|
10673. iiibbb - 2/13/2013 8:34:14 PM The most recent debate has changed my viewpoints a little. I don't know why the most vocal advocates (and I think this is largely because the press chooses these idiots) is the notion that we are defending the country as part of the militia.
Okay.
I think the government has the prerogative to define the arms that may be held by militia members (in this case the so called "unorganized" militia). But here is the rub. I think the police should be held to the same restrictions (or at the very least standard patrol officers should be limited). So if officers patrol with a Glock with 17 rounds and an AR=15 and/or shotgun in the trunk, then I should be able to defend my home with the same thing.
I've got no problem with licensing for "official" militia membership. But that license should allow me to at least possess the arms outside of my home state in accordance with the laws of the state I visit... but at a minimum I should be able to possess them.
I've got no problem with a limit on the size of one's arsenal. Limit me to two or three defensive handgun per household, or an AR-15 per militia member per household. That's fine. If people want to have more, they can apply for some sort of waiver and register themselves in some other way.
Hunting arms would be exempt. So technically if you object to being on the government's radar with regards to arms, you are still afforded a means to protect yourself without being registered.
I find that neither side is amenable to these ideas, so I know I'm on the right track.
It accommodates everyone. It limits the proliferation of weapons, it permits self defense, it better defines militia membership. 10674. Wombat - 2/13/2013 9:49:59 PM "Unorganized Militia?" Elucidate. 10675. iiibbb - 2/13/2013 9:59:00 PM US Code section 311
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
10676. iiibbb - 2/13/2013 9:59:37 PM (2) = the police and citizens. 10677. iiibbb - 2/13/2013 10:08:26 PM restating "It accommodates everyone. It limits the proliferation of weapons, it permits self defense, it better defines militia membership."
It accommodates everyone. It limits the proliferation of weapons, it permits self defense, it actually regulates militia membership.
on a sidebar... once a weapon platform or class is approved as a militia weapon, it stays approved for at least 25 years (which would prevent people from having to continuously reinvest if there is a change).
Also, militia members would have to show up at least once a year to some sort of formal firearms training/practice. Pretty loose on this... a safety class, a competition like IDPA, IPSC, or CMP. 10678. iiibbb - 2/13/2013 10:12:54 PM There is a big carrot in there in terms of the reciprocity being tied to it... but people have to pare down their weapons... or they keep their weapons but they don't get the carrot.
I want the carrot. Less so because I want to be able to carry a firearm anywhere I go, but because I only want to be subject to one set of rules. For me one of the most frustrating aspects of firearm possession is that the rules can change on you just by crossing an invisible border: state/state, county/county, county/municipality.
I'd also be fine with metropolises (like NYC) having special rules. 10679. iiibbb - 2/13/2013 10:13:20 PM but there would have to be some sort of population density requirement to get that kind of control. 10680. judithathome - 2/13/2013 10:54:18 PM But isn't a "militia" considered to be groups of citizens who will join in with the military to defend their country against a common enemy? Wasn't this put into effect in order for the governemnt to call up citizens to help them DEFEND against a foreign invader?
Was it really set up for malcontents to rise up against their own government? 10681. iiibbb - 2/13/2013 11:01:14 PM The militia is defined above. Every able bodied .....
How many malcontents are the malcontents going to get? They're calling Obama the antichrist in some circles and there's nobody marching on DC. Ted Nugent for all of his bluster is not dead or in jail yet.
I am really not that worried about malcontents.
The militia concept was really set up because there wasn't supposed to be a standing army. That if the nation were attacked, people would be expected to organize themselves and fight.
We got civilized. We made armies. We made the national guard.
But just because we changed the layers of national defense, doesn't mean we eliminated the militia, or that it erased the 2nd amendment. If you want to do that, you'll have to change the constitution... but I think if they tried to change the constitution WRT the 2nd amendment it might actually rile the malcontents to do more than talk. 10682. Wombat - 2/14/2013 12:20:01 AM One could--and possibly should--take a narrow definition of what an unorganized militia is. It is not not a bunch of guys who get together, call themeselves a militia, indulge in what might pass for paramilitary training, and get to possess AR-15s and the like.
If a state, county, or locality chooses to set up a militia that is unaffiliated with National Guard, and is not equipped by--or under an obligation to--the Federal government, that would constitute an "unorganized" militia as defined in the code. 10683. Wombat - 2/14/2013 12:23:38 AM Historically, we also realized that what passed for a "well-ordered" militia was singularly ineffective in defending the US against foreign invasion, or in projecting US military power. 10684. judithathome - 2/14/2013 12:43:59 AM Just as it would be for defending themselves against the government.
You can't get people to agree on much of anything...are they suddenly going to work together to make a run against any foe...foreign OR domestic? 10685. iiibbb - 2/14/2013 1:11:22 AM Only a third of the population was behind the American Revolution 10686. iiibbb - 2/14/2013 1:12:06 AM which is a lot 10687. alistairconnor - 2/14/2013 11:53:43 AM "which is a lot" ... if they are the armed and violent third of the population. Compare Syria.
"But just because we changed the layers of national defense, doesn't mean we eliminated the militia, or that it erased the 2nd amendment. If you want to do that, you'll have to change the constitution."
OK, so you acknowledge that the notion of "militia" is completely obsolete, yet you find it a convenient sophistry. Your idea that ordinary people should be as well-armed as the police is an interesting one : in other countries, the state tries to keep a monopoly on force (it's perhaps the essential definition of what a state is); or at least, tries to ensure that the forces of the state will have the upper hand if it comes to armed clashes.
Your ambition to disarm the police seems to indicate that you want "failed state" status for the USA (because that's what happens when state forces can't impose their will by force). 10688. iiibbb - 2/14/2013 2:52:01 PM Alistar... first off, among gun owners I am not the norm. They are more intense that I, so consider you are arguing against a moderate viewpoint. I am arguing for limits on the number of weapons people can own. I am arguing for more intense registration. I am arguing for mandatory training. I'm arguing that a claim of militia membership be made to mean something.
These are all things the gun control side say they want... so when you try to pick my proposal apart like I was an extreme version of what the NRA would have as gun rights, you fall fall flat.
I don't want to disarm the state or the police. But they have selected a set of arms for a patrol officer that is considered appropriate protected for working. I want to be able to protect myself. I have been in situations where a gun might have been needed and the police were nowhere to be found.
Police response time is not all that great for violent crimes, so there's no way you will convince me it's unreasonable.
Then back to the 1/3rd. It takes a significant portion of the country to pull of a successful popular revolution. The United States does not have a political climate that is anywhere near that... so Judith's concerns about some malcontents making war with the state... isn't all that compelling to me. 10689. Wombat - 2/14/2013 5:21:05 PM It takes a much smaller fraction to sow terror by attacking the government and its functionaries (which is casting a pretty wide net). There are parts of the country where a small number of heavily-armed people could create highly publicized havoc by attacking those who they deem oppressors, based on a faulty understanding of the Constitution. They may well already outgun the local law enforcement officials. They also would have at least the tacit support of elements in one of the U.S.'s major political parties. 10690. iiibbb - 2/14/2013 6:38:00 PM The Battle of Athens
Terror is not equal to revolution.
Any so-called malcontents would have to greatly overestimate their cause and popularity for something like that to happen... and then it would make no sense for them to make war on their neighbors. It would undermine their credibility outright and they would be squashed like bugs.
Talking about a modern American revolution outside of political action is ludicrous.... unless the economy collapsed and the government's collusion with Wall Street and the "ruling" class were demonstrated.
Then I suppose all bets would be off. 10691. iiibbb - 2/14/2013 6:39:32 PM Man... I just read my post to Alistar.... this autocorrect makes funny choices when I don't have time to proof it. 10692. iiibbb - 2/14/2013 6:48:43 PM A militia that is not subordinate to the citizens isn't a militia, it is rogue.
|
