You know, I'd hate to be one of those people, but if you actually read the second amendment, and the things like the Militia Act passed shortly thereafter, the Founders apparently intended everbody owns a gun/ participates in a nationwide deserve. Well-regulated militias, and all. They disapproved of standing armies and militarism in general. The point of the Second Amendment wasn't so much to enshrine hunting or enable rebellion per se as it was to make it virtually impossible for oppression (read: the government using force against the people) to occur. It being somewhat difficult to have people oppress themselves.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Yep, There was a woman murdered on television in Washington DC just yesterday.

Yes. it's sad, but also nearly inevitable. She crashed her car into a WH barrier, a cop and a barrier at the Capitol. In a country with low firearm penetration, the cops may have tried other options before using deadly force. But this happened here, so you see how that played-out.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

You know, I'd hate to be one of those people, but if you actually read the second amendment, and the things like the Militia Act passed shortly thereafter, the Founders apparently intended everbody owns a gun/ participates in a nationwide deserve. Well-regulated militias, and all. They disapproved of standing armies and militarism in general. The point of the Second Amendment wasn't so much to enshrine hunting or enable rebellion per se as it was to make it virtually impossible for oppression (read: the government using force against the people) to occur. It being somewhat difficult to have people oppress themselves.

No, it wasn't. The purpose was

a) to raise armies to suppress rebellions, as per the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794, and

b) so The South could raise militias to put down slave revolts.

Only fanatics today make that bonehead argument about the people resisting government with their own arms.

As everyone knows, shortly after the 2nd was passed it became unnecessary because the state instituted well-regulated militias anyway.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

But does that automatically mean that guns themselves are the root cause of this 11-to-1 ratio?

Could America's racial/ethic diversity be a contributing factor (see my "Revolving Door Theory," which I have expounded several times on here), and/or our high level of wealth inequality?

Poverty contributes to crime, but does not make guns available to guys who attack women.

And might Switzerland be offered as an example to vindicate either or both of the above?

Switzerland has notoriously gun-friendly laws, low wealth inequality, is if not mono-ethnic, then certainly mono-racial - and has a very low rate of violent crime.

Some societies like Switzerland are much more advanced than the United States socially and economically, and much more communitarian and monolithic. Being small helps too. The Swiss have a trained citizen army instead of a military; that's a more well-regulated militia than individuals with handguns and semi-automatics.

*sigh*

Missing the point once again. The purpose of the Second Amendment was that there would be no standing army, so the government would have no ability to oppress its people, as the only people with guns were the citizens themselves. The Militia Act of 1792 and the Second Amendment were scarcely written in response to the Whiskey Rebellion, and the Militia Act of 1795 basically upheld its existing provisions. The provisions were extended to black men after the Civil War, and the whole Militia system wasn't replaced by the National Guard until 1903. The Second Amendment was both a right, and a responsibility.

This doesn't mean that they thought that the civilian population should rise up willy nilly, as things like the Whiskey Rebellion showed, but they clearly acknowledged the right and ability of people to resist their government with their own arms at some point, considering that they themselves HAD JUST DONE SO.

The Swiss have a trained citizen army instead of a military; that's a more well-regulated militia than individuals with handguns and semi-automatics.

Which is exactly what I was talking about, above. This is the "Blue Boomers" thread/progressive taxation thing all over again. Are you incapable of discussing concepts without first sorting them through your BlueGood/RedBad matrix first?

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Yep, There was a woman murdered on television in Washington DC just yesterday.

I agree with you on this one copperfield; I think it was unnecessary to kill the poor lady.

Oh, and Happy Birthday. '49er, huh?

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

*sigh*

Missing the point once again. The purpose of the Second Amendment was that there would be no standing army, so the government would have no ability to oppress its people, as the only people with guns were the citizens themselves.

But of course the politicians soon realized that this was impractical, and so standing armies, navies and guards were created soon afterward. The USA is not a small neutral nation like Switzerland that never goes to war; the USA is a bellicose nation that needs armies to carry out its conquests. So it has standing armies, and it has police and guard forces too to keep order. Citizen militias have never been necessary since 1795.

sigh yourself...

The Militia Act of 1792 and the Second Amendment were scarcely written in response to the Whiskey Rebellion, and the Militia Act of 1795 basically upheld its existing provisions. The provisions were extended to black men after the Civil War, and the whole Militia system wasn't replaced by the National Guard until 1903. The Second Amendment was both a right, and a responsibility.

The 2nd amendment was handy for the Whiskey Rebellion, which is of course what I meant. It was never used after that either, as far as I know. It showed the true purpose of the militia approach was to suppress rebellion, not to fight the government. Governments have never instituted militias whose purpose is to overthrow themselves.

This doesn't mean that they thought that the civilian population should rise up willy nilly, as things like the Whiskey Rebellion showed, but they clearly acknowledged the right and ability of people to resist their government with their own arms at some point, considering that they themselves HAD JUST DONE SO.

But now they had become the government, and the government's purpose is always to defend itself and the security of its people from outside threats, not to overthrow itself. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. The new government was a bunch of aristocrats who had just created a constitution dedicated to preserving their own power and status.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

Oh, and Happy Birthday. '49er, huh?

Yes, that's true. Best wishes to you too, my loyal adversary.....

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

Which is exactly what I was talking about, above. This is the "Blue Boomers" thread/progressive taxation thing all over again. Are you incapable of discussing concepts without first sorting them through your BlueGood/RedBad matrix first?

I don't know where you get that; you are bringing this in, it appears.

I would be happy if people in red states supported gun control, but it appears to be just another important issue that divides us; one among many--- as you could see from the "Is Connecticut the Best State to Live In" thread, on about pages 8-11. It is not my fault or by my decree that we are a divided people (although it has been my prediction for decades that we would become more-divided and possibly break up in the 2020s-- that prediction like most of my others is coming true).

As I mentioned, the Swiss don't need an army because they are not a bellicose nation like the USA is.

But of course the politicians soon realized that this was impractical, and so standing armies, navies and guards were created soon afterward. The USA is not a small neutral nation like Switzerland that never goes to war; the USA is a bellicose nation that needs armies to carry out its conquests. So it has standing armies, and it has police and guard forces too to keep order. Citizen militias have never been necessary since 1795.

Not so soon afterward as all that, they were making do with militias (not to be confused with the navy) for sometime thereafter. But they did in fact make arrangements to providefor officers, and surveyors, engineers, doctors, and other professionals. It was a complicated, gradual process, and really the US didn't really have a large peacetime military until after WWII left us as global hegemon, albeit contested. Hopefully, we can dismantle that legacy soon.

Oh, and interestingly enough, Switzerland was actually an incredibly belllicose nation for the first century or so of its existence, and Swiss mercenaries ran rampant throughout the Continent. As the US is isolated from real competitors by the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, perhaps we too can become known for our armed neutrality in the future.

The 2nd amendment was handy for the Whiskey Rebellion, which is of course what I meant.

Nope, not actually what you said.

It was never used after that either, as far as I know.

Are you claiming that the Militia was never called up after the Whiskey Rebellion? Are you sure you want to try and make that claim?

It showed the true purpose of the militia approach was to suppress rebellion, not to fight the government. Governments have never instituted militias whose purpose is to overthrow themselves.

If the "true purpose" was to suppress rebellion AND ONLY suppress rebellion, they would have kept a standing army like Britain's.

But now they had become the government, and the government's purpose is always to defend itself and the security of its people, not to overthrow itself. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. The new government was a bunch of aristocrats who had just created a constitution dedicated to preserving their own power and status.

Sure, they were aristocrats, but aristocrats who believed in an idea of liberty. The one does not entirely preclude the other, and the interplay between the two was one of the more fascinating aspects of the early Republic.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

Not so soon afterward as all that, they were making do with militias (not to be confused with the navy) for sometime thereafter. But they did in fact make arrangements to provide for officers, and surveyors, engineers, doctors, and other professionals. It was a complicated, gradual process, and really the US didn't really have a large peacetime military until after WWII left us as global hegemon, albeit contested. Hopefully, we can dismantle that legacy soon.

But it had frequent state armies for its many wars, going back all the way to 1799. Since they had these armies, the US did not need the militias.

Oh, and interestingly enough, Switzerland was actually an incredibly belllicose nation for the first century or so of its existence, and Swiss mercenaries ran rampant throughout the Continent. As the US is isolated from real competitors by the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, perhaps we too can become known for our armed neutrality in the future.

I hope so, but it's a red herring to bring up the Swiss conduct from centuries ago. They have been neutral and peaceful for some time now.

Nope, not actually what you said.

What I clearly said was that the militias were found useful in the Whiskey Rebellion, and thereby demonstrated its purpose. If you did not get that that is what I said, you misread what I said.

Are you claiming that the Militia was never called up after the Whiskey Rebellion? Are you sure you want to try and make that claim?

Sure, why don't you refute me then.

If the "true purpose" was to suppress rebellion AND ONLY suppress rebellion, they would have kept a standing army like Britain's.

How can you say that?

Sure, they were aristocrats, but aristocrats who believed in an idea of liberty. The one does not entirely preclude the other, and the interplay between the two was one of the more fascinating aspects of the early Republic.

Sure, but like I said, they were a government, and governments act to protect themselves, not to fight themselves with arms.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Yes. it's sad, but also nearly inevitable. She crashed her car into a WH barrier, a cop and a barrier at the Capitol. In a country with low firearm penetration, the cops may have tried other options before using deadly force. But this happened here, so you see how that played-out.

The short answer why they shot her: Navy Yard.

The longer answer is that people in this town are freaked. Freaked out about the shutdown, about the recent Navy Yard shooting, about everything that has happened.

So sad.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I don't know where you get that; you are bringing this in, it appears.



As I mentioned, the Swiss don't need an army because they are not a bellicose nation like the USA is.

The United States was born with imperial scale even if it was born with republican government.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

No, it wasn't. The purpose was

a) to raise armies to suppress rebellions, as per the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794, and

b) so The South could raise militias to put down slave revolts.

Only fanatics today make that bonehead argument about the people resisting government with their own arms.

As everyone knows, shortly after the 2nd was passed it became unnecessary because the state instituted well-regulated militias anyway.

Indeed, private, politicized militias are the bane of democracy. As a rule the oppressors have the bigger guns and better know how to use them. Death squads are usually private, politicized militias in the service of economic elites who don't get everything that they want. I can't say much about gangster politics (other than those of the criminal syndicate known as the German Nazi Party)... but needless to say, I would never trust an armed band that serves drug traffickers. If someone wishes to say that private militias can stop totalitarian rule, then consider that the Nazis fought much of their struggle in the street -- and that the Czechoslovak coup of 1948 that turned a democracy into a Commie dictatorship relied heavily upon Red militias to enforce the way of the Communist Party.

I know no case in which armed militias of private entities ever brought forth freedom. The American Revolution? That was a struggle between a despotic king and the legitimate authority of elected colonial governments. Slave revolts from Spartacus to Nat Turner have almost invariably failed to undermine slavery.

Almost all successful revolutions hinge upon getting the military and the police on one's side.

Eric,

I haven't forgotten this thread, but I have a limited amount of time this week to do substantive research and the like, and unfortunately I have to spend it doing school work. I will have a good answer for you in a few days, when I can spare more than a few minutes on my cellphone.

Pbrower,

NaziNaziNaziNaziNaziNaziNaziNaziNaziNaziNaziNaziNa ziNaziNaziNaziNaziNaziNaziNaziNaziNaziNaziNazi

I was thinking about this today and it occurred to me that if one is a True Original Constitutionalist, one should advocate for the ownership by everyone of a smooth-bore, flintlock musket, and perhaps a smoothbore cannon all using only black powder.

And nothing more, of course, since for a True Original Constitutionalist, the Constitution is NOT a living document.

>;^)

Originally Posted by TnT

I was thinking about this today and it occurred to me that if one is a True Original Constitutionalist, one should advocate for the ownership by everyone of a smooth-bore, flintlock musket, and perhaps a smoothbore cannon all using only black powder.

And nothing more, of course, since for a True Original Constitutionalist, the Constitution is NOT a living document.

>;^)

If everybody gets to be armed (commensurate with skill), I want an A-10, with a full air-to ground loadout. I'll do a live-fire demo at the next gun show. )

Originally Posted by Bad Dog

If everybody gets to be armed (commensurate with skill), I want an A-10, with a full air-to ground loadout. I'll do a live-fire demo at the next gun show. )

A Warthog, er Thunderbolt II, is effective if a bit odd looking. Good choice if the other "players" are restricted to the ground.

Originally Posted by Bad Dog

If everybody gets to be armed (commensurate with skill), I want an A-10, with a full air-to ground load out. I'll do a live-fire demo at the next gun show.)

Legally speaking (and I should state up front that I am not a lawyer, hence not an expert on law) I don't believe there is a federal law that says you can't own any of the above on your wish list. While there is law regulating the ownership of destructive devices, those laws do not explicitly prohibit. Indeed, there are many private owners of military equipment (tanks, jets, etc.) in the country already. For instance the recently late Tom Clancy owned a Sherman Tank, kept on his property. Now certainly your state of residence may have laws prohibiting ownership but that's a different animal.

Now, you would have to jump through a number of hoops if you wanted to purchase said A-10 with full load out. First it will cost you millions of dollars (not cheap to begin with, a lack of availability will drive up the cost further). Second, good luck finding a seller. Currently the US military owns the biggest stockpile of this particular model and even with cash on hand they may not be willing to sell to a private citizen (at least not for a few years). Third, you will need to comply with all of the standard state and federal regulations. Prepare to pay for licensing and for the tax stamp on each DD. Gaining licensing will require you to go through a number of background checks with the ATF and FBI. Don't worry though, the FBI guys ain't so bad (I have spoken with FBI agents on a few occasions, including one just a few months ago). Also you will need permission from your local Sheriff or Chief of Police, so be prepared to offer the necessary bribes if this person isn't a close, personal acquaintance or family member.

I may have left out a step or two; however it really should be smooth sailing from that point on.

Originally Posted by TnT

I was thinking about this today and it occurred to me that if one is a True Original Constitutionalist, one should advocate for the ownership by everyone of a smooth-bore, flintlock musket, and perhaps a smoothbore cannon all using only black powder.

And nothing more, of course, since for a True Original Constitutionalist, the Constitution is NOT a living document.

>;^)

It should be noted that nowhere in the constitution will anyone find any specific description of "arms" nor is there any qualification given over which arms should be considered "constitutional." Technically speaking, the 2nd Amendment also covers knives, bayonets, spears, pikes, axes, clubs, etc. It covers all arms, not simply all firearms. In the same regard, the constitution does not (for instance) explicitly define free speech as being restricted to the printing press.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

It should be noted that nowhere in the constitution will anyone find any specific description of "arms" nor is there any qualification given over which arms should be considered "constitutional." Technically speaking, the 2nd Amendment also covers knives, bayonets, spears, pikes, axes, clubs, etc. It covers all arms, not simply all firearms. In the same regard, the constitution does not (for instance) explicitly define free speech as being restricted to the printing press.

Obviously then, the need for laws to spell out what arms (and speech) are covered.

Yes -- maybe we could have the Constitution interpreted to imply that we are free to keep flintlock muskets characteristic of the American Revolution, but nothing more modern. Heck, we already have the family dog that burglars dread... a little Jack Russell terrier can ensure that there is a trail of blood left behind that can be used for DNA evidence to convict an intruder.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

It should be noted that nowhere in the constitution will anyone find any specific description of "arms" nor is there any qualification given over which arms should be considered "constitutional." Technically speaking, the 2nd Amendment also covers knives, bayonets, spears, pikes, axes, clubs, etc. It covers all arms, not simply all firearms. In the same regard, the constitution does not (for instance) explicitly define free speech as being restricted to the printing press.

Today's firearms are much more powerful than the flintlock muskets of the time of the American Revolution. "Arms" included swords and crossbows that were already obsolete in the American Revolution. The bayonet was more feared for the knife that could disembowel a victim than for its bullet.

Freedom of speech and writing of course does not apply to criminal speech. One cannot defend a ransom note used in a kidnapping for ransom as freedom of speech, and one can't defend "This is a stickup! Hand over the money and nobody gets hurt!" used in a bank robbery. Maybe in a screenplay or a novel, but not in real life. Freedom of speech does not imply any right to a receptive audience.

Of course the problem is not with the ransom note or the bank-robber's threat; it is the context, and kidnapping and robbery are outlawed in practice. Criminal speech leaves no doubt about its purpose.