Do you trust your neighbor to own a sword?

[Tpmetal]

Thank you for the correction - yes, it was 1792. I wrote the wrong date from memory. Sometimes memory serves; sometimes it double-faults.

The Second Militia Act of 1792 did define a "well-regulated militia." That was the whole point. As you wrote - "the 2nd Militia Act of 1792 did specify how the militia was to be called to service, trained, and what the expectations were [of the members]."

But debating the history of the Second Amendment, or of the Constitution of the United States and how it replaced a weak Federal government established by the Articles of Confederation with a strong one misses the point.

Do we have a problem today? I would strongly argue we certainly do. The bloody numbers are as stark as they are depressing.

What are we going to do about it?

That's the issue that counts.

Claiming that other things are dangerous is a meaningless distraction - a sad way to avoid the sorry truth.

Good luck to all,

The Old Bookaroo

You are ignoring the actual problem, people killing people, and attacking the means they take to do it is a far worse of a stretch and distraction. you are literally avoiding the problem and putting guns as the scapegoat. You choose this because in your head it seems so simple, no guns mean less people killing or trying to kill people. Which it sadly does not, less guns only means people switch to other means. Because the problem of why people are bent on killing each other is such a much more difficult undertaking, most just opt for the "easy option". Problem is criminals don't follow laws, guns can be built in a variety of ways at home and even 3d printed at this point. Now the only armed people are criminals and the government, which history has proven to be among the most deadly things on this planet.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Cry Of The Eagle: History And Legends Of The Cherokee Indians And Their Buried Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[Charlie P. (NY)]

I'm pro-gun ownership and pro-choice. But I have no problem with background checks. For firearms AND parenting.

If you can't be trusted with a firearm you certainly shouldn't be trusted with a child.

 

[Tahts-a-dats-ago]

The Second Militia Act of 1792 did define a "well-regulated militia." That was the whole point. As you wrote - "the 2nd Militia Act of 1792 did specify how the militia was to be called to service, trained, and what the expectations were [of the members]."

The wording of the Act makes it clear that the "militia" consisted of all able-bodied males between the ages of 18 and 45. The fact is that the militia is still fairly similarly defined at the current date.


The legal definition of "militia" did not change with the passage of the 2nd Militia Act. That act did specify certain requirements (individuals were to supply their own arms, ammo, and certain supplies) when the militia was called into service. That act also spoke of training - which happened to be the contemporary definition of "regulated." What the 1792 Militia Acts did not do was define "well regulated militia."

For one thing such an attempt would've been a direct violation of power - as the only legal means to change the Constitution is via the amendment process.

The purpose/intent of the 2nd Militia Act was to grant the president (Washington) a limited period of time (2 years) to call up the militia in the event that hostile forces presented themselves. In 1795 another Militia Act was passed - effectively making the power permanent.

All three Militia Acts (two in 1792 and one in 1795) were confined in scope (by the Constitution) and did not (nor could they) restrict or infringe upon an individual's natural right to keep and bear arms.

Do we have a problem today? I would strongly argue we certainly do. The bloody numbers are as stark as they are depressing.

What are we going to do about it?

That's the issue that counts.

Claiming that other things are dangerous is a meaningless distraction - a sad way to avoid the sorry truth.

Good luck to all,

The Old Bookaroo

Is the problem the tools, or is the problem the individuals who misuse the tools?

The last time I delved into the statistics they tended to show that those nations that addressed the issue of violence, by way of infringing upon the right to bear arms, saw spikes in the use of other tools [for violent actions]. Human nature being what it is, I'd be extremely surprised if the statistics suddenly reflected a large drop in violence overall.

Given mankind's known history of violence (man killed other men with sticks/stones long prior to the invention of firearms) it seems obvious that the tool itself isn't the problem. In fact we can look at our closest relatives (Chimps) and see extreme violence is routine in their societies.

Noting dangers isn't a distraction. If anything, the distraction is pretending those dangers are somehow irrelevant in the discussion.

Far more dangerous - if individual freedom is to have any real meaning - is the pretense that rights can be arbitrarily stripped [from all] simply because a relative few misuse tools.



What to do about the issue of violence and misuse of tools?

First, we should recognize the fact that the problem is with those individuals who misuse the tool - not the tool itself, and not the vast majority of people who do not misuse the tool.

Second, we should engage in targeted efforts to severely punish those individuals who misuse tools and callously harm others.

Third, we should implement education efforts to create a {well regulated} well trained society with regards to the proper handling/use of arms.

Fourth, we should take steps to undermine the throw-away mentality of a society that holds little value for life.

Fifth, we need to recognize just how precious our rights are.

 

[Old Bookaroo]

Tpmetal:

Where in any of my posts do I "scapegoat" guns?

You don't know what's in my head - why pretend that you do? Stick to the facts.

Of course criminals don't follow laws - that's why they are criminals. As I posted above, if that is the premise on which you elect to operate then why do we have laws against anything?

Several posters here try to argue that guns aren't necessary because people will always find other means. That's an argument that cuts both ways - if one seriously believes that (and I don't) then why do citizens needs firearms at all?

Good luck to all,

The Old Bookaroo

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

2nd Amendment wasnt written to protect ourselves from criminals to hunt, or target practice, it was written to give citizens the ability to resist a government of tyranny if and when ever it was needed.

 

[Tpmetal]

Tpmetal:

Where in any of my posts do I "scapegoat" guns?

You don't know what's in my head - why pretend that you do? Stick to the facts.

Of course criminals don't follow laws - that's why they are criminals. As I posted above, if that is the premise on which you elect to operate then why do we have laws against anything?

Several posters here try to argue that guns aren't necessary because people will always find other means. That's an argument that cuts both ways - if one seriously believes that (and I don't) then why do citizens needs firearms at all?

Good luck to all,

The Old Bookaroo

because firearms provide equal grounds for defending yourself. From man or any other animal bent on causing me, my family, or my property harm. Why have any laws? most laws are geared towards punishing the criminals, gun laws do nothing but disarm and punish law abiding citizens or force them to provide information that can be used against them in no relation to the gun.... to try and compare gun laws to every other law is intentionally disingenuous.

 

[Garscale]

Claiming that other things are dangerous is a meaningless distraction - a sad way to avoid the sorry truth.

Good luck to all,

The Old Bookaroo[/COLOR]

Talk about folks missing the point... the point, which you well know is that it's not the inert "thing" that is dangerous. It is the intent of the person using it. That's why you don't speak of car violence, train violence, hammer violence, etc. Obviously those things are not violent just like a gun isn't violent. Passing gun laws does nothing . Murder is already illegal.

Obesity is one of the biggest killers in the World and far worse in America than most places. Maybe ban icecream scoops and pizza cutters?

You are a smart guy. You see the issue.

 

[xr7ator]

This is the USA! We live high on the hog! If a "gun" was never invented, there would be some other object that is used for protection. Be it a knife, lazer, bomb or something never thought up. However, living as a citizen in the USA and having the opportunity to flourish here.....we would still have very abundant "protection objects" or anything else one might want to own, because we can.
Sick people are the problem, not inanimate objects.

 

[Garscale]

Haven't heard of two many mass stabbing's. Even in country's where guns are prohibited. Personally I rather face of with a guy with a knife then a gun. You could always step back out of range. I'm ok with pro 2nd amendment rights. Not to crazy over BS arguments.

If I had to face a bad guy with a knife, I would like to have a gun.

 

[Rmeav8r]

The best value I have found in this thread was the link to Operation Paperback at the signature section of the Old Bookaroos post. I’m interested and registered! Thanks for providing the link!

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

I have a concealed carry permit and exercise it.

Why? Because there may come a time I need to defend myself or my family. I also studied Washin-Ryu (Karate) decades ago (still stretch for flexibility but no sparring).

When seconds count the police can be there in 20 minutes.

 

[Tpmetal]

I have a concealed carry permit and exercise it.

Why? Because there may come a time I need to defend myself or my family. I also studied Washin-Ryu (Karate) decades ago (still stretch for flexibility but no sparring).

When seconds count the police can be there in 20 minutes.

That is pretty much best case scenario in my area.... even though there is a police station in a town a few miles away. We get state trooper response instead, which is stationed twenty minutes away and usually works in the opposite direction..... So you make a call, they check for units in area, find none, try and determine what the situation is and decide if it is life or death, then if so they send a unit and meanwhile attempt to contact nearby towns and see if they have units. So even if that near by town unit is available and can make the call, they still end up being 15 minutes at best... how many seconds was that??

 

[Old Bookaroo]

Garscale:

You wrote "That's why you don't speak of car violence, train violence, hammer violence, etc."

Actually, I did.

Good luck to all,

The Old Bookaroo

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

I have a concealed carry permit and exercise it.

Why? Because there may come a time I need to defend myself or my family. I also studied Washin-Ryu (Karate) decades ago (still stretch for flexibility but no sparring).

When seconds count the police can be there in 20 minutes.

My time has already came once.

 

[newnan man]

newnan man:

Then why do we have any laws at all?

Good luck to all,

The Old Bookaroo

I really don't follow your line of reasoning but I respect your right to state it. Thanks

 

[Old Bookaroo]

Treasure Hunter:

From the Wiki article you quoted above:

In a dissenting opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens stated that the court's judgment was "a strained and unpersuasive reading" which overturned longstanding precedent, and that the court had "bestowed a dramatic upheaval in the law".[SUP][53][/SUP] Stevens also stated that the amendment was notable for the "omission of any statement of purpose related to the right to use firearms for hunting or personal self-defense" which was present in the Declarations of Rights of Pennsylvania and Vermont.[SUP][53]


Good luck to all,

The Old Bookaroo[/SUP]

 

[Trezurehunter]

I have a concealed carry permit, and carry all the time, especially in wooded areas, forest preserves, and just daily life. I do own a Civil War sword, but it stays displayed in my home. Not much need to carry that around when I have a pistol that fits neatly inside my waistband !

 

[newnan man]

Here is a quick story that caused me to become pro gun. I do respect persons choosing to have a different view. Back in the 80's I took my wife, her friend, my 2 daughters & her friends daughter boating. My girls were young teenagers & my wife and her friend were mid 30's. We went boating to an island on the Indian River to picnic as we had done several times before. All the females were in bikinis. I was pulling the girls on a tube behind the boat having fun. I noticed another boat ease up to the sandbar but paid it no mind as several people use the islands for fun. I noticed my wife waving at me so I came to shore. The boat was a local rental boat with 5 drunk rednecks in it and they were hooting and talking s$#t to the women. They started heckling me and talking the same to the girls. Me, 5 females and 5 drunk louts all on an island with no one around. This was before cell phones were a big deal. I quietly rounded up the girls on the boat, backed out and took off to cat calls and dirty gestures. I never went out on my boat again without a marine grade 12guage I bought that next week. I bought my first sidearm too and got a carry permit. I never felt so helpless in my life with my loved ones in peril. The stakes were high. I will not suffer any foolish talk about gun control or how they are not needed period. Criminals will always have guns, always. If you don't you're a sitting duck. My rant sure, but I'll never be caught off guard again ever. If I had a firearm I would still have just quietly left but would have had better options had anyone tried to escalate things. When seconds count the cops are 10 minutes away. In my case maybe an hour.

 

[Garscale]

I was involved in an attempted mugging/carjacking in a remote area of the Davy Crockett National forest. Ill spare the story but both were armed and thankfully so was I. End result, two convicted felons went to prison and a string of home robberies was solved. I hate to think how it would have ended had I not been able to miraculously get control of the situation.

 

[Duckshot]

If you think the government has the right to grant the people firearms, think again.

It is the people that grant the government the privilege of arms, not the other way around. After all, the people bought and own the gun that cop has on his hip or the rifle our soldiers carry.

Why do you suppose our constitution prevents congress from funding a standing army for a period of more than two years? Read your constitution. For that matter, read The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America. It's all in there.