A "Well Regulated Militia" .....

glhs837

Power with Control
:yay:

it has happened, North Hollywood .. police had to 'borrow' AR-15's from a nearby Gun Store

they were not legal Class III Firearms


Vanishingly small is not none. Total firearms used in crimes over the last 20 years vs the amount of crimes using full auto weapons? How many decimals?
 

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
Vanishingly small is not none. Total firearms used in crimes over the last 20 years vs the amount of crimes using full auto weapons? How many decimals?

It is a remarkably small number. I read a report some years ago that provided a detailed summary of the weapons, by quantity and type, that LAPD had confiscated over some longish period of time from gangs and other assorted criminals and crime scenes. The number of automatic weapons was (surprisingly, even to me) very, very small. So small as to bring with it the conclusion that they were irrelevant to the overall scope of LA's gun violence problems.

Cheap(er) semi-auto handguns was the largest number, by a huge margin...I do remember that much.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
Was not getting into the likelihood of that happening, like someone actually using fully auto weapons in the commission of a crime, I'm sure the numbers would be vanishingly small. Just talking to what sort of advances the founders might have imagined when thinking about civilian ownership of mil-spec weapons.

The founders would clearly have trouble and concerns and to say other wise is to insult their intelligence. They built a system where the feds couldn't inhibit you're right to keep and bear but they did not build a system where the state was prohibited from doing so. Clearly, the idea of massive firepower would occur to them as something the states could regulate as they saw fit.

Of course, there is all sorts of things they'd be amazed by and one of them is a certain amount of amazement at the lack of any real revolution in all our years. Clearly, they'd have recognized the right for the South to succeed.
 

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
Clearly, they'd have recognized the right for the South to succeed.

Clearly. Based on all the promises and cajoling that are a matter of public record. There were some states, like South Carolina, that were very reluctant to sign on and only did so after all manner of assurances that they could quite and leave if they didn't like how it was working for them.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
Clearly. Based on all the promises and cajoling that are a matter of public record. There were some states, like South Carolina, that were very reluctant to sign on and only did so after all manner of assurances that they could quite and leave if they didn't like how it was working for them.

It would be interesting to have some beers with them after they read all the history. They could see fault with Lincoln's handling yet would they see more fault with the South in how they handled it? Clearly, they would see some Southern attack on national sovereignty. The bottom line is the South wanted a fight far more than they wanted to go in peace and that is where the conversation would get interesting.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
Clearly. Based on all the promises and cajoling that are a matter of public record. There were some states, like South Carolina, that were very reluctant to sign on and only did so after all manner of assurances that they could quite and leave if they didn't like how it was working for them.

That's what just makes me sit back and smile when someone argues secession was not allowable. The right to it is the only reason, as you point out, that most of the South agreed to union anyway. How the flying #### can a nation built on rebellion, who STARTED their documents with this:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
 

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
It would be interesting to have some beers with them after they read all the history. They could see fault with Lincoln's handling yet would they see more fault with the South in how they handled it? Clearly, they would see some Southern attack on national sovereignty. The bottom line is the South wanted a fight far more than they wanted to go in peace and that is where the conversation would get interesting.

Of course you can't lump all the southern states together either..because the whys/when/wherefors associated with each as they considered secession, first, and joining the CSA, later, is all over the spectrum. Monolithic and in 100% political agreement, they were not.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
Of course you can't lump all the southern states together either..because the whys/when/wherefors associated with each as they considered secession, first, and joining the CSA, later, is all over the spectrum. Monolithic and in 100% political agreement, they were not.

Totally agreed but Virginia, THE southern state did choose to go for pretty poor reasons compared to her reasons for staying until sumter.
 
That's what just makes me sit back and smile when someone argues secession was not allowable. The right to it is the only reason, as you point out, that most of the South agreed to union anyway. How the flying #### can a nation built on rebellion, who STARTED their documents with this:

As with other aspects of the Constitution, I think different people at the time would have had the Constitution mean different things when it comes to the right of states to secede. Some would probably have wanted it explicitly stated that they had that right, others probably would have wanted it explicitly stated that they did not. They were able to agree on what they were able to agree on, and it is that which matters. As written it doesn't explicitly indicate either condition. But I think - for various reasons - that the most reasonable interpretation of the words they agreed upon is that states did retain the right to secede. Some of those that agreed to those words would probably assert otherwise. But I'm also confident that some of the states would not have ratified the Constitution had they not thought they were retaining the right to secede.

I think the single most compelling piece of evidence on this issue is the Articles of Confederation. For one thing, they were actually called the Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union. For another, they said "the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual." And they repeated "that the Articles [of the Confederation] shall be inviolably observed by the States we respectively represent, and that the Union shall be perpetual."

The Constitution contains no such declarations. I don't think we should assume that was a mere oversight. It was a change in what enough states were willing to agree to. The Constitution was giving the federal government more power and that was a matter of concern for some states. The trade off was that their submission to the Union was no longer to be irrevocable. It was not, by pre-agreement, to necessarily be a perpetual Union.
 

itsbob

I bowl overhand

And we'll regulates militia then meant every able bodied make between the age of 16 and 50 (?) would possess a maintained and functioning rifle and ammo... it was privately owned, bought with the citizens money and maintained by the owner.. he was also expected to be proficient with said rifle..

So by the letter of the law, to ensure a well regulated militia, every able bodied male should own and possess an AR-15.. Have you done your part?
 

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
As with other aspects of the Constitution, I think different people at the time would have had the Constitution mean different things when it comes to the right of states to secede. Some would probably have wanted it explicitly stated that they had that right, others probably would have wanted it explicitly stated that they did not. They were able to agree on what they were able to agree on, and it is that which matters. As written it doesn't explicitly indicate either condition. But I think - for various reasons - that the most reasonable interpretation of the words they agreed upon is that states did retain the right to secede. Some of those that agreed to those words would probably assert otherwise. But I'm also confident that some of the states would not have ratified the Constitution had they not thought they were retaining the right to secede.

I think the single most compelling piece of evidence on this issue is the Articles of Confederation. For one thing, they were actually called the Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union. For another, they said "the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual." And they repeated "that the Articles [of the Confederation] shall be inviolably observed by the States we respectively represent, and that the Union shall be perpetual."

The Constitution contains no such declarations. I don't think we should assume that was a mere oversight. It was a change in what enough states were willing to agree to. The Constitution was giving the federal government more power and that was a matter of concern for some states. The trade off was that their submission to the Union was no longer to be irrevocable. It was not, by pre-agreement, to necessarily be a perpetual Union.

That.
 

BlueSunday

New Member
And we'll regulates militia then meant every able bodied make between the age of 16 and 50 (?) would possess a maintained and functioning rifle and ammo... it was privately owned, bought with the citizens money and maintained by the owner.. he was also expected to be proficient with said rifle..

So by the letter of the law, to ensure a well regulated militia, every able bodied male should own and possess an AR-15.. Have you done your part?

Sorry I disagree with you and as I stated previously I think those words"A well regulated militia "will lead to a change of some nature to the second amendment.
 

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
Sorry I disagree with you and as I stated previously I think those words"A well regulated militia "will lead to a change of some nature to the second amendment.

People like you do keep hoping for that. Your false hopes based entirely on your obviously limited historical knowledge..trying to parse meanings in today's context from what meant something quite different when written..

But the courts have already ruled against your limited understanding...so we are OK for now.
 

glhs837

Power with Control
Oh, I get it, once Ms Clinton gets to appointing SC Justices, it by god will mean that. That's what he's saying.
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
Sorry I disagree with you and as I stated previously I think those words"A well regulated militia "will lead to a change of some nature to the second amendment.

Here is a short explanation that I think best explains what was meant by 'well regulated':

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."

1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."

1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."

1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."

1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."

1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

If the purpose of having an armed citizenry to stand up militias against possible tyranny and oppose a standing army that would promote that tyranny through force, how can those militias be 'regulated' by the same government that 'regulates' the army that intends to oppress the people (the militia)?

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm

... the well regulated militia necessary to the security of a free state was a militia that might someday fight against a standing army raised and supported by a tyrannical national government. Obviously, for that reason, the Framers did not say "A Militia well regulated by the Congress, being necessary to the security of a free State" -- because a militia so regulated might not be separate enough from, or free enough from, the national government, in the sense of both physical and operational control, to preserve the "security of a free State."
 

LC_Sulla

New Member
Thank you.

Yes, I agree that people tend to go the path of least resistance and when it comes to restrictions on carrying and possessing guns that has meant just passing laws rather than trying to amend the Constitution to make such restrictions proper. And certainly it's true that people on the various sides of the various ideological divides are guilty of doing things that way. I want to come back to that general idea in a minute.

I would also say that I think most people in favor of gun restrictions sincerely believe that those restrictions are allowed by the Constitution. I think they are just wrong and that so often we convince ourselves of things because it's what we need to be the case. People think that we need gun restrictions so they convince themselves (or just assume, earlier people having already convinced themselves) that it's okay - i.e., in this context, constitutional - to pass gun restrictions. I don't think most people are consciously lying to themselves and others when it comes to thinking that gun restrictions are constitutional.

Back to the idea of people on various sides of the ideological and political divides doing the same things: The older I've gotten and the more people talking about ideological and political issues that I've been exposed to, the more I've realized that we're all the same when it comes to our failings in considering and thinking about such things. Almost all of the things that conservatives or Republicans accuse liberals or Democrats of doing - e.g., being brain-dead drones, being dishonest, being hypocritical, spinning things, cherry picking facts to suit their preferred narrative, being too partisan, being poorly informed, acting as though anything done by anyone on the other side represents everyone on the other side, just plain being stupid - those same conservatives or Republicans are guilty of themselves. The same is true in reverse. We deride the other side for their perceived failings while seemingly being oblivious to the reality that we have those same failings ourselves. The lack of self-awareness is amazing - again, coming from all sides.

When I was younger I thought that we - the conservatives or Republicans or whatever the we was in a given context - were the honest and well considered and fair minded and so on ones. Then after some time I came to realize that we too did much of the stuff that we accused the others of doing. We were better, but it was a matter of degree more so than of kind. Within the last few years I've come to realize that even that is being too kind to my side. We are not even meaningfully better when it comes to degree. We are just as bad - just as dishonest, just as intellectually inconsistent, just as spin-able, just as poorly reasoned and so on as the other side is. Our positions may on the whole, in my view, be the better ones. But our tactics and rhetoric and situational understanding and such are just as bad. We defend in our own side that which we criticize in the other to just as great a degree as they do. And both we and they (whomever the we and they happen to be) seem just as oblivious to that reality. Perhaps the most essential thing that's universally missing in our ideological and political postures is self awareness. We seem completely incapable of being honest with ourselves about ourselves. And it is in that singular condition that the ball game is lost; it is that reality alone that assures the continuation of most of the problems with our political systems.

I agree 100% with what you posted. After the 14th amendment discussion you brought up, I am going to have to go do some research to understand the impact of that on this discussion.

A while ago, I had a discussion with a friend who is pretty much my polar opposite on politics and the conversation went like this:

My friend - "Are you for big Government?"
Me - "Don't kid yourself. We are all for big Government."
My friend - "Well... we're all for what we want."

Perhaps, the desire/need to not be totally honest with ourselves is a form of self defense. Reasoning to a conclusion that differs with a core belief can cause great cognitive dissonance for some.

Ramble at you later!
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
Sorry I disagree with you and as I stated previously I think those words"A well regulated militia "will lead to a change of some nature to the second amendment.

That would mean a complete 180* turn from the way judges determine the constitutionality of something.

Could it happen? I guess, maybe one day....a long time from now.

For now, and as evidenced by multiple cases, those words will not lead to a change in anything.
 
Top