1y ago

They would be too distracted by everything

You're viewing a single thread.

137 comments

Not sure many of them would see an issue with AR-15s. They're basically what the military has and what the civilians had back then was usually better than military grade. In fact, American civilians have always had better rifles than their contemporary military.
I loathe the title, and strongly disagree with it. Also, heard the presenter is a hard right-winger, but this is still an interesting history lesson. I never would have guessed most of this!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dIsy3sZI2Y&t=2s
I'm betting the founders would have thought having a lesser armed citizenry to be pointless. Of course, they might well have thought that such a giant, world policing, military to be a far worse mistake.
- I mean, it’s super hypothetical. We lift them up but they were just a bunch of dudes living in their own times. While I’m sure they wanted a framework that would lead the country into future prosperity, they knew adaptation was necessary.
  They also knew that the backbone of this country's defense were militias made up of citizens. We don’t really have those. I’m all for regulated militias coming back. They could possibly get exceptions for many banned weapons.
  Every citizen doesn’t need to have access to military grade weaponry at any given moment. Even when I served, my shit was locked up and required a document trail for access and ammo use.
  Balancing safety and personal rights is a complex and divisive issue. Everyone having all the guns would be super cool with me if we fixed gun culture, mental health access, and our many many societal financial issues. 'Til then, reasonable laws.
  
  We are a well regulated militia. Well regulated means well equipped/prepared.
  "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin
  
  That's all it means? Because it seems fairly clear that it means something like "well organized, supplied, and trained." If we're saying that the word "regulated" just means "armed", and the word "militia" just means "people", then it sounds a lot like you're interpreting it to mean what you want it to.
  I've never heard "regulated" used that way outside of tortured 2nd amendment interpretations, and a militia requires some amount of training and regular drills.
  
  Let's assume it does refer to the concepts you describe. The entity charged with ensuring the "regularity" of the militia is Congress, and constitutionally, the militia is every American.
  So, what "regulation" do you think Congress should place on every American?
  
  I'm asking you guys that. Because you appear to be arguing that "a well regulated militia" just means "an unregulated group of people" and those two things are not the same.
  
  The group of people you are talking about is not "unregulated". You are subject to militia regulations. Under Article I, Congress is charged with establishing "necessary and proper" regulations on the militia. Granted, the only "regulation" that Congress has deemed "necessary and proper" for the larger of the two classes of the legislated militia (10 USC §246) is an obligation to register with Selective Service.
  Do you feel this "regulation" is insufficient? As a (presumptive) member of the "Unorganized" class of the militia, what regulations do you feel you should be subjected to?
  The only additional obligation I would impose at this time would be a mandatory class on the laws governing use of force. Most concealed carriers have formally taken such classes, and the overwhelming majority of gun owners have a functional knowledge of these laws. This would be a class for non-owners, provided before they were of legal age to purchase a firearm.
  
  Most concealed carriers have formally taken such classes, and the overwhelming majority of gun owners have a functional knowledge of these laws.
  They haven't and don't.
  I know exactly what's required to get a concealed carry permit and a gun anywhere in the southeast. A permit requires 50 dollars and five minutes to fill out the form on your phone. I know because I did it, except it's now entirely unnecessary because my state and several others stopped requiring them recently.
  Getting a gun requires knowing someone willing to give, sell, or trade you a gun. I've literally never bought a gun in a store, although I've owned many.
  Finally, the vast majority of gun owners don't know anything about the law. They may know whether they're in a stand-your-ground state, if they bother to check. As I said, I live in the southeast, and know many people here- portraying gun owners as sober, trained, responsible people with a working knowledge of the law, that have taken classes on the use of force- is laughable.
  
  My proposal was that all Americans should be required to attend such training. Based on your criticism, it seems you not only agree with that proposal, but that your belief in the need for such mandated, public training is even greater than my own.
  I think it should be at least 5 classroom hours, offered in high school during one's junior or senior year. My state mandates a "government" class in those years. I think "use of force" should be a specific, week-long unit in that class, or its equivalent.
  
  I'm down with mandatory weapons training as a condition of gun ownership. It can cover use-of-force, safety, de-escalation etc. I think 5 hours is too little.
  
  You can't make it a condition of gun ownership. Your options are to mandate it to all of the American public (the militia) or not. You cannot mandate it only to gun owners.
  What part of this are you not comprehending?
  
  Yes. Prepared includes training. However training isn't required to be considered part of a militia. As for organized, there are many different levels of organization, for example your friends and family resisting an invasion ala red dawn, and the national guard are both organized to different degrees.
  
  So if training isn't necessary to be considered a member of a militia, and organization can mean any amount of organization at all, then you are using "militia" to mean "people." If that is what you think they were saying, then why would they use the word "militia" at all?
  
  "militia" refers to that aspect of "the people" that can be charged with enforcing law, suppressing insurrection, and repelling invasion. The second amendment uses "militia" and "people" synonymously. It declares that average, everyday individuals provide the security and freedom of the state. That obligation is not tasked to the armies of a lord, nobleman, or king, but retained by We The People, individually and collectively.
  The second amendment says that because we bear this responsibility, we must not be disarmed.
  
  It also says that the militia should be well regulated. Assuming that militia is all able bodied adults, it is currently entirely un-regulated.
  We could restrict ownership to one assault rifle per militia member*, and have a licensing program that requires a training course. We could mandate physical standards across the board, schedule regular local military training for every able-bodied adult. We could have a quota of bullets that each militia member should have on hand, require range training every six months, and account for missing bullets and negligent discharges.
  I notice you're not arguing for any of that.
  Edit: actually, make this "require one assault rifle per..." And standardize on a caliber so that members can share ammunition.
  
  It also says that the militia should be well regulated. Assuming that militia is all able bodied adults, it is currently entirely un-regulated.
  It is not unregulated. We are subject to every regulation that Congress has deemed necessary and proper to impose on the "Unorganized class" of the militia. (10 USC §246).
  If you don't feel that the regulations on that class of the militia are appropriate, it is your responsibility to inform your representatives, and to ask them to subject you to those regulations that you believe are "necessary and proper" to ensure you can fulfill your militia obligations.
  What regulations do you want to subject yourself to?
  We could restrict ownership to one assault rifle per militia member*,
  Nope.
  Article I allows regulation of the militia, not their weapons. Second amendment prohibits infringement on your right to keep and bear arms. You cannot be restricted to a single firearm, or only one of a certain type.
  and have a licensing program that requires a training course.
  Nope. You can require every militia member attend that training course, but you cannot make gun ownership contingent on having done so.
  You can criminally prosecute those who refuse to attend that mandated militia training course, and upon conviction, you can strip them of certain rights and privileges, including the right to keep and bear arms. But first you have to mandate that everyone attend such a course, and legislate a legitimate penalty for failure to attend.
  I notice you're not arguing for any of that.
  The only one of those I would argue for is regulation of negligent discharge, but I don't have to: negligent discharges are already heavily regulated. You can easily find yourself in violation of existing law for negligently discharging your firearm. None of the other regulations you proposed make you any more prepared to enforce law, suppress insurrection, or repel invasion.
  The only regulation I would propose would be mandated training on the laws governing use of force. These laws don't seem to be common knowledge among the general public. Too many people conflate an employer's "appeasement" policy with legality.
  
  Article I allows regulation of the militia, not their weapons
  Why not? This is hair splitting exercise.
  You can require every militia member attend that training course, but you cannot make gun ownership contingent on having done so.
  Why not? We have mandatory training for vehicles, but we can't have them for guns?
  It is not unregulated
  Yes, it is.
  Regulation would included licensing, training, drills, and organization. People like you, the gun lobby, and an entire industry of manufacturers are working to keep that from happening. Claiming all able-bodied citizens as militia is a polite fiction that you use in order to avoid regulation. See your responses above if you want examples of what this looks like.
  I've owned a lot of guns. Right now, I have three- an AR-15, a 9mm pistol, and a derringer. I have never bought a gun in a gun store or had to register a firearm. I've never had a background check run for any of them. I've never been licensed. I've never had to attend a class. I can get more guns whenever I want- that's what no regulation looks like.
  You have repeatedly told me that I should contact my representative, a representative who will blow me off with a form letter because he doesn't represent my interests, or the interests of everyday citizens who just want to not get shot.
  He represents you and people like you.
  None of the other regulations you proposed make you any more prepared to enforce law, suppress insurrection, or repel invasion.
  Yes, they do. One rifle is all that is necessary for one soldier- there is a reason troops aren't issued multiple weapons. One caliber allows soldiers to share ammunition. Mandatory training ensures they're skilled with the weapon. Regular drills will keep those skills sharp. Physical fitness tests would make sure the soldier is physically prepared for combat.
  You want everyone to train for war, then let's do that. Or we can admit that claiming everyone is military is a ploy to avoid any restrictions on gun ownership.
  
  Regulation would included licensing, training, drills, and organization.
  Nobody has proposed militia training, militia drills, militia organization. Gun owners have been opposed to "licensing", but "licensing" is not a "militia" regulation, but a "gun owner" regulation. Require all members of the militia to become "licensed", and we can talk.
  
  Why not? This is hair splitting exercise.
  If you actually read Article I, Section 8 parts 15 and 16, as well as the 2nd amendment, you would know exactly why not. Article 1 can be used to compel training and provide arms; it cannot be used to infringe on the right to keep and bear.
  As for your physical fitness, weapons training, and other conditions, they would be far less stringent than my own standards, and will not improve my readiness. I foresee no threat sufficient to justify that degree of intrusion on the average citizen, not the expense it would take to enforce.
  I can justify mandatory training on use of force, but not the rest of what you propose.
  
  I mean it's really how far you want to take samantics.
  I take the second to mean every person has the right to form into groups to protect themselves and their own from foreign and domestic threats. Others disagree and that's part of the whole debate about the second.
  What does it mean to you?
  
  It means absent a unified millitary that the states have the right to assemble militias for the common defense of american citizens within their borders,
  Because they didn't have a unified military or a modern model of civilian policing yet back then.
  That's also why the third amendment is worded the way it is, it's supposed to mean you can't make a city pay for its own occupation by peace keeping forces, IE cops most of the time, because back then cops and the militia were one in the same.
  
  The whole idea was NOT to have a unified military. But to have volunteer militias.
  
  Yeah, and that was proven to be ludicrous once Connecticut and Pennsylvania started shooting at each other over who's stuff was who's
  
  That's incorrect. The right to form groups (for any purpose) is guaranteed by the first amendment right to association, not the second.
  The Constitution only uses the word "militia" in the singular. There is only one militia.
  Basically, "militia" is who we are until we are drafted into an army or the navy.
  
  I agree, those who give up the liberty of others to not risk being shot at over an argument because every problem looks like a nail for the sake of continuing to parade a statistical security blanket around deserve neither the liberty to own and operate, n'or the false sense of security they get from menacing the checkout line at Walmart.
- I have a feeling the conversation to have with most of the founders would be centered around the political weaponization of the Second Amendment in the face of almost daily mass shootings. I have a strong suspicion that the "well-regulated militia" part of that amendment would become much more pronounced.
  
  They would be far more concerned with the government embracing fascism, than they would about 2nd amendment considerations. If anything, they'd push for a less restrictive 2nd amendment, and dismantling of federal power structures. They were revolutionaries, after all.
  
  Agreed, though the correlation between the modern advance of fascism and the people who press the hardest on gun rights is hard to dismiss. Of course, I am only pointing to the correlation in sets, there are obviously elements of each set which do not belong to the other, but the cardinality of the intersection far outstripes that of the difference.
  
  Frankly that's a failure of nonfascists to realize the value of self defense, if the dems supported gun rights too and also armed up, the fascists wouldn't be "the ones who press the hardest," simple as.
  
  The problem is the fundamental ideological difference between conservatives and liberals in this country.
  Conservatives are bullheaded, uncompromising, and single-minded. They view compromise as weakness and failure, and anyone who is willing to express empathy is a lesser class of human. They would rather destroy something than compromise or find a middle ground. And heaven forbid you ask them to sacrifice for their fellow man. What you recognize as "pressing the hardest" is not standing up for ideals or being strong-willed, it is digging heels in on every hill. It takes a lot more strength to be able to sacrifice when getting nothing in return because it is the right thing to do.
  Liberals are usually more empathetic and compromising. They attempt to view things from alternative perspectives and tend to be more open to sacrificing to make things better for the greater whole.
  Both mentalities can have a time and place. Unfortunately, it doesn't matter how heavily armed the liberal populace is, the odds of them utilizing their armaments against the fascists is slim to none unless they are backed into a corner.
  I am not personally against guns as a concept. I do recognize their value and choose not to own any out of self-recognition and regulation of my mental health. That doesn't mean I'm not versed in their use. I'm a crack shot and know how to keep and maintain most of them if the need arose where protecting my family from external threats was more of an existential circumstance than protecting from inner demons.
  
  Unfortunately, it doesn't matter how heavily armed the liberal populace is, the odds of them utilizing their armaments against the fascists is slim to none unless they are backed into a corner.
  You mean "they won't kill people until they HAVE to?" Oh noooo, that's so horrible, using guns and violence as a last resort rather than murdering people before it comes to that?
  That's a good thing dude.
  I am not personally against guns as a concept. I do recognize their value and choose not to own any out of self-recognition and regulation of my mental health. That doesn't mean I'm not versed in their use. I'm a crack shot and know how to keep and maintain most of them if the need arose where protecting my family from external threats was more of an existential circumstance than protecting from inner demons.
  Cool just as long as you don't want to take them from people who do want them and haven't proven themselves to be a danger to society. I don't care about people controlling themselves, just don't try to control others.
  Conservatives are bullheaded, uncompromising, and single-minded.
  Tbh in this context they've compromised enough since 1934, the NFA, the GCA, the Brady Bill, endless pointless state feature bans, the '94-'04 AWB, Bumpstock ban, red flag "due process second" (which violates more rights than just the 2nd), ad nauseum. Have they got anything in return? The HPA or Constitutional Carry which they've been pushing for recently? No. How is it a "compromise" when one side keeps getting their way and chipping away at the right only for them to start chipping again after they get their "compromise?" When will enpugh be enough, after this AWB they're pushing for doesn't fix anything? After they ban 90% of handguns and rifles because they don't understand semi-auto, which they've been trying to do recently? No, they'll keep pushing until they can't because they won, and they're "not bullheaded?"
  
  I was speaking more of a general psychology of each group than to the individual gun control issue. The legislation surrounding firearms has rarely been something that I concern myself with as it rarely can screw me over personally. There is so much lubeless anal going on from every seat of government, regardless of who's ass is in the seat to manage all of it, and I already have entirely rational anger outbursts daily from the ones I do concern myself with. I wish you the best in your fight and I will keep on mine. Guns aren't mine in general, aside from the mass shootings and school shootings, which, while stricter gun control could mitigate, are truly mental health issues indicative of a cripplingly deficient medical care infrastructure. If we dealt with problems with we'll paid social workers instead of police and did not stigmatize mental illness while lifting bully culture up on some pedestal like it is something that should be aspired to we would likely see a decrease in the mass killings that are plaguing the country and only increasing.
  That said, I wish you the best on your hill and I salute your commitment to it.
  
  I really doubt it. If they intended the right to belong to militias or members of one, they would have written that instead of people.
  
  Plus there are a lot of people in the militia. Specifically every able-bodied male from the ages of 17 to 45.
  https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title10/subtitleA/part1/chapter12&edition=prelim
  
  Keep in mind, what you posted is the legislative definition, not the constitutional meaning. If Congress wanted to, they could expand the legislated meaning. They could expand it to 16 to 60, or 8 to 80 if they wanted. They could change from the "able body" to "sound mind" standard, include women, or change from citizens and prospective citizens to "American persons" and draft green-card holders.
  The point is that the definition you provided is only a tiny portion of the Constitutional meaning. The constitutional meaning of "militia" is "We The People" and the definition of "Well Regulated" is whatever policies, practices, rules, and laws that Congress seems necessary and proper to enact with their Article I powers regarding the militia.
  Basically, Congress can force every high school graduate to have attended "militia" training on the laws governing use of force and safe gun handling. They are empowered to "prescribe" such "discipline" on the militia. But whether they choose to do that or not, they cannot prohibit people from keeping and bearing arms.
  
  Basically, Congress can force every high school graduate to have attended "militia" training on the laws governing use of force and safe gun handling. They are empowered to "prescribe" such "discipline" on the militia. But whether they choose to do that or not, they cannot prohibit people from keeping and bearing arms. >
  Pretty sure this would solve a lot of issues surrounding the Second Amendment, as well as many others. If everyone is well-trained by the same precise regimen, then everyone can be expected to comport themselves properly moving forward. Works for public education, would work for this.
  
  Or perhaps put something in about a militia, but one that was well regulated.
  
  You are a militia member.
  Unless you are not an American, I am not creating a hypothetical scenario; I am stating that under the constitutional meaning of the term, you are a militia member. You may not be one for which Congress has created an obligation to register with selective service. You may not qualify under Congress's rules to be drafted. But under the constitution, Congress can use their powers over the militia to compel you to act. You. Are. Militia.
  When you insinuate that the Militia is not "well regulated", what additional regulations do you wish to be subjected to?
  Personally, I think every member of the militia (Every American) should be required to attend a class on the laws governing use of force. Not enough people actual understand them.
  
  So you just don't understand basic grammar.

137 comments