or not" is another story.

[stanc]

Mob or militia, they forced the over reaching feds to back down with their armed assault. It is too bad they were not at the Weaver fiasco and maybe Vicki, and Sammy Weaver would still be alive today.. He would have been 27 years old this year.https://law.jrank.org/pages/3562/Randy-W...fense.html Bundy and sons won their trial if you needed a little up date, as did Randy Weaver. The feds tried to give Weaver and friend the death sentence. Ironic how no government person was ever convicted after two innocent people were murdered by them.

Meh. Police murder people every year, and usually they are not even charged with a crime.

These are the exact misuse of federal powers and over reach the militia was suppose to guard against.

You have a view of the Founders' intent that is inconsistent with reality. You place far too much importance on what some of them said, while ignoring what their generation actually did.

The Founders did not intend for State militias to be used to assist lawbreakers like Bundy, and prevent federal agents from performing their assigned duties.

Actually, the Founders' intent was just the opposite, as shown by George Washington's use of the militia against Pennsylvania farmers.

Like I have stated before, the 2ndA is about division of power...

Yeah, I guess you could say that, since the purpose of the 2A is to assure that members of State militias would have access to military weapons, so that the States could, if necessary, field military forces capable of opposing the US Army.

[NugginFutz]

Just got back from Boston. Thought I would catch up and read a new thread in the 2A. Little did I suspect that the last 2 pages would be rubber stamp talking points from a majority of previously closed threads. I'm going back to Boston...

[montana]

Just got back from Boston. Thought I would catch up and read a new thread in the 2A. Little did I suspect that the last 2 pages would be rubber stamp talking points from a majority of previously closed threads. I'm going back to Boston...

I was wondering where you were, I was hoping you would have put a stop to it along time ago. Stan and I need supervision!

[stanc]

Just got back from Boston. Thought I would catch up and read a new thread in the 2A. Little did I suspect that the last 2 pages would be rubber stamp talking points from a majority of previously closed threads. I'm going back to Boston...

[Kswhitetails]

Man, it seems Stan really rubs many of you guys the wrong way. I can see his condescending tone; but most of the time, it amuses me.

Here's the dirty little secret: He's mostly right. Far more often than wrong. Factually, I cannot find fault. Feelings, opinion and anecdotal stories are irrelevant.

He reminds me of a grumpy old law professor challenging his students to think. Really think. Stop arguing long enough to think and realize that his guidance is actually correct.

He may have some poor bedside manor, but he's damned well educated in the forum of firearms and firearm ownership. I've been looking for a source of compiled writings, so far mostly archived articles and overpriced re-printings of magazines of yesteryear.

Folks are going to start saying I'm on Stan's side. Well, if being on the side of facts makes someone uncomfortable... then -

I've posted when I thought he was wrong, and argued logic and reason against him. Only to find out he was right, more than once. I've eaten my crow in the corner, alone and embarrassed. Thanks, for that Stan...

Nuggin, you've missed some good stuff. Montana, there is no such thing as an unalienable right if it has restrictions placed on it. They cannot co-exist. It either is unalienable, or it isn't. There is no such thing as "Common sense gun control" and a true unalienable right to bear arms. Grizzly, Black, Brown, Polar, or otherwise...

[montana]

Man, it seems Stan really rubs many of you guys the wrong way. I can see his condescending tone; but most of the time, it amuses me.

Here's the dirty little secret: He's mostly right. Far more often than wrong. Factually, I cannot find fault. Feelings, opinion and anecdotal stories are irrelevant.

He reminds me of a grumpy old law professor challenging his students to think. Really think. Stop arguing long enough to think and realize that his guidance is actually correct.

He may have some poor bedside manor, but he's damned well educated in the forum of firearms and firearm ownership. I've been looking for a source of compiled writings, so far mostly archived articles and overpriced re-printings of magazines of yesteryear.

Folks are going to start saying I'm on Stan's side. Well, if being on the side of facts makes someone uncomfortable... then -

I've posted when I thought he was wrong, and argued logic and reason against him. Only to find out he was right, more than once. I've eaten my crow in the corner, alone and embarrassed. Thanks, for that Stan...

Nuggin, you've missed some good stuff. Montana, there is no such thing as an unalienable right if it has restrictions placed on it. They cannot co-exist. It either is unalienable, or it isn't. There is no such thing as "Common sense gun control" and a true unalienable right to bear arms. Grizzly, Black, Brown, Polar, or otherwise...

Kswhitetails, I will let you in on a little secret, I like Stan and most of the grumpy, snarky people who are on this forum. I have never learned anything in an echo chamber.What have we learned from all this:

Gun rights are not connected to the militia.

John Lott's stats are not reliable.

The un-organized militia was suppose to be a balance against a federal standing army, "controlled by the states" not the feds and is the unconscious uncle on life
support that was replaced with the national guard funded and controlled by the federal government, defeating the point of the militia in the first place.

Unalienable rights do not exist if there are restrictions on them, " since there are restrictions on them" they must not really exist.

Emotion guides our interpretation of our laws instead of statistics and facts, which is exploited by those in power who need to be re-elected. A population hyped up by a corrupt media that wants action to stop mass shootings, while ignoring more real threats and concerns that have no political gain to exploit.

[stanc]

Kswhitetails, I will let you in on a little secret, I like Stan and most of the grumpy, snarky people who are on this forum. I have never learned anything in an echo chamber.What have we learned from all this:

Gun rights are not connected to the militia.

John Lott's stats are not reliable.

The un-organized militia was suppose to be a balance against a federal standing army, "controlled by the states" not the feds and is the unconscious uncle on life
support that was replaced with the national guard funded and controlled by the federal government, defeating the point of the militia in the first place.

Unalienable rights do not exist if there are restrictions on them, " since there are restrictions on them" they must not really exist.

Emotion guides our interpretation of our laws instead of statistics and facts, which is exploited by those in power who need to be re-elected. A population hyped up by a corrupt media that wants action to stop mass shootings, while ignoring more real threats and concerns that have no political gain to exploit.

We have also learned that the militia is not now, and never has been, "the whole people".

[montana]

We have also learned that the militia is not now, and never has been, "the whole people".

No way am I going to respond to that, Nuggin's has his CZ550 cross hairs on me.

[stanc]

No way am I going to respond to that, Nuggin's has his CZ550 cross hairs on me.

Wut? Do you still cling to the belief that the militia is the entire populace, even though the federal statute that you yourself linked to says otherwise?

The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32 , under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-10-ar...t-311.html

[montana]

Wut? Do you still cling to the belief that the militia is the entire populace, even though the federal statute that you yourself linked to says otherwise?

You are correct, maybe. (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Under Federal law, every able-bodied male between 17 and 45 is “the militia”. (Constitutional amendments passed since that law went into effect in 1903 may render the limit to “males” and ages unconstitutional but that has never been tested in the courts.)

Like I said Stan, our debates may drive people crazy, but I do enjoy learning from you. Thanks for being patient with me.

[stanc]

You are correct, maybe. (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Paragraph (b) sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) just define the two classes of militia. Paragraph (a) specifies which people are in the two classes.

[stanc]

I forgot you had no solutions, just criticisms.

And I forgot to address this. The reason I have no solutions is that I think there are no legislative responses that will reduce -- let alone stop -- mass shootings, without further infringing on the RKBA.

Now, if you're willing to take away some people's rights on the belief that they might commit a crime, I'm sure that "red flag" laws would reduce the number of mass shootings, but it would be impossible to determine how many -- if any -- mass shootings had been prevented.

And since a federal "red flag" law won't prevent mass shootings, after the next shooting the anti-gun types will be saying, "Okay, we tried it your way and it didn't work. The ony way to stop this senseless slaughter is to ban these weapons of war!"

[montana]

And I forgot to address this. The reason I have no solutions is that I think there are no legislative responses that will reduce -- let alone stop -- mass shootings, without further infringing on the RKBA.

Now, if you're willing to take away some people's rights on the belief that they might commit a crime, I'm sure that "red flag" laws would reduce the number of mass shootings, but it would be impossible to determine how many -- if any -- mass shootings had been prevented.

And since a federal "red flag" law won't prevent mass shootings, after the next shooting the anti-gun types will be saying, "Okay, we tried it your way and it didn't work. The ony way to stop this senseless slaughter is to ban these weapons of war!"

I agree 100% Stan. Well stated!

[lazyengineer]

Red Flag: Conspiracy to commit murder is illegal. If there is credible basis to arrest one on conspiracy to commit murder; then there we go. Walla, turns out, we've had Red Flag for a long time actually.

As to Well Regulated Militia, mass shootings, etc. Eh, the GCA of 1968 made purchase age of pistols (kill'a majig's) 21, and Rifles & Shotguns (hunt'a majig's) 18. A case could be made than in 2019 a <$400 30 round AR15 at every corner gun-store, is more consistent with the pistol side of that logic, than the rifle side; and so should be 21. Then again, a case could be made that GCA '68 is horseshit and should be repealed.

[CJW]

Great piece! I would encourage you to submit this as an opinion piece to as many newspapers as possible, including the WSJ, the NYT, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, the Chicago Sun-Times, the Los Angeles Times, and others. Don?t take ?no? for an answer. I am not knowledgeable about how the social media outlets work, but that platform would perhaps reach more younger people/younger voters, who would not necessarily read a newspaper.
Thanks much!

[Fess]

Has anyone here studied the "Founding Fathers" enough to have a feeling about how THEY viewed the Constitution? Did they expect that it would be a living document, continually changing, or did they ever expect that parts of it like the 2A would be considered essentially sacred? I wonder how many of the would be surprised that their document has lasted this long?

It seems that the writers of the US Constitution liked using flowery yet technically uncompromising terms like "unalienable rights" with the tacit assumption that common sense would be applied. This goes back to the point that if the RKBA is an absolute right, then arms could not be taken away from criminals in prison or the insane. To that, the writers would certainly respond "don't be silly, use your head, man." That is one reason that it is so difficult to interpret the Constitution for a world they could not have imagined.

[stanc]

Has anyone here studied the "Founding Fathers" enough to have a feeling about how THEY viewed the Constitution? Did they expect that it would be a living document, continually changing, or did they ever expect that parts of it like the 2A would be considered essentially sacred?

Since they made provision for amending any part of the Constitution -- including the Bill of Rights and other amendments -- it would seem that they viewed no part of it as sacred, and they intended that it could be revised as society changed. And that includes the Second Amendment.

It seems that the writers of the US Constitution liked using flowery yet technically uncompromising terms like "unalienable rights" with the tacit assumption that common sense would be applied.

It's quite possible they didn't mean that rights were literally unalienable, since their actions make it clear that when they wrote "all men" are created equal and endowed with unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, that they didn't mean "all people" had those rights.