Should Gun Owners Have to Join the Reserves? IE "A well regulated militia".

[marble falls]

Should Gun Owners Have to Join the Reserves?

By Ozy EditorsOCT 222013
POV
Why you should care

http://www.ozy.com/pov/should-gun-owners-have-to-join-the-reserves/1412

Because in some states in America, gun deaths are now as common as motor vehicle fatalities.


It’s time for American gun-control advocates to face facts: The latest attempt at reform was over before the Bushmaster rifle that Adam Lanza used to murder 26 teachers and children at Sandy Hook Elementary School had cooled. No matter how gruesome the carnage from the latest shooting, any attempt to meaningfully limit the number of guns or gun owners in the U.S. will be met by overwhelming firepower from the NRA, the Supreme Court and the millions of Americans who oppose restrictions on a time-honored right. In Colorado, two Democrats who backed tough gun-control laws were ousted in a special election . It was just another defeat for gun-control moderates. Every gun-control battle that’s lost drives up demand for more firearms and further lines the pockets of gun manufacturers.

If you can’t bear the responsibility of bearing a firearm, then perhaps you shouldn’t be bearing one.


<snip>

“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.” The Second Amendment expressly links an individual’s right to bear arms to the broader need to secure the public’s safety. In other words, with that right comes a corresponding responsibility, and if you can’t bear the responsibility of bearing a firearm, then perhaps you shouldn’t be bearing one.
We'll introduce you to all the right people.
Rising stars, new trends and more. Get your daily brief & your eight must-reads delivered to your inbox every morning.

Doesn’t it make sense that any American seeking to own a gun should be required to make a pledge to abide by the spirit of the Second Amendment and man a post? After all, the founding fathers specifically contemplated actual militias in conferring the right. As Fordham University historian Saul Cornell reminds us, the Constitution focuses more on maintaining citizen militias than protecting individual rights, and “what’s easy to forget is that the Second Amendment actually poses an enormous burden on the citizenry.”
gun

<snip>

Asking prospective gun owners to enlist in the reserves would certainly help separate the true patriots from those who merely dress like them on the weekends. It would also ensure that every gun owner receives proper weapons training, gets screened for mental or emotional issues and comes away with a deeper sense of duty to his community. This approach has worked in Switzerland, where gun ownership is coupled with mandatory (male) service and they have one-tenth the number of gun deaths we have in the U.S., even though the Swiss own about half as many guns per capita as Americans.

<snip>

[Press Virginia]

1. Already a member

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

[tabasco]

47. Well, if George Mason said it,

Last edited Tue Feb 9, 2016, 03:31 PM - Edit history (1)

it must be the law of the land for evermore.

[Press Virginia]

49. If we're going to suggest that gun owners be members of the Militia

we should know what was intended by the term.

[tabasco]

55. And you posted George Mason's opinion

That's one person.

[Press Virginia]

58. It happens to be the very definition of what the Militia is

A supplemental force, made up of nonprofessionals

I'm pretty certain he wasn't confused by what it was

[tabasco]

67. And now we have your opinion.

So you got two so far.

[Press Virginia]

71. Not my opinion....it's the actual definition of the word

Furthermore, the Militia, has been codified in US Law.

[tabasco]

81. "Well regulated militia" is not every jackass walking down the street.

That's my opinion.

Laws change. So do Supreme Court decisions. There have been Supreme Court decisions and codified laws providing for slavery, wife beating, etc. Society changes and so do laws. Prepare to deal with it -- preferably not by stockpiling weapons like a loon.

[Press Virginia]

89. It's not? why?

the right to own arms is reserved to the people in the recognition that a militia is necessary for the preservation of A free state.
The congress may call forth the militia in time of insurrection or to repel invasion but, otherwise, has no power to regulate that which only exists when needed.

The people are the militia, so it only stands that the people retain the right to bear arms.

[tabasco]

94. A jackass walking down the street is not "well regulated."

He's just a jackass walking down the street. The Guard and Reserves are well regulated militias. Others are just civilian wannabes, not regulated by anybody at all. Words have meanings, Well regulated means well regulated.

[Press Virginia]

96. The Guard and Reserve are State and Federal Military branches

Surely you don't think the 2A was protecting the rights of the government.

Who is supposed to regulate this militia, which congress has the power to call up in time of insurrection or invasion? How are they to be regulated?


And yes, words do have meaning...the 2A doesn't say the "military" or "militiamen" it says "the right of the people"

[jmg257]

110. Well sheesh that's easy - oh right its the Congress,...

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Article I section 8

[Press Virginia]

111. They can do that when they call forth the Militia to put down insurrection or fight invasion

What about the rest of the time?

[jmg257]

115. NO - they have the power all the time. It is quite clear how the Militias were to be regulated.

As evident in the 1st Militia Acts passed down by Congress in 1792, where the Congress was very specific on how the militias were to be regulated...organized, trained, armed, disciplined etc.


"The Militia Act of 1792, Passed May 8, 1792, providing federal standards for the organization of the Militia.

An ACT more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States.
..."

Armed:

"...That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein...and etc."


Organized:

"III. And be it further enacted, That within one year after the passing of the Act, the militia of the respective states shall be arranged into divisions, brigades, regiments, battalions, and companies, as the legislature of each state shall direct...etc etc."

Trained/disciplined per Von Stuben's Blue Book..

"VII. And be it further enacted, That the rules of discipline, approved and established by Congress, in their resolution of the twenty-ninth of March, 1779, shall be the rules of discipline so be observed by the militia throughout the United States,...etc. etc."


I.E. Well regulated Militias...provided for by the Congress.

[Press Virginia]

118. Only when they have been called forth as prescribed in Art 1

If the militia hasn't been called forth, then it remains any jackass walking down the street

[jmg257]

119. Sorry you are wrong. It doesn't say that. You are confusing "governing" with "organizing..."

One of Washington's great concerns was how the quickly the Congress was to provide for regulating the Militias. He even had his own notions, and had John Knox come up with a scheme on how Congress should do so. Mostly ignored - the Congress used state examples for the most part.

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States,

There are plenty of documentation of the early congressional debates over the creation of the Militias Acts - you should check them out.

[Press Virginia]

120. The militia is not currently in service to the US, right?

So, currently, congress has no authority to regulate you or me in terms of service to the US.
We remain just 2 jackasses on a message board

[jmg257]

121. Well- you or I are not in the Constitutional Militia, nor the new well-regulated

Militia - AKA the National Guard. i do believe they ARE in service currently.

IF we were in the organized militia - we should be able to own all kinds of military grade small arms - M9s, M4s, M16s, etc. and be well trained, so we could be most effective, as intended by the constitution.

The people decided long ago you and I are not very effective as the Militia, despite what the 2nd says about they're being "necessary", because we weren't well-regulated, or really didn't even sign/show up, so they re-organized the militia into the NG.

[Press Virginia]

125. Actually we are.

The Militia isn't the professional or "semi" professional services.

It is, by definition, a supplement to those forces as a non professional defense force.

Surely you don't think you surrendered your rights to the government because it formed the National Guard

[jmg257]

127. THE Militias are (or were) well-defined entities. They pre-dated the Constitution.

They were NOT defined in the constitution because they did not need to be.

By definition, THE Militia (of the several States) existed, as they were declared mandatory in the Articles of Confederation:

"but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia"

The Constitution recognizes these (and only these state (today there would be 50 of them) well-regulated entities, and gives them very vital roles in securing our freedom:

"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
...
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress"
...
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;"
...
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,..."

They certainly WERE meant to be semi-professional - hence the new powers of Congress in regulating them! And the Militia Acts in just how they would be regulated. The State Militia were vital!!!
And within certain guidelines, we were "all" meant to be part of them:

"That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act."


i.e. you and I are NOT 'the militia'...not the constitutional ones anyway. Since the Dick Act the definition of those Militias has changed = National Guard. You and I are thrown a bone by being in the UNorganized militia, which, by definition is NOT well-regulated as required by the 2nd, nor as referred to in the Constitution and resultant Militia Acts:

"VII. And be it further enacted, That the rules of discipline, approved and established by Congress, in their resolution of the twenty-ninth of March, 1779, shall be the rules of discipline so be observed by the militia throughout the United States, except such deviations from the said rules, as may be rendered necessary by the requisitions of the Act, or by some other unavoidable circumstances. It shall be the duty of the Commanding Officer as every muster, whether by battalion, regiment, or single company, to cause the militia to be exercised and trained, agreeably to the said rules of said discipline.


No, my rights exist with or without the Bill of Rights which serves to help secure them.

[Press Virginia]

130. You are aware that the Guard is the government and the 2A wasn't intended to

To protect the rights of the government?

The militia is the whole of the people. It's local. You know the whole get to appoint their own leaders thing....

[jmg257]

131. I am aware the NG is a federal entity, and serves as reserve for the military.

You are aware that THE PEOPLE, or at least their representatives, are the ones who re-defined The Militias?
You are aware THE PEOPLE, or at least their representatives, came up with the laws (re-)defining the organized and unorganized militias?

The people, in the US, are an UNorganized militia. Clearly not the ones referred to in the Constitution.

The 2nd was meant to secure the existence of THE Militias, and to make sure they were WELL REGULATED (well-regulated militias are "necessary&quot , by securing the rights of the people, because the Congress were given new powers over them - over the militias. The alternative to well-regulated militias were large standing Armies (also another notion shot down by the people - our armies are HUGE, and we have a kick-ass Navy).

"It's local. You know the whole get to appoint their own leaders thing."

??? Where did you get this notion from??

You are aware THE STATES were given that power?

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress"

[Press Virginia]

132. Commissions aren't from the state. So the state isn't appointing officers

we have 2 classes of Militia in this country. The NG doesn't supplant the unorganized militia, which can be called to service and regulated by congress.

When not in service, the militia exists and is not subject to the regulation of congress. It is the whole of the people and, therefore, the right to bear arms is that of the people. We don't surrender that right because congress or the state forms a semi professional force under the authority of the government.

[jmg257]

133. Now that's a good argument! I like it.

Because a well-regulated militia exists = the National Guard, which by definition is subject to congressional guidelines, AND an unorganized militia exists = the rest of us, which by definition is NOT typically subject to congressional guidelines, either/both of which may be called up per Title 10, the 2nd is covered (A well regulated militia ("...necessary&quot exists) AND it is imperative our rights continue to be secured by the 2nd as we are a militia by law.

Hmmm...


Cheers!

[Press Virginia]

134. Thank you. Enjoyed the discussion

[former9thward]

88. It is the law of the land.

10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes, to be exact.

[hack89]

2. Go read title 10 of the Federal code. The question has already been answered. nt

[hack89]

3. The 2A protects an individual right to keep and bear arms

according to the Supreme Court, the Democratic Party platform and the President.

Time to move on.

[Orrex]

65. Please speculate as to what would happen:

Suppose the Democratic party and President actually came out in opposition to individual gun ownership. What do you honestly expect would happen to them as a result?

I am not confident that Democrats' statements made on the issue are, in general, free of the duress imposed by political reality (i.e., the political suicide that they would be committing by setting themselves directly against the NRA's propaganda machine). As such, I don't accept that their support of individual gun ownership is as clear or ironclad as it's purported to be.

I admit that this is supposition, but it's consistent with previous strategies re: marriage equality, etc.

Similarly, it's possible that a 21st century SCOTUS might act to reinterpret the 2nd Amendment more tightly than is currently the fashion.


In short, it is most certainly not time to move on.

[friendly_iconoclast]

68. Fair enough question. In your own words, how would this state of affairs be brought about?

[hack89]

69. Nothing will happen since the 2A is somewhat irrelevant to the failure of gun control at the moment

AWBs, registration, licensing requirements, storage requirements, training requirements, etc are all perfectly legal and constitutional right now. You don't need to change the 2A one iota to implement them nationwide.

Time to stop using the 2A as an excuse. If you want to pass stricter gun control then convince the American people that you are right.

[Orrex]

72. I disagree

A great deal of the current pro-gun rhetoric both on DU and in the real world is based squarely on the purported right of the individual to keep and bear arms. If it were decided, for example, that the 2nd Amendment applies to actual militias rather than to individuals, it would fundamentally transform the debate.

Time to stop using the 2A as an excuse. If you want to pass stricter gun control then convince the American people that you are right.

Oh, come on. You know as well as I do that "the American people" have little impact on the process when the NRA and its puppets have billions already in the system. Further, any law that gets passed will be swatted down as contrary to the very amendment that you pretend is irrelevant.

[hack89]

76. AWBs, registration, licensing, magazine size limit laws were not "swatted down" were they?

or was I imagining all those laws passed post-Sandy Hook in NY, CT and CO?

Hell, CT had an AWB and registration pre Sandy Hook. Lanza's guns were legal and registered under CT's AWB.

[Orrex]

84. And they are routinely mocked as useless "feel good" legislation

In other words, toothless and ineffective laws are fine, but laws that might actually have an impact are certainly swatted down. You know this.

[hack89]

85. So give me a concrete example of a law that was recently overturned in court due to the 2A

Something that would have an impact beyond AWBs, registration or magazine size limits.

Time for you to cough up some links.

So you do agree that AWBs, registration and magazine size limits are feel good laws? Good - you are finally seeing the light.

[Orrex]

91. I'm on a phone--can't give links now

And I don't agree that those are feel good laws--that's the propaganda spread by the NRA and its surrogates.

[beevul]

92. What did the AWB that was in effect at state level during sandy hook do...

And I don't agree that those are feel good laws--that's the propaganda spread by the NRA and its surrogates.

What did the AWB that was in effect at state level during sandy hook do, except make people feel good?

[hack89]

93. So effective laws were passed against NRA opposition?

I thought they were all swatted down?

[Orrex]

100. Look, I know you're not stupid, so don't waste my time.

Name a law in the last 15 years that actually restricts gun ownership (other than for minors, felons, etc.) that has passed SCOTUS scrutiny.

[hack89]

102. No. You were going to show me effective laws that were "swatted down" because of the 2A

Are you conceding that point?

As for your question, doesn't that reflect the political weakness of gun control and their absolute inability to pass legislation? It certainly has nothing to do with the 2A. Even Scalia says in Heller that the 2A permits strict regulation of guns.

[NeoGreen]

4. I would agree that some form of reglulated entity...

...is desirable but not necessarily a branch of the US military Reserves or a State Guard.

While I fully embrace the concept of "well regulated", I don't think it requires the primary entity to be a government agency.

The AMA, a private organization, regulates the medical professions, as I understand the world, as approved/monitored by the State.

I would be interested in a government sponsored entity a step down from the Reserves, a "State Militia" something on the level of the old CCC.

Pondering...

[Duckhunter935]

5. I agree with the individual right

To keep and bear arms as also endorsed by President Obama and the Democratic party.

[GGJohn]

6. I already served, so why should I have to join the Reserves, even if I were young enough? eom

[TeddyR]

7. I'm all for mandatory service for every citizen, not just for those who want to purchase a firearm

Be it in the military or some other option similar to a Peace Corps or simply service in a state agency that works to improve infrastructure and help other. But as others have pointed out, the "militia" and the National Guard are two distinct entities and according to the Founding Fathers the "militia" is comprised of all citizens.

I'd quibble with the idea that "the" reason for the Second Amendment is a "well-regulated militia." Rather, that is "a" reason. There's a lot of scholarly debate on this issue, but Heller resolved the question by holding that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, not only the right of those in a "militia."

[Recursion]

8. My grandfather owned 450 acres on the Brazos River in Texas

As a teenager, I would go out with a tactical shotgun to bring the cattle and goats (and emus, at one point... don't ask...) in. And I think that's an entirely legitimate thing in that situation: if you live in a world with rattlesnakes and coyotes, yes: you probably should be able to own a gun.

Is that relevant to DC or Boston? No! (Though there may be other reasons for a resident of DC or Boston to own a gun.)

My point is: I do believe that at least in theory the right to own and carry a weapon is a legitimate one.

[marble falls]

9. You mean like these guys in Texas protesting undocumented kids at an INS center?

&f=1

[Recursion]

10. No, I don't, thanks for asking!

I mean that I was actually afraid of coyotes and rattlesnakes, and thought I should be able to carry a gun against them. Do you disagree with that?

[marble falls]

16. Not at all. I'm not talking about firearms as tools. I'm talking about firearms as ...

fashion accessories and as intimidation:

http://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.Mecee0b115cde4ab9bd188ba75f048a15o0&w=278&h=184&c=7&rs=1&qlt=90&o=4&pid=1.1


I've owned and used firearms. And I never ever found any need to bring them to a political confrontation. And neither have you. There is a responsible firearm ownership. You certainly are responsible and I hope I am also. Carrying rifles around all the time in mufti just to make a statement is irresponsible.

My suggestion is if those "patriots" are serious they'd gain a little discipline as real militia.

[Hoyt]

28. A gun on farm seems OK. Carrying a gun because one is afraid of, or hates certain, people is another

Or having a room full of gunz and ammo like some here, that's out there in the unregulated militia land.

[Press Virginia]

103. How are the militia to be regulated and by whom?

Congress has the power to call up the militia, in the case of insurrections and invasions, it may equip and set discipline standards to be carried out by the state appointed leaders of the militia...but otherwise, the militia doesn't exist as an organized body.

[Hoyt]

106. Are you saying these gun yahoos will be called up in an insurrection.

[Press Virginia]

109. They may be. You didn't answer my question, though.

Do you have thiughts beyond Ted Nugent and fat guys at Denny's?

[Hoyt]

136. Yes, any yahoo that needs to strap on a gun or two to go to the store, needs counseling.

[beevul]

137. As do those who...

As do those who think they can field strip a 45 underwater in 10 seconds, and all former robbers who try to force their morality on others, and people who claim they can print a concealed carrier at 100 yards.

[Press Virginia]

139. Great. Still not an answer to the question I asked

[Hoyt]

140. I did, you just can't get your mind off gunz long enough to recognize the answer.

[Press Virginia]

141. Uh no you didn't. You did obsess over Ted Nugent and some fat guys at a Denny's

because of their scary guns, I guess.

[jmg257]

112. Congress - Article I section 8 is quite clear...

The Congress shall have power...

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;


The Congress has used it powers to re-organized the Constitutional Militias as the National Guard. Not exactly keeping with the intent of the Constitution & 2nd, but they do represent the people when they passed the Dick Act.

[Press Virginia]

114. Only when they are called forth to put down insurrection or defend from invasion

The Militia is a supplemental, non professional force. It is in addition to the guard and reserves.

The NG is an arm of the government

[Brickbat]

11. They way some people here think of gun owners, I can't imagine they'd want them in the reserves.

[TipTok]

12. They are just looking for a reason to deny access...

[Brickbat]

13. Yep, or a way to "punish."

[Eleanors38]

66. Heh. I saw that.

[Jim Beard]

14. Makes sense to me

but I still want personality test.

[GGJohn]

15. A personality test?

Why?

[Press Virginia]

18. I took one on Facebook

I'm a fluffy duckling

[marble falls]

19. How about to pull psychopaths, sociopaths out of the mix?

[GGJohn]

20. You know how easy it is to fake one of those?

Also, a personality test for a constitutional right? How about a personality test for voting? For driving? etc.

[malokvale77]

61. Or holding office. nt

[CBGLuthier]

17. Yes. Every one of them. The English language isn't that hard.

Except to a handful of stupid SC justices.

[GGJohn]

21. No.

[CBGLuthier]

22. Excellent rebuttal.

You certainly put me in my place. Thank you very much. I now see the error in my thinking.

He said, "No." and I said "Woah, he is right. I am wrong."

Outstanding.

[GGJohn]

23. Thank you.

Why should I, as a retired military officer, have to join the Reserves to own a firearm? Why should anyone have to to exercise a Constitutional right?

[CBGLuthier]

24. Well, because the second amendment says so. Read it very carefully using all of your braincells.

You will see that I am, in fact, right. Notice my use of commas and the nature of clauses in the English language.

[GGJohn]

25. Sorry, but that's been long debunked,

not even Pres. Obama, nor the Democrat Party believes that, and the SC put that to rest with the Heller v. DC decision.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

26. No, the Constitution says

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.

"Well-regulated" doesn't mean "tightly restricted" as a tightly restricted militia is not conducive to, well, much of anything.

The militia is defined in Title 10 USC, Section 311.

The militia is not federal service and never has been. It has always been considered local entities.

The militia is intended to protect "a free state" not "The State." It is a quality that is to be defended, not a particular government body.

Moreover, the militia has always supplied its own weapons. In order for the militia to obtain these weapons there must be a robust marketplace from which to acquire the best arms suitable for any potential calling. Hence, "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

[Hoyt]

29. So, are all you gun fanciers over 45 gonna turn yours in per Title 10 USC, Section 311?

[hack89]

31. No, we will keep them in accordance with the Democratic Party platform. nt

[GGJohn]

32. Nope, I'll keep mine in accordance with the SC decision of Heller v DC,

also, Pres. Obama and the Democrat Party Platform.

[Hoyt]

33. You'd keep yours if they were banned. You can't live without them.

[GGJohn]

34. Probably, but that's not something to worry about,

firearms will never be banned in this country, despite the fervent wishes of a small minority in the country and here on DU.

And you're right, I couldn't live without them, I use them to hunt, keep the predator population in check, etc.

[Hoyt]

38. And to go to town. If you just kept one or two on the farm, wouldn't get criticism.

[GGJohn]

40. I could care less about your criticism,

it really isn't an important component in my life whether or not you approve or disapprove of what I do.

[friendly_iconoclast]

53. The criticism of those who confuse keyboard use with real-life activism is merely noise...

...and should be ignored

[Hoyt]

54. How about those that say gunz are preserving the Constitution or some such BS.

[friendly_iconoclast]

56. *They* work to meet their goals. You lot do little besides wear out keyboards complaining about them

[Hoyt]

60. Yep, they back the NRA and it's racist board members like this loser.

[friendly_iconoclast]

62. What have *you* done in the real world to counter the NRA besides reposting pictures?

Attend meetings? Donate money to anti-gun orgs? Get out the vote for politicians that share your views?
Go to county, municipal, or state hearings to express you views?

Just FYI, a unearned and self-proclaimed sense moral superiority doesn't coun't...

[friendly_iconoclast]

144. Answer: Nothing, apparently...

Last edited Thu Feb 11, 2016, 04:34 PM - Edit history (1)

[Eleanors38]

70. You seem fascinated with this blowhole. Why?

[Hoyt]

74. Typical gun fancier/supporter, don't you think?

[Eleanors38]

75. Nope.

[Hoyt]

77. Very common in my experience -- and an NRA Board Member to boot.

[Snobblevitch]

97. That's the problem woth your POV.

You believe it to be universal when it is far from the reality of who most gun owners really are.

[Hoyt]

98. Haven't seen anything to change my mind. How many do you have and do you tote?

[Snobblevitch]

104. I have written many times on these threads that I do not have a CCW.

What possible difference does it make about how many firearms I own? They are all safely locked up until I choose to transport them out of my home and lawfully use them.

Edit to add:

You made my point in your reply. What you see (as you have described ad nauseoum) is not the reality of the vast majority of gun owners in the U.S. I seem to recall you live in Georgia. Do you ever travel in THE OTHER 49 states? Or have you ever been more than 500 miles from home? (For any length of time, other than military service.)

[Hoyt]

105. Here's another state and I can find plenty more.

[Snobblevitch]

107. Anecdotal and not representative of the vast majority of gun owners in ANY state.

You don't know about the majority of gun owners because they do not do anything to attract attention to themselves.

[GGJohn]

122. What is it with you always posting pictures of your kin?

[Hoyt]

135. Your gun buddies is more like it.

[beevul]

138. I guess...

I guess that makes this guy your buddy then, since we're playing guilt by association:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172186702

[Press Virginia]

101. It's kind of humorous in a sad way

Makes me wonder if someone was touched, inappropriately, by an uncle's firearm back in the day

[Nuclear Unicorn]

35. Where does Title 10 USC, Section 311 require turning-in weapons after turning 46?

[Hoyt]

36. Logic challenges you doesn't it. If you are 46, you aren't in the militia. Turn em in.

Fondle them a few more days, then do the right, "law-abiding" thing.

[GGJohn]

39. Please highlight the part where it says you have to turn in your weapons upon turning

46 years of age.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

41. There's no turn-in requirement. That's pretend wanna-beleev on your part.

Of course, if you were as sincere about the militia as you pretend you would be arguing in favor of military-grade weapons. Care to give that a swing?

[GGJohn]

37. It doesn't, that's just Hoyt trying to look like he knows what he's talking about. eom.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

43. If the militia was truly their genuine concern they'd be arguing to ensure civilians have access to

military grade weapons.

Yeah -- I don't see that happening any time soon.

They want to argue the militia clause but then demand that those who would be subject to militia duty be reduced to the most ineffective weapons such duty would require. Their contradictions betray their insincerity.

[cleanhippie]

42. Perhaps it's your own braincells you shouold be concerned with.

Had you used yours, you'd know that the President, The Democratic Party, and The SCOTUS have already weighed in on this matter, making your opinion flat wrong. Notice my use of facts, not fiction, commas notwithstanding.

[Eleanors38]

123. Damned commanists. At least they don't deal with the foulness of the semi-colon!

[Abq_Sarah]

143. Having read it very carefully,

I suspect you are having problems with the phrase "the right of the people".

[beevul]

79. Why then, are you having troubles understanding it?

The second amendment restricts only government, and authorizes nothing.

It says as much in the preamble to the bill of rights.

[NutmegYankee]

86. What if that gun owner is a Quaker and opposed to warfare?

Do they lose the right to own a gun because of their faith?

[X_Digger]

142. "I'm out of soda, I'm going to the store." -- do stores only sell soda?

Am I obligated to only buy sodas when I go?

You're right, English isn't that hard.

Neither is government, and rights. Rights aren't granted by the Bill of Rights, therefore why a right is protected has no bearing on the scope of the right.

(Thanks, Mr. Ken Smith from 10th grade Government.)

[bigwillq]

27. No (nt)

[Iggo]

30. Sure, why not.

[petronius]

44. No: preserving the ability of states to summon a militia is (one) reason for

protecting the individual right to keep and bear arms, it's not (and should not be) a prerequisite for the exercising of that right by an individual...

[Waldorf]

45. Im sure in those States with the gun deaths they contain large urban settings with gang/drug

problems, which typically involve firearms. I doubt hardly any of them could be in a militia as their are age requirements to legally own firearms, not to mention no being a felon.

[KamaAina]

46. Or be deputized by a local authority.

Either way, someone is responsible for the gun and whatever is done with it.

[friendly_iconoclast]

59. "Someone" is *already* responsible- the person with the gun. See how that works?

[ileus]

50. No...

[PoliticAverse]

51. Note that Federal law declares all males between 17 and 44 (inclusive) to be in the militia...

(as well as any females in the National Guard or Naval Militia):

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes

(a) 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.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

[jmg257]

113. You left out an important part - "the UNORGANIZED militia"...

Clearly not the well-regulated Militias (of the several States) as refered to in the 2nd amendment.

[libodem]

52. Heck, yeah

That at least should give us a list of potential murder/suicide victims accidental child slaying households. I can barely stand to hear of another 3 year old shooting a 9 year old sister story.


Yes, by all means register them into the national reserves, and have them take a gun safety, cleaning, use, and storage class every year.

[Marengo]

99. Who is "us"?

[valerief]

57. Love the idea. nt

[friendly_iconoclast]

63. Fortunately, those with the author's viewpoint have little to no political efficacy...

...so your dream will remain just that!

[Myrina]

64. Difficult question ....

.... Chucklenuts, the loony bird who was escorted out of our office 2 weeks ago by local authorities after showing up with a shaved head, waving around a pocket-Constitution and ranting about 'doing God's will' and 'having special visitors' at the office, and 'the new world order' that our company is supposedly part of .... was in the Army a few years back. He is active National Guard. And has access to weapons.

So, um ... I guess where I'm going is if either A/ weapons sellers and-or B/ the National Guard would be required to do mental health checks to make sure that the combination of 'being part of the militia' and possessing said weapons would really winnow the coconuts out of the basket, then sure. But with that integral piece still missing, I see a lot of Bundy wanna-be's signing up for the Guard thinking they're part of the 'new world order' like Chucklenuts did.

[Eleanors38]

73. Even in GD, the controllers seem confused as to their "stand" on the OP's question...

Especially when some fanciful notion of public policy impinges.

Ah, that desire to punish seems at times sexual: "I'm... I'm so confused."

[clarice]

78. Ummm....NO ! nt

[beevul]

80. Another misrepresentation from an ignorant author.

(Note I'm referring to the author Ozy EditorsOCT 222013, not the person who posted the OP)

Amendment 2 authorizes nothing, and restricts only government. That's a fact, not an opinion.

This author makes arguments based on the false presumption that this is not the case.

The author is easily shown to be wrong because of it.


Case closed.

[Phentex]

83. No.

Two different things.

[NutmegYankee]

87. I always laugh at this interpretation.

It's as wacky as reading "No person except a natural born citizen" from article II of the Constitution and then saying that anyone born via Cesarean Section is ineligible to be President.

[TipTok]

90. Ha... Never heard that one...

[SickOfTheOnePct]

95. Nope

Because SCOTUS has affirmed the individual right to bear arms.

[Act_of_Reparation]

108. Right, because what we really need to do with these people is invest them with civil authority.

Fuck that.

[Ghost in the Machine]

117. No, people should learn how to read, and interpret, the wording....

One comma could really help with that:

“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.”

Before the war for Independence we didn't have our own standing army. After we gained our Independence, we had a standing army. Our forefathers had the insight to include this clause to ensure that the PEOPLE would be able to protect themselves from a military coup by a tyrant.

It's really just that simple...

Peace,

Ghost

[LannyDeVaney]

124. The should be outlawed from purchasing any meat at retail ...

hunt for their own food.

[jmg257]

126. Why try to limit the responsibility to gun owners?

IT was mandatory for most 18-45 to to possess a gun and accoutrements, and sign up in their state Militia.

Why should owning a gun be the deciding issue of who needs to?

Get your ass in there!

[deathrind]

128. No,

But gun ownership should be a well regulated...much more regulated than it is now.

[w0nderer]

129. K & R for visibility of this