20 Dead After Shooting at South Texas Church
- Thread starter tay
- Start date
Wrong. I could give you the history, definition, and composition of the militia in 1000 words or more, but shall we simply leave it to the law?
(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.
10 USC sec. 246.
"It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States. . ."
Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)
"The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.
U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)
It's an argument based on the laws of the United States. I accept that Canada has different laws.
While it's certainly true that, as an enthusiast, I own more guns than necessary because I like guns, my first reason for owning a gun is to protect myself and mine.
I've lived in gun-free societies. I lived in Japan for two years, and in Germany for four. I'm not as hard-core as Colpy. I'll give up my guns, and not even demand compensation, just as soon as you show me a reasonable plan for getting rid of, oh, say 250,000,000 of the 300,000,000 guns floating around the U.S.
And by the way, RCS, all this is silliness anyhow. "Mass" shootings account for 1-2% of U.S. gun homicides. Depending on your source, handguns account for 75-95% of all U.S. gun homicides. So if you're not an outrage junkie who gets off on sensational headlines, and you really want to do something to stem the carnage, leave the "assault weapons" be and go after the handguns.
Or he might have just made a bomb and blew them all to smithereens .
Have you ever noticed how many of the alphabet agencies in the U.S. carry guns ?
But do we really want to argue from a common sense position ?
I agree that it is based on the laws in the United States. I'd also say that every time someone wants to amend that law, the gun lobby comes to attention and claims the second amendment is stripping citizens of their right to bear arms. An amendment that was written by politicians living in a time of uncertainty and political upheaval and challenge.
Now, to my next point.
Thank you for being honest.
The plan has to start somewhere. At least you admit the basic truth. You're not buying guns to protect yourself against the possible tyranny of government.
That's right, mass shootings are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the 13,000 plus deaths involving guns. And I will reiterate, I don't think citizens should be stripped of all weapons. I see no issue with having a handgun or a rifle, either for personal protection or hunting. Owning a weapon carries a heavy responsibility, but the problem is this. When politicians try to pass laws that reinforce the burden of responsibility, proper storage, background checks and such, the NRA and the hardcore gun enthusiast run to the constitution and claim that their rights as citizens are being trampled.
Thank you for admitting what most won't. You like guns. Perhaps if all were so honest, a happy medium could be found. By the way, I'm not a headline junkie. I just find the love affair America has with the gun very disturbing. Canada is not immune to this, but statistically the United States has seen an increase in mass shootings. Sand Hook was a shining example of an individual gun owner who was irresponsible, who paid with her life and then resulted in a preventable tragedy. I'm sure falling into a mere 1 - 2% statistic has little consolation for the families that were devastated by a preventable incident.
But again, thanks for being honest, Bones.
Yes, that's called "democracy." If you want to make or change a law, you have to go through a whole great-big procedure, that involves lots of people, some of them very rich, and lots of politicians, all of them looking for votes and money. Despite the difficulty, we have made huge changes to all our laws, including the sacred Constitution.
So now we're back to the fact that gun ownership polls 70% favorable, quite steadily. I understand what you think we should do, but putting through a law under those circumstances is tough.
That's what they said in 1776. All right, now that I got my shot in, I'll be a little more sensible. Remember the "velvet revolutions" in Eastern Europe in the 90s and 00s? Why didn't the governments just slaughter the dissenters (like Stalin did in the 50s) and crush the rebellions with overwhelming force?
My point being, contrary to the people who sneer "Your fantasy citizen militia would be blown away like paper by the 21st century Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps." Very true, but for a number of emotional and practical reasons, I flat don't believe the government would nuke Dallas. Or even mass-murder 10,000 citizens. That means that the mere presence of an armed citizenry is a check on the government. Remember Cliven Bundy an his band of merry Klansmen? Don't for a moment think I have any truck with Bundy, but you must admit, we have stories of the DEA and the local cops going into people's houses guns blazing. Nobody went onto the Bundy ranch with guns blazing, and there was a reason for that. If you like, that was the most recents successful militia action in the U.S.
.
Good enough. Now that we're on the same page, I have a few suggestions:
Absolutely ban, and require surrender of, magazines holding more than X rounds (5-10), with penalties for hanging on to "just one or two" 30-rounders, AND a swap deal: for every magazine you turn in, you get a low-capacity magazine.
Ban the sale of new guns with detachable box magazines. You got 'em there's millions, and as I've said I don't see any way to round 'em up, but for what it's worth, you can stop more getting out there. Require all new firearms to be either revolvers or fixed-magazine, holding not more than X rounds. Hard to spray lead when you have to stop every few rounds and go through a fairly laborious reloading process.
Unify the databases. We might actually be ready for this one. The NRA and others worked hard to slow and impede the background check process, including talking Congress into denying funds for a unified criminal/mental health database. The recent pressure might reverse that.
Here's the biggie: control ammunition. Make it a law that you cannot keep more than, say, 20 rounds of any caliber in your home or business. If you want to go to the range and blaze away 100, you have to buy them and use them at the range. Stop the insanity of ammo sales by internet and mail (which I use). Ammo cycles out of use a lot faster than guns.
And, of course: require all applicants for a license to own a gun to complete a pretty good background check (comparable to a no-classified-info government job), take a pretty expensive training course (I'm thinking three days, fully covering the law and psychology/sociology of gun use, range time, and proof you are competent with a pistol, a rifle, and a shotgun).
And as I said, if you're going after a class of guns, that class should be handguns. Far and away the biggest killers, no real military (and therefore militia) use, no hunting or home-defense use (a shotgun is a far better home-defense weapon). Get rid of the easily-concealed, easily-deployed deathsticks, and we may actually get somewhere.
I'm willing to work with you here, but it has to be "more or less," not "yes or no."
A lot of people think that amending the constitution is as simple as making a new law
https://www.lexisnexis.com/constitution/amendments_howitsdone.asp
https://www.lexisnexis.com/constitution/amendments_howitsdone.asp
And they continually forget or ignore the fact that ".........the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is the paramount law of the land.
The funniest thing I found while looking things up........the last time it was amended...
Politicians giving themselves a raise :lol:
Search Results
1992
Twenty-seventh Amendment, amendment (1992) to the Constitution of the United States that required any change to the rate of compensation for members of the U.S. Congress to take effect only after the subsequent election in the House of Representatives.
It's actually only one amendment out of 27.
The mere fact that it is an amendment tells you that it wasn't even important enough to be included in the Constitution.
Race baiter
Shooter's wife "He was consumed with anger"
Texas shooter's ex-wife: 'Demons ... hatred' consumed him - CNN
We live in angry times.
Shooter's wife "He was consumed with anger"
Texas shooter's ex-wife: 'Demons ... hatred' consumed him - CNN
We live in angry times.
OMFG read a little history!
It was SO important that the states rejected the Constitution out of hand without a Bill of Rights, and only ratified it on the promise that the first Congress would add the agreed to Bill of Rights........so the document was amended to reflect that need.
It was of pivotal importance.
Last edited:
sure it was so important that it had to be included later.
but its the paramount law of the land.(for white people - black people don't have the same second amendment rights)
Last edited: