Well Regulated Militia?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bon_Croix
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I had no problem getting several but I am a law-abiding adult American with a job and some disposable income. On weapon was purchased from a relative, one I inherited, and one I purchased at a gun show. Only the last one required me to undergo a background check but that would not have been an issue as I also have a Top Secret security clearance. Other people may have more difficulty. Persons who have had a felony conviction cannot purchase a weapon legally but then criminals are known for their disrespect for the law.

Patrick
AMDG
 
Rau said:
What are the duties and obligations of these militia members (who are apparently automatically drafted)?
Click to expand...
“Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and to God, the things that are God’s”. That includes conscientious objection, of course.
 
The theories proposed here have to be understood in light of not only the
Constitution but also the Articles of Confederation as well as the debates
that were taking place at the time.

The militia is not a thing of the past; it is still with us.
 
Last edited:
I continue to believe this has got to be the worst written amendment. I’m not really anti-gun, I fully understand hunters, target shooters, and gun collectors. I’m a bit less so with those who insists on keeping a loaded gun in their bed stand. People are more likely to die by a gun within their family and social circle than they are any other way. Hunters, target shooters, and gun collectors tend to keep their weapons unloaded and looked up.

The thing is that the military world has moved on since the founding of the US. No longer can you simply fight with a simple gun. There are obviously weapon systems that no citizen has the right to have. So those who insist on unfettered access to weapons are pushing for a world that no longer exists. They are leveraging this passage to their advantage to resist any reasonable gun control. Believe it or not there are plenty of Western societies that function quite well with gun control or even regular police officers not carrying a gun.
 
PJH_74 said:
I continue to believe this has got to be the worst written amendment
Click to expand...
It’s written pretty well. It’s intent is quite clear.
PJH_74 said:
They are leveraging this passage to their advantage to resist any reasonable gun control
Click to expand...
AKA obey the constitution as it’s written
PJH_74 said:
Believe it or not there are plenty of Western societies that function quite well with gun control or even regular police officers not carrying a gun.
Click to expand...
Correct, so if people want gun laws, they need to lobby congress to pass an amendment repealing the 2nd and stop trying to skirt the constitution. There’s a way to get this accomplished, they just need to use the existing process. But, the majority of American’s won’t support that, which is why they won’t do it.
 
JanSobieskiIII said:
AKA obey the constitution as it’s written
Click to expand...
Or as it was intended? There’s no way the framers of the Constitution could have foreseen the vast improvement in weapon technology or the practical uselessness of people picking up their personal firearm to resist an enemy. Agreed, this needs a proper amendment to resolve the issue, but it won’t because those using the vagueness of this amendment to continue to push for more and more lax gun regulations. What’s missed in the argument is those who would prefer a society without the massive presence of high powered killing machines.
 
PJH_74 said:
There’s no way the framers of the Constitution could have foreseen the vast improvement in weapon technology
Click to expand...
I disagree. They weren’t dumb.

A man born in 1720 saw vast leaps in firearm technology by 1776.

Also, there were huge leaps from 1800-1900, they could have made changes over that time but didn’t.

The argument that they couldn’t have foreseen changes holds no water.
 
JanSobieskiIII said:
A man born in 1720 saw vast leaps in firearm technology by 1776.

Also, there were huge leaps from 1800-1900, they could have made changes over that time but didn’t.
Click to expand...
Nuclear bombs, fighting planes that could go faster than sound, tanks, submarines, machine guns, missiles, needs I list more? Some of these would be considered scientific quackery. The time period you mentioned mostly saw improvements in basic gun technology; trigger mechanisms and rifling.
 
And last I checked civilians don’t have those things? So I’m not sure what your point is with that comment.

Unless you’re saying they’d have tried to stop the government form being allowed to have them.
 
Last edited:
PJH_74 said:
The thing is that the military world has moved on since the founding of the US. No longer can you simply fight with a simple gun. There are obviously weapon systems that no citizen has the right to have.
Click to expand...
Actually, you could not fight against an army with a simple musket even then. To be effective in battle, you needed a a large group, shoulder to shoulder firing all at once. Check out the British casualty count on the return from Lexington and Concord. It was a major propaganda and moral victory but casualties were almost non-existent.

If you read the commentaries of many of the founding fathers, you will find that one of the things they wanted people to be able to defend against is the government. Disarming the people is a first step to dictatorship.
PJH_74 said:
Believe it or not there are plenty of Western societies that function quite well with gun control or even regular police officers not carrying a gun.
Click to expand...
Please name 2 western countries where the police are routinely unarmed.

As a point in the other direction, check out the gun crime stats on Switzerland where everyone is armed.

Patrick
AMDG
 
phoage said:
Actually, you could not fight against an army with a simple musket even then. To be effective in battle, you needed a a large group, shoulder to shoulder firing all at once.
Click to expand...
So are we now to pull out our personal rocket launches, grenades, and automatic weapons when standing shoulder to shoulder?
phoage said:
Please name 2 western countries where the police are routinely unarmed.
Click to expand...
phoage said:
As a point in the other direction, check out the gun crime stats on Switzerland where everyone is armed.
Click to expand...
This is a good read. Gun ownership per capita is much higher in the US and, more importantly, the culture around guns is different. I’ve been to Switzerland 5 times and had discussions on the topic, they’re attitude about guns is indeed different.

 
Last edited:
PJH_74 said:
There’s no way the framers of the Constitution could have foreseen the vast improvement in weapon technology…
Click to expand...
The matters in a Constitution are usually those expected to be largely unaffected by changes in circumstances (technology, social attitudes, will of the people etc). Owning weaponry is not a good fit. For matters addressed through legislation, the law can be evolved as these other factors develop. Because ownership of weapons is covered in the constitution, we somewhat lose that facility to evolve the law.
 
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Interesting country selections to the right of USA. 😂
 
Last edited:
Are you implying that they’d be called sh*t holes by some people 🤣
 
Some quotes shedding some light on these issues:

“The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”
  • Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788
“This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty… The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.”
  • St. George Tucker, Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803
“The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms, like law, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance ofpower is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one-half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong. The history of every age and nation establishes these truths, and facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves.”
  • Thomas Paine, “Thoughts on Defensive War” in Pennsylvania Magazine, July 1775
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top