A Well Regulated Militia

That's not correct. The Supreme Court has selectively incorporated parts of the Bill of Rights via the Fourteenth Amendment. That includes the Second Amendment. My point is that incorporating the Second Amendment contradicts the original purpose of the Amendment, so it never should have happened based on the incorporation analysis.

That's irrelevant to my point.

 

LOL, you guys honestly believe if the biden govt ordered the military to take up arms against the US citizens they would just blindly follow? Based on ex military guys I know, my guess is the guns, planes and tanks would quickly be turned on them.

 

LOL, you guys actually believe it will come to that?
In the meantime we should all just suck it up as innocent people get gunned down, because someday we all may need protection from the big bad government by private citizens who are packing. Roger that.

 

Apparently you didn’t read their purpose.

I would hope with your background you know that our military will not attack regular citizens and that is what they are. I’ve been involved with the military in numerous ways. Wounded warriors, MacDill AFB, veterans, and a lot of reserve and regular. Not one time have they said they would follow the order to attack regular citizens. I’ve heard this conversation numerous times. They would turn on their commanders should they give that order. To think otherwise is ignorant.

Now if you’re talking about a right wing group that tries to overthrow the government the military will annihilate them within days if not sooner.

The Florida Militia is not a right wing radical group. They are a well regulated Militia as described in the 2nd amendment.

 

Those are interesting numbers. Seems strange to me that there are over 3,300 murders identified where the type of gun isn't stated. Perhaps the state or local law enforcement didn't make that determination or didn't report it. But it also references "other guns." What are the "other" types of guns that don't fall into the category of either a handgun, a shotgun, or a rifle?

 

Black powder?

 

I can’t find the article, but years ago I read an op-Ed in I think the LA times by a linguist who studies language used in the past, it is was his contention that it was not uncommon in that time to structure a sentence with an example followed by an assertion and in the case of the second amendment it is entirely plausible that the well regulated militia is an example of why you should have the right to bear arms, not necessarily the exclusive reason which would be the more modern interpretation of that structure. The particular linguist was liberal in political ideology so it wasn’t written in political motivation.

I have also read discussions where there were multiple drafts of the second amendment with different language, and in English common law you get variations.

My conclusion was that it is impossible to garner the true intention at this point, as various interpretations are plausible, plus, somewhat like today, there were different opinions on the matter.

My beef has more been along the lines that for 100 years we had kind of settled on an interpretation of the second amendment, agreed to by both left and right, and then an NRA backed far right interpretation infiltrated right wing politics and has since become law.

 

I think you have to consider the historical context too. The U.S. had no permanent standing army until 1789. Prior to that, armies were called up from state/local militias. These weren't career soldiers. These were citizen-soldiers, bringing their muskets and volunteering (or drafted) as needed to provide for common defense. That's what drove the need for people to keep and bear arms - so they'd be available when needed. It absolutely made sense at the time. Frankly, the notion is a bit antiquated at this day and age. For some (not you specifically) to interpret this as an absolute "no limits on gun ownership" just sounds ridiculous on its face.

 

There are limits placed on individuals when it comes to gun ownership. The problem is people keep dancing around the subject looking for a panacea where none exists. One extreme is I can have anything I want which we know isn't true and the other extreme is no one is allowed to have a rifle or a pistol which doesn't address the issue either. In short we are left with solutions of mitigation and trusting the majority of gun owners to be responsible (which I believe the majority are). Just like locks which are meant to keep honest people honest those that do not qualify for a weapon will get them one way or another. In such cases it doesn't solve the horrible things people are prone to do.

 

Its easy to be "responsible" when nothing is required of you

 

And what happens when these politicians order these "militia" to attack it's own citizens in certain states? Or to put down a perfectly legal protest in Washington D.C.? And I am NOT talking about January 6th. The U.S. Army has in the past attacked American civilians. What happens if the Federal Government suspends our Constitutional rights and D.C. sends in troops to attack a governor or a city? Does that state have the right to defend itself with state resident militia? I say yes, and they must be controlled by the state and NOT the federal government.

And here is where we can unequivocally say that federal troops are NOT the same as state militia. NOT even close.




The Bonus Army was the name applied a group over 17,000 U.S. World War I veterans who marched on Washington, D.C. during the summer of 1932 demanding immediate cash payment of the service bonuses promised to them by Congress eight years earlier. Dubbed the “Bonus Army” and “Bonus Marchers” by the press, the group officially called itself the “Bonus Expeditionary Force” to mimic the name of World War I's American Expeditionary Forces.


The U.S. Army Attacks the Veterans
On the morning of July 28, 1932, President Hoover, in his capacity as Commander in Chief of the military, ordered his Secretary of War Patrick J. Hurley to clear the Bonus Army camps and disperse the protesters. At 4:45 p.m., U.S. Army infantry and cavalry regiments under the command of General Douglas MacArthur, supported by six M1917 light tanks commanded by Maj. George S. Patton, assembled on Pennsylvania Avenue to carry out President Hoover’s orders.


With sabers, fixed bayonets, tear gas, and a mounted machine gun, the infantry and the cavalry charged the veterans, forcibly evicting them and their families from the smaller camps on the Capitol Building side of the Anacostia River. When the veterans retreated back across the river to the Hooverville camp, President Hoover ordered the troops to stand down until the next day. MacArthur, however, claiming the Bonus Marchers were attempting to overthrow the U.S. government, ignored Hoover’s order and immediately launched a second charge. By the end of the day, 55 veterans had been injured and 135 arrested.

When the Bonus Army of 17,000 US Veterans Marched on Washington, D.C.

 

No.

Their "responsible" means they have not shot themselves or each other.

 

At last check Americans owned 400 million firearms and two trillion rounds of ammo. What would it take to kindle that much firewood ?

Answer: more than the decidedly world-altering and horrific eventsof 2020ff.

 

That bit of vital constitutional history is lost on most of the 2A advocates.

 

Just to emphasize the point you are making, the Bill of Rights (A 1-10) were adopted on December 15, 1791. SCOTUS case law was clear...the BoR only applied to the federal government and federal court cases, not the states. The 14th Amendment was adopted on July 9, 1868, seventy-six & 1/2 years later. Even then, the Bill of Rights did not automatically apply to the states (and to this day, not all parts of all 10 do,) rather SCOTUS began a process of selective incorporation whereby selected or all parts of the different amendments (1-10) were found to apply to the states by virtue of the 14th A in its various decisions.

Those of you just reading the language now in a vacuum are ignoring the historical perspective at the time the 2A was adopted...that it would not apply to the states. You should read the 2A in that context when trying to interpret the meaning of the different parts....the phrases take on a very different significance. @gator_lawyer is spot on with this.

 

There are “other” guns that exist - it’s generally speaking guns that don’t fit any of the federal definitions of gun types (the Mossberg Shockwave is probably the most common example of one - its’s not legally a shotgun because it doesn’t have a stock and is not designed to be fired from the shoulder, it’s not a pistol because it’s designed to be fired with two hands, it’s not a rifle, and it’s not an NFA firearm because it has an overall length of 26 inches or greater). There is also the NFA classification of “AOW” or “any other weapon” which includes smoothbore handguns that fire shotgun shells (essentially short barrel shotguns without a stock), pistols with multiple vertical grips, short barreled guns with both rifle and shotgun barrels, and a lot of the “disguised guns” like umbrella guns and the like.

Some of those may be in that other/unidentified bucket, but I suspect like most guns used in crimes it’s almost entirely pistols, just ones where the reporting agency didn’t note what the gun was.

 

400 Million Guns in our country.

10,000 are used in murders each year.

One side looks at this and says holy crap, there are 10k murders each year with guns. No one needs a gun!

The other side says .

so out of 400,000,000 guns in the US, 10,000 are used in murders each year.

.0025%.

Gun control is a set of neurons running between the brain and the trigger finger.

 

Shockwave is a sonofabitch to shoot too