Guns or no Guns

[2ndAmendment (Premo)]

Originally Posted by forestal

Well Regulated Militias, AKA the National Guard.

You have no comprehension of what you post.

The 2nd Amendment isn’t about the National Guard. The Bill of Rights was adopted in 1791. The act that created the National Guard wasn’t enacted until 1903.

[2ndAmendment (Premo)]

Originally Posted by awpitt

No.

Why do some folks equate the 2nd amendment to the National Guard? Yes, the 2nd amendment does protect the states’ right to maintain militias. Keep in mind that the 2nd amendment goes beyond allowing states to have National Guard units it also allows states to maintain their own defense forces. In Maryland’s case, it’s the Maryland Defense Force (MDF).

What’s the difference?

Well, the National Guard ultimately falls under the control of the federal govt and can be federalized by the President. The MDF cannot. This is how the 2nd amendment protects the “militia”. Now, the second part of the 2nd amendment that says, “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” is plain and simple. It’s talking about the PEOPLE (you and me) not the militia which is raised and maintained by the state govts.

Actually, there are two militias, the enrolled militia and the organized militia. Before the passing of the Militia Act in May of 1792, there was only the enrolled militia, which was the body of all able-bodied men between the ages of 17 and 44, inclusively, and it is that militia to which the 2nd Amendment refers. It couldn’t refer to the organized militia because it didn’t exist yet. That is not the militia of a state and certainly not the National Guard.

[awpitt (Premo)]

Originally Posted by 2ndAmendment

Actually, there are two militias, the enrolled militia and the organized militia. Before the passing of the Militia Act in May of 1792, there was only the enrolled militia, which was the body of all able-bodied men between the ages of 17 and 44, inclusively, and it is that militia to which the 2nd Amendment refers. It couldn’t refer to the organized militia because it didn’t exist yet. That is not the militia of a state and certainly not the National Guard.

Good point. I didn't realize that.

[RadioPatrol]

bump

[forestal]

It's quite simple. Criminals are lazy. Given a gun to do the tough work, of course there will be more crime. Without guns criminals just don't have the fortitude to commit their crimes.

Originally Posted by Tinkerbell

I am posting this strictly out of curiousity and am thinking maybe other peoples insight/knowledge will help me understand this better.

Why is it in countries that have literally banned all firearms, even cops on routine patrol don't carry them, they have a much lower (almost non-existent) incidence of violent crimes, especially those involving firearms?

People say: limit guns then only the criminals have them. That's not true in Britain or Australia.

Alot of people believe that if the US allowed people to have CCW permits in all states, that it would cut down on crimes with guns because criminals would be more hesitant to approach not knowing if you are armed. Yet, Britain and Austrailia tried the complete opposite way - no guns for anyone (except hunting, etc.) - and it's worked great. You don't see a case of criminals running around with guns - they don't have them either (I'm sure a couple got ahold of them somehow, though).

I don't get it.

[RadioPatrol]

Originally Posted by forestal

It's quite simple. Criminals are lazy. Given a gun to do the tough work, of course there will be more crime. Without guns criminals just don't have the fortitude to commit their crimes.

you need to step out of your fantasy world fauxrest .....

plenty of criminals use knives, pipes, broken bottles, 2x4's .... etc to commit crime