History 102: Which people form part of a well-regulated militia?

Am I to believe you are so close to abject paranoia you think Dem's desire to reduce gun violence is actually a master plan to take guns away from people "so you can oppress the people with your authority." Please tell me I'm wrong.

 

The "hysteria" that killed over 600K people?

 

What's odd about it. There largely homogenous societies with older populations, they also have somewhat higher rates of non gun crimes.

 

I doubt you folks actually want to ever reduce gun violence. It is the engine that fuels your coffers. More, you more accurately desire to remove the ability of the people to protect themselves from you and your thugs. It's the thing democrats cannot overcome. This power that doesn't reside in your party's hands. And when you've finally made criminals of ordinary folk just by having owned the method to keep you from your dream of autocracy and totalitarianism, I doubt you understand the backlash of that.

You have no desire to make your cities more safe. You have no desire to see black lives saved from gun violence. Quite the opposite. It's what allows you the leverage to attempt to remove the guns from the folks you know won't tolerate your tyranny. That's not paranoia. That's just paying attention.

 

It's sad people are trying to make this into a medical scare tactic.

Guns do not cause public health problems. Murderers, and criminals do.

Case and point, I can own a thousand guns and as long as I don't shoot someone or myself there is zero health risk to me.

 

An infamous ploy of the gun ban crowd is to compare the US to countries that are entirely different from the US(1) even though not a single country in the world has anything like our 2nd Amendment.

Meanwhile, our resident hoplophobes seem unable to grasp the simple reality that criminals, by definition, do not obey laws and will remain unaffected by our existing 20,000 gun laws just as they will ignore any new "common sense" gun laws "for the children".

Since the US is the only country in the world that has anything like a 2nd Amendment, it should have the highest rate of homicides in the world but it doesn't. Over 50 countries have far stricter gun laws yet they also have far higher homicide rates(2).

This simply proves the same reality that many of us are able to grasp: criminals that do not obey the many existing gun laws are not going to obey new ones.

Thanks,




(1) "The Mistake of Only Comparing US Murder Rates to "Developed" Countries"
https://mises.org/wire/mistake-only-...oped-countries

EXCERPT " Note, however, that these comparisons always employ a carefully selected list of countries, most of which are very unlike the United States.

They are countries that were settled long ago by the dominant ethnic group, they are ethnically non-diverse today, they are frequently very small countries (such as Norway, with a population of 5 million) with very locally based democracies (again, unlike the US with an immense population and far fewer representatives in government per voter).

Politically, historically, and demographically, the US has little in common with Europe or Japan.

The US has the highest murder rate in the "developed world" — presumably because of its lax guns laws —we are told again and again.

Few people who repeat this mantra have any standard in their heads of what exactly is the "developed" world. They just repeat the phrase because they have learned to do so." CONTINUED


(2) "Intentional homicides (per 100,000 people) - Country Ranking"
https://www.indexmundi.com/facts/indicators/VC.IHR.PSRC.P5/rankings

 

One should also note that the gun grabbers favorite target, the AR-15 is used in less than 1 percent of all homicides. Rifles in general are used infrequently in crimes. You are more likely to be beaten or stabbed to death than you are to be shot with an AR-15.

 

That's not the text of the amendment. Is cutting the text and taking it out of context the ONLY argument we can expect from the right?

This thread is about "A well regulated militia...". You can't respond to the arguments, so you just take it out from the amendment. As if it didn't exist, right?

Obviously because you are unable to rebut my arguments.

 

Nothing in your post has anything to do with this thread.

 

Sure it does. Re-read your OP.

 

~20,000,000 AR15s in the US.
Across the last 40 years, 17 were used to kill 263 people in mass shootings.
That's 0.425 rifles per year used to kill 6.6 people per year.
Over 20,000,000 guns.

There's no sound argument in support of a ban on the AR15.

 

There you go again with those inconvenient facts...

I'm sure that you're aware that all types of people have been buying firearms due to "mostly peaceful" riots, COVID 19, calls to defund the police, etc so I believe that there is not as much enthusiasm for disarming Americans now as there was a little earlier(1) but if there is a particular category of firearm that would be targeted, it would be the AR-15 and similar firearms.

For example, some of those who might support a ban on AR-15s etc are those who just bought a simple revolver for things that go "bump" in the night.

What they do not realize is that most of those who support gun control won't be satisfied with just banning AR-15s etc, they won't be satisfied until all guns are banned like idyllic China and similar countries with "common sense" gun laws "for the children".

Therefore, with apologies to Martin Niemöller, I humbly submit the following:

"First they came for the "assault weapons", and I did not speak out—

Because I did not own an "assault weapon".

Then they came for the handguns, and I did not speak out—

Because I did not own a handgun.

Then they came for the rifles and I did not speak out—

Because I did not own a rifle

Then they came for the shotguns —and then I learned what "common sense" gun control "for the children" really meant."






(1) "Support for Stricter U.S. Gun Laws at Lowest Level Since 2016"
https://news.gallup.com/poll/325004/support-stricter-gun-laws-lowest-level-2016.aspx

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- In the absence of a high-profile mass shooting in the U.S. in 2020 and amid the coronavirus pandemic, civil unrest related to racial justice issues and the contentious presidential election campaign, Americans are less likely than they have been since 2016 to call for increased gun control. The latest majority (57%) in the U.S. who call for stricter laws covering the sale of firearms marks a seven-percentage-point decline since last year. At the same time, 34% of U.S. adults prefer that gun laws be kept as they are now, while 9% would like them to be less strict.

 

Your False Claim #1.

That text is a direct quote of the text of the Second Amendment.

Since you once again failed to research the validity of your arguments, let me help you out here:

Constitution of the United States
Second Amendment
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.
https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-2/

Your False Claim #2.

The text is the entire context of the Second Amendment, which is the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

What we can expect from the Left?

If your useless and gratuitous remark is any indication, not much.

Obviously, the RWers posting in this thread have posted a variety of different arguments to a variety of different arguments.

This thread is obviously about the LANGUAGE of the Second Amendment. How is it that you conveniently lost sight of what your thread is supposedly about?

Oh, I know, because the "well regulated militia" part is incidental to the right to bear arms which is explicitly upheld in the Second Amendment.

Your False Claim #3.

Obviously, it is lost on you that I have responded to the arguments, including those of the four dissenting Supreme Court justices in the Heller case/ruling.

But since my argument refutes yours and the futile, Quixotic exercise you are engaged in, you have to resort to spouting one false claim after the other.

Your False Claim #4.

Not only have I already established that I am able to rebut your "argument" about the Second Amendment, I have already done so.

Another thing that has been established here is that you are unable to rebut my argument, hence the litany of false and gratuitous claims that, for your information, do not qualify as a rebuttal to any argument, much less my own.

 

The posts you referenced are all interesting and well reasoned from academic viewpoint. But you overlook the fact none of them consider the legal viewpoint as expressed in several SCOTUS decisions; and that's what counts.

 

Yes.
In order for his tripe to remain relevant, he acknowledges than in legal terms, nothing he posts means anything.

 

Now if you all will excuse me....

 

The text is literally quoted in context verbatim. I understand that it entirely sublimates your assertion, but at some point, plain language is plain language. And no amount of histrionics on your part can change that. Get over it already. Heller establishes the current model. Get used to it.

 

YOU (Before): "The right of the people to keep and bear arms"
YOU (Now):"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."

This whole thread is about "A well regulated Militia" Nothing more, nothing less. And you just ELIMINATED it.

I'm happy you corrected yourself. But don't go accusing me of making false statements when anybody can verify what you just did!

The rest of your post has absolutely no content.... If you have anything to comment on the OP, go for it! Quote it and rebut it, if you can. If you don't have anything, then don't. But I'm not interested in your strawman nonsense.

 

I have said in every single thread that, even though the Heller decision was based on absolute nonsense (from a historical and linguistic point of view), the fact is that it's The Law of the Land. My overall point is that the text of the 2nd A as approved by Congress and the legislatures of the different states, does not confer, grant, affirm...or even address... an individual "right" to own weapons.

The pseudo-linguistic reasoning by Scalia is implicitly rebutted in the threads English 101 and English 102. And the pseudo-historical nonsense is rebutted in the History 101 and History 102.

More to come...

I wouldn't dare confront Scalia on legal reasoning. But as far as History and Linguistics... the guy is a MESS.

 

It does when you consider the circumstances at the time. At that time the Second Amendment was written, it was expected that the arms for the militia would be provided by the individual. By owning, maintaining and using their own firearms, they were totally proficient with their weapons. This is a fact which you keep ignoring.

 

This is a completely different topic. I'm moving it here because this is the proper thread. Please read the OP. To summarize for you, anti-federalists in Congress advocated for the militia being composed of the body of the people. Washington and Hamilton lobbied against this. Anti-federalists LOST.

The complete story is on the OP, here
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...form-part-of-a-well-regulated-militia.589757/

 

No, and your reading comprehension and knowledge of history is lacking. Most likely intentionally.

I take that back, you know better and are just lying for..? Not sure why.

 

So you refuse to read the OP. I guess that's one way out of the argumentative hole you dug yourself into...

 

I read the OP and it contains falsehoods that I have addressed. Not only do I think you know this, I think you are intentionally lying for reasons unbeknownst to me.

Perhaps to spark decent debate. Ok, whatever. But uhm..your premises have been proven wrong throughtout the thread.

Post #113 owned you. It's ovah!