IGX

Yes I Have Balls wrote:1. Establish a much more organized system for the treatment of mental health issues. The old way of keeping a mentally ill person in medical lockdown and sending them home with a bag of over-priced pharmaceuticals ain't working.

2. Everyone that owns a gun should be licensed to own one - just like a driver's license, but with stricter continuing education/training/safety bi-annual follow-ups.

3. Every single gun must be registered (with a fee) and registered in a national database. This data gets updated every time a gun gets sold or bought from private citizen, gun shop, or gifted.

4. Much, much more thorough background checks. Want a gun? Waive your right to privacy for your medical records and police records.


5. Get through the last three (though I think No. 1 might be the most important) and we need to look to loosen the concealed carry/open carry laws. More sane, trained, aware people with access to handguns is likely not a bad thing.



Oh, No. 6 - Don't outlaw spoons. No one gets obese from eating foods with a spoon. Outlaw forks.

1. OK, it's a good thing to debate.

2. And who makes the rules there? Politicians who know fuck all about firearms and self defense? Same kind of assholes who made the NYPD keep using ball ammo that caused more civilian and police to be shot through over penetration of perps and ricochet because they feared the image of the "Killer Hollow Point"? That did not change until after the Dealo shooting.

3. How about None of your fucking business? This is stupid. great, government knows who has what. No.

4. You realise that the background checks do go through the national criminal database?

5. The best one you got. How about we actually honour the constitution, do away with permits and let non felonious adults carry as they see fit, like was intended in the Constitution?

Sounds like you have a good heart, are intlelgent and don't know much about guns or the laws pertaining to them.

With all the above but.5 you will maybe stop a handful of mass shootings and do jack shit for anything else but you will restrict the rights of citizens who have done nothing wrong and created potential mechanisms that would make the Founders freak.

How about we just get some guts and realise that only 3,400 people die by the bullet a year, a little less than by automobile.

DARTH wrote:How about we just get some guts and realise that only 3,400 people die by the bullet a year, a little less than by automobile.

I would be for making guns at least as difficult to own and as regulated as owning a car. I will grant that the Constitution doesn't say anything about automobiles but I've never felt that seat belts, airbags, licensed drivers and registered vehicles are out of line in any way and certainly not "the gov't coming to take our cars away".

The Founding Fathers didn't have cars but they had the historical equivalent, and there is a very big distinction in our country's psyche between modes of transportation and guns, which are used to defend individual freedom against tyranny. Some people scoff at the idea from the comfort of the 21st century but this really is a key distinction between our society and those that came before it.

That's can't be ignored, although to today's ahistorical liberal mind, history means nothing or is reason enough to reverse everything.

Seat belts and airbags are gun locks and bans on pistol grips. Licensing the right to drive and licensing the right to bear arms.....big problem. Registering your car with the State (for public safety of course, nothing to do with the fees) and registering your guns with the State...again, big problem.

TerryB wrote:...and guns, which are used to defend individual freedom against tyranny.

This is where 2nd amendment folks get particularly hypocritical.

The record of the run up to the Constitution and the amendments is full of statements to the effect that Standing Armies = bad and we shouldn't even have standing armies, as they are the mechanism of tyranny. Instead, we should depend on militias to defend ourselves.

We should have militias instead of standing armies, not to stand against standing armies.

Thy even codified it into the Constitution that we would only fund the military (minus the ships of the Navy) in 2 year increments. This results in the infamous 'POM cycle' that anyone involved in the Pentagon has heard of. This is to force us to consider them continuously.

Yet here we have the massive standing army that can travel halfway around the world and conquer the majority of the countries on the planet in days, or just eliminate them in hours.

So it is hypocritical to argue that personal firearms are to be used against tyranny while simultaneously not acting to dismantle and disperse to the states the key mechanism of tyranny, the standing armies. Yet you never hear that side of it.

Lemme get this straight, you aren't denying guns are used to defend individual freedom against tyranny, you're just saying the argument isn't ... honest (?) unless the person making it also rails against standing armies?

Is that really your tack here?

And, just to play along, doesn't fear of government tyranny encompass suspicion of federal force, which could include marching federal forces into, say, places like Waco, TX and interfering with states' rights and/or individual liberty?

Most people are rah-rah Go Army! in defense of national security, but boo Army! when the guns are pointed inward.

This really isn't complicated.

Stabbers gotta stab
Evening Standard

Up to 1,000 people a month are victims of knife crime in London, according to alarming new statistics.

They show that around 400 a month are being injured in attacks — many of them seriously — while others are being threatened. In the first four months of the year, 11 people were murdered in knife attacks. Four teenagers have been stabbed to death so far this year.

The statistics, obtained after a Freedom of Information request, reveal that there were 1,038 victims of knife crime in London in January, of which 410 were injured and four killed. The remainder were threatened with knives.

The figures for February show there was a total of 818 victims, in March there were 993, and in April there were 892 victims. The number injured in attacks reached a peak of 420 in April, the equivalent of 14 people a day

*snicker

TerryB wrote:Lemme get this straight, you aren't denying guns are used to defend individual freedom against tyranny, you're just saying the argument isn't ... honest (?) unless the person making it also rails against standing armies?

Is that really your tack here?

It is not really my argument.

James Madison
"The means of defence against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people."

Thomas "water the tree of liberty with blood" Jefferson
"There are instruments so dangerous to the rights of the nation and which place them so totally at the mercy of their governors that those governors, whether legislative or executive, should be restrained from keeping such instruments on foot but in well-defined cases. Such an instrument is a standing army."

"None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important, but especially so at a moment when rights the most essential to our welfare have been violated." --Thomas Jefferson to -----, 1803. ME 10:365

And, just to play along, doesn't fear of government tyranny encompass suspicion of federal force, which could include marching federal forces into, say, places like Waco, TX and interfering with states' rights and/or individual liberty?

A nice thought, but the government forces continue to maintain a monopoly on power. Citizens have semi-automatic rifles? So do the feds, along with SWAT teams in cool tactical gear and armored hand-me-down vehicles.

Most people are rah-rah Go Army! in defense of national security, but boo Army! when the guns are pointed inward.

Been that way since Caesar crossed the Rubicon, and probably before. The Founding Fathers recognized this. That's the whole emphasis on militias and tight funding control over the Army.

So again, if tyranny is the concern, then the standing army and the federales are as important as any weapon you are allowed to purchase. Not to mention the NSA and monitoring.

nafod wrote:

TerryB wrote:Lemme get this straight, you aren't denying guns are used to defend individual freedom against tyranny, you're just saying the argument isn't ... honest (?) unless the person making it also rails against standing armies?

Is that really your tack here?

It is not really my argument.

James Madison
"The means of defence against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people."

Thomas "water the tree of liberty with blood" Jefferson
"There are instruments so dangerous to the rights of the nation and which place them so totally at the mercy of their governors that those governors, whether legislative or executive, should be restrained from keeping such instruments on foot but in well-defined cases. Such an instrument is a standing army."

"None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important, but especially so at a moment when rights the most essential to our welfare have been violated." --Thomas Jefferson to -----, 1803. ME 10:365

And, just to play along, doesn't fear of government tyranny encompass suspicion of federal force, which could include marching federal forces into, say, places like Waco, TX and interfering with states' rights and/or individual liberty?

A nice thought, but the government forces continue to maintain a monopoly on power. Citizens have semi-automatic rifles? So do the feds, along with SWAT teams in cool tactical gear and armored hand-me-down vehicles.

Most people are rah-rah Go Army! in defense of national security, but boo Army! when the guns are pointed inward.

Been that way since Caesar crossed the Rubicon, and probably before. The Founding Fathers recognized this. That's the whole emphasis on militias and tight funding control over the Army.

So again, if tyranny is the concern, then the standing army and the federales are as important as any weapon you are allowed to purchase. Not to mention the NSA and monitoring.

What psychological impact does it have on the expanding holy one true church of the state to know that there are many millions of guns afoot in the land? I suspect it moderates their more jackbootish predilections.

DrDonkeyLove wrote: What psychological impact does it have on the expanding holy one true church of the state to know that there are many millions of guns afoot in the land? I suspect it moderates their more jackbootish predilections.

I think it creates an arms race between the people (including the criminals who surf the rising tide of quantity and quality of weaponry available to the populace) and the "jack-booted thugs".

The SWAT-tization of our law enforcement is of a piece with this.

nafod wrote:

TerryB wrote:Lemme get this straight, you aren't denying guns are used to defend individual freedom against tyranny, you're just saying the argument isn't ... honest (?) unless the person making it also rails against standing armies?

Is that really your tack here?

It is not really my argument.

James Madison
"The means of defence against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people."

Thomas "water the tree of liberty with blood" Jefferson
"There are instruments so dangerous to the rights of the nation and which place them so totally at the mercy of their governors that those governors, whether legislative or executive, should be restrained from keeping such instruments on foot but in well-defined cases. Such an instrument is a standing army."

"None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important, but especially so at a moment when rights the most essential to our welfare have been violated." --Thomas Jefferson to -----, 1803. ME 10:365

And, just to play along, doesn't fear of government tyranny encompass suspicion of federal force, which could include marching federal forces into, say, places like Waco, TX and interfering with states' rights and/or individual liberty?

A nice thought, but the government forces continue to maintain a monopoly on power. Citizens have semi-automatic rifles? So do the feds, along with SWAT teams in cool tactical gear and armored hand-me-down vehicles.

Most people are rah-rah Go Army! in defense of national security, but boo Army! when the guns are pointed inward.

Been that way since Caesar crossed the Rubicon, and probably before. The Founding Fathers recognized this. That's the whole emphasis on militias and tight funding control over the Army.

So again, if tyranny is the concern, then the standing army and the federales are as important as any weapon you are allowed to purchase. Not to mention the NSA and monitoring.

Keep in mind at the time, we had no real standing army to speak of. Protection against the natives? There was the local militia (which was not a standing militia, it had to be raised) and/or you were on your own. Protection against thieves in an overwhelmingly rural country? You were on your own.

And quoting the Coward of Carter's Mountain on anything military is ridiculous-- you can find a quote from TJ to support almost any position on the subject.

nafod wrote:

TerryB wrote:Lemme get this straight, you aren't denying guns are used to defend individual freedom against tyranny, you're just saying the argument isn't ... honest (?) unless the person making it also rails against standing armies?

Is that really your tack here?

It is not really my argument.

James Madison
"The means of defence against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people."

Thomas "water the tree of liberty with blood" Jefferson
"There are instruments so dangerous to the rights of the nation and which place them so totally at the mercy of their governors that those governors, whether legislative or executive, should be restrained from keeping such instruments on foot but in well-defined cases. Such an instrument is a standing army."

"None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important, but especially so at a moment when rights the most essential to our welfare have been violated." --Thomas Jefferson to -----, 1803. ME 10:365

And, just to play along, doesn't fear of government tyranny encompass suspicion of federal force, which could include marching federal forces into, say, places like Waco, TX and interfering with states' rights and/or individual liberty?

A nice thought, but the government forces continue to maintain a monopoly on power. Citizens have semi-automatic rifles? So do the feds, along with SWAT teams in cool tactical gear and armored hand-me-down vehicles.

Most people are rah-rah Go Army! in defense of national security, but boo Army! when the guns are pointed inward.

Been that way since Caesar crossed the Rubicon, and probably before. The Founding Fathers recognized this. That's the whole emphasis on militias and tight funding control over the Army.

So again, if tyranny is the concern, then the standing army and the federales are as important as any weapon you are allowed to purchase. Not to mention the NSA and monitoring.

That's nice and all, but you led off by whining about supposed hypocrisy of 2nd Amendment supporters. Again, is your point really that you can't be pro-personal firearm ownerships (or pro-2nd Amendment, whatever you want to call it), without also taking a stand against the standing Army?

Because that's dumb and you know it.

I think your real point is that personal firearm ownership as a defense against tyranny is pointless b/c the people are hopeless outmatched. So...we should give up our firearms or ?? Or, is your argument people would be better served worrying about the Army and...then what? Stop worrying about private gun ownership? Give up the guns? Agree to further infringements of the 2nd Amendment?

Turdacious wrote: Keep in mind at the time, we had no real standing army to speak of. Protection against the natives? There was the local militia (which was not a standing militia, it had to be raised) and/or you were on your own. Protection against thieves in an overwhelmingly rural country? You were on your own.

Hey, you live by the originalist interpretation of the Constitution and the 2nd amendment, or you don't.

Even up until WWII we kept a pretty minimalist standing Army, counting on mass mobilization to fight our wars. The massive cold war machine is a new thing in our country's history. The idea of a massive professional force is too. We should go back to having a draft, if we are going to continue to have this big of a military.

And quoting the Coward of Carter's Mountain on anything military is ridiculous-- you can find a quote from TJ to support almost any position on the subject.

Lots and lots of quotables on the evils of standing armies and the goods of militias around the Constitution.

Eisenhower, beware the military industrial complex.

TerryB wrote:

nafod wrote:

TerryB wrote:Lemme get this straight, you aren't denying guns are used to defend individual freedom against tyranny, you're just saying the argument isn't ... honest (?) unless the person making it also rails against standing armies?

Is that really your tack here?

It is not really my argument.

James Madison
"The means of defence against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people."

Thomas "water the tree of liberty with blood" Jefferson
"There are instruments so dangerous to the rights of the nation and which place them so totally at the mercy of their governors that those governors, whether legislative or executive, should be restrained from keeping such instruments on foot but in well-defined cases. Such an instrument is a standing army."

"None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important, but especially so at a moment when rights the most essential to our welfare have been violated." --Thomas Jefferson to -----, 1803. ME 10:365

And, just to play along, doesn't fear of government tyranny encompass suspicion of federal force, which could include marching federal forces into, say, places like Waco, TX and interfering with states' rights and/or individual liberty?

A nice thought, but the government forces continue to maintain a monopoly on power. Citizens have semi-automatic rifles? So do the feds, along with SWAT teams in cool tactical gear and armored hand-me-down vehicles.

Most people are rah-rah Go Army! in defense of national security, but boo Army! when the guns are pointed inward.

Been that way since Caesar crossed the Rubicon, and probably before. The Founding Fathers recognized this. That's the whole emphasis on militias and tight funding control over the Army.

So again, if tyranny is the concern, then the standing army and the federales are as important as any weapon you are allowed to purchase. Not to mention the NSA and monitoring.

That's nice and all, but you led off by whining about supposed hypocrisy of 2nd Amendment supporters. Again, is your point really that you can't be pro-personal firearm ownerships (or pro-2nd Amendment, whatever you want to call it), without also taking a stand against the standing Army?

Because that's dumb and you know it.

You can't use anti-tyranny as the reason for having firearms and not address the real issue of the government having a massive standing army capable of smiting any foe any place, without looking at least a little dumb. That is my point.

I think your real point is that personal firearm ownership as a defense against tyranny is pointless b/c the people are hopeless outmatched. So...we should give up our firearms or ?? Or, is your argument people would be better served worrying about the Army and...then what? Stop worrying about private gun ownership? Give up the guns? Agree to further infringements of the 2nd Amendment?

The opposite actually. Devolve the centrally controlled army to the state National Guard militias. Do away with the massive professional standing army and return to militias where the citizens have to serve (and get professional training in weapons to boot).

TerryB wrote:Eisenhower, beware the military industrial complex.

Definitely

nafod wrote:

Turdacious wrote: Keep in mind at the time, we had no real standing army to speak of. Protection against the natives? There was the local militia (which was not a standing militia, it had to be raised) and/or you were on your own. Protection against thieves in an overwhelmingly rural country? You were on your own.

Hey, you live by the originalist interpretation of the Constitution and the 2nd amendment, or you don't.

That's a nonsensical statement. The 2nd amendment is also based in the British legal tradition.

nafod wrote:Even up until WWII we kept a pretty minimalist standing Army, counting on mass mobilization to fight our wars. The massive cold war machine is a new thing in our country's history. The idea of a massive professional force is too. We should go back to having a draft, if we are going to continue to have this big of a military.

Turdacious wrote:And quoting the Coward of Carter's Mountain on anything military is ridiculous-- you can find a quote from TJ to support almost any position on the subject.

Lots and lots of quotables on the evils of standing armies and the goods of militias around the Constitution.

A lot of quotes from guys who never had to accept the basic European reality (when war comes you don't have the luxury of time to prepare). TJ, even less than the rest of them.

Turdacious wrote: A lot of quotes from guys who never had to accept the basic European reality (when war comes you don't have the luxury of time to prepare). TJ, even less than the rest of them.

It was the European reality that drove them to this way of thinking.

The anti-federalists thought standing armies were evil. The Federalists thought standing armies were a necessary evil.

This was New Hampshire's thinking, not a Thomas Jefferson among them...

New Hampshire — TENTH, That no standing Army shall be Kept up in time of Peace unless with the consent of three fourths of the Members of each branch of Congress, nor shall Soldiers in Time of Peace be Quartered upon private Houses without the consent of the Owners... TWELFTH Congress shall never disarm any Citizen unless such as are or have been in Actual Rebellion.

New York

New York — That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, including the body of the People capable of bearing Arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State; that the Militia should not be subject to Martial Law, except in time of War Rebellion or Insurrection. That standing Armies in time of Peace are dangerous to Liberty, and ought not to be kept up, except in Cases of necessity; and that at all times, the Military should be under strict Subordination to the Civil Power.

nafod wrote:

Turdacious wrote: A lot of quotes from guys who never had to accept the basic European reality (when war comes you don't have the luxury of time to prepare). TJ, even less than the rest of them.

It was the European reality that drove them to this way of thinking.

The anti-federalists thought standing armies were evil. The Federalists thought standing armies were a necessary evil.

This was New Hampshire's thinking, not a Thomas Jefferson among them...

New Hampshire — TENTH, That no standing Army shall be Kept up in time of Peace unless with the consent of three fourths of the Members of each branch of Congress, nor shall Soldiers in Time of Peace be Quartered upon private Houses without the consent of the Owners... TWELFTH Congress shall never disarm any Citizen unless such as are or have been in Actual Rebellion.

New York

New York — That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, including the body of the People capable of bearing Arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State; that the Militia should not be subject to Martial Law, except in time of War Rebellion or Insurrection. That standing Armies in time of Peace are dangerous to Liberty, and ought not to be kept up, except in Cases of necessity; and that at all times, the Military should be under strict Subordination to the Civil Power.

Missing the point entirely-- European reality in a martial sense. During the 18th century, how long would it take France to invade Prussia (or vice versa) compared to the amount of time it would take either of them to invade the US? What would the difference in cost be?

Do you really think that awareness of this natural advantage didn't exist in the minds of the Founding Fathers?

Turdacious wrote:

nafod wrote:

Turdacious wrote: A lot of quotes from guys who never had to accept the basic European reality (when war comes you don't have the luxury of time to prepare). TJ, even less than the rest of them.

It was the European reality that drove them to this way of thinking.

The anti-federalists thought standing armies were evil. The Federalists thought standing armies were a necessary evil.

This was New Hampshire's thinking, not a Thomas Jefferson among them...

New Hampshire — TENTH, That no standing Army shall be Kept up in time of Peace unless with the consent of three fourths of the Members of each branch of Congress, nor shall Soldiers in Time of Peace be Quartered upon private Houses without the consent of the Owners... TWELFTH Congress shall never disarm any Citizen unless such as are or have been in Actual Rebellion.

New York

New York — That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, including the body of the People capable of bearing Arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State; that the Militia should not be subject to Martial Law, except in time of War Rebellion or Insurrection. That standing Armies in time of Peace are dangerous to Liberty, and ought not to be kept up, except in Cases of necessity; and that at all times, the Military should be under strict Subordination to the Civil Power.

Missing the point entirely-- European reality in a martial sense. During the 18th century, how long would it take France to invade Prussia (or vice versa) compared to the amount of time it would take either of them to invade the US? What would the difference in cost be?

Do you really think that awareness of this natural advantage didn't exist in the minds of the Founding Fathers?

They were well aware of all of that, and yet still felt that a standing army was more bad than good, and militias could do in a war until an army could be raised. Plenty of debate on the matter.

General Sumter in 1798:
Knowing the ardor and firmness of the Southern militia, and not doubting but the militia of the several States in the Union possess equal motives for their exertions, equal spirit and activity, I cannot but rely on them as the natural and main support of our national independence--a support fully effectual without a recurrence to a standing army. The instances which I have brought forward tend to show that the charges brought against the militia generally are as unfounded as they are cruel to their feelings; while, at the same time, they demonstrate that, if an invasion (which is a contingency by no means likely to happen) should actually take place, we may rely with confidence on the manly exertions of the militia to meet the attack, and to resist every effort, at least for such a period as until more effective aid shall be drawn down to their support, and more permanent measures adopted.

nafod wrote:

Turdacious wrote:

nafod wrote:

Turdacious wrote: A lot of quotes from guys who never had to accept the basic European reality (when war comes you don't have the luxury of time to prepare). TJ, even less than the rest of them.

It was the European reality that drove them to this way of thinking.

The anti-federalists thought standing armies were evil. The Federalists thought standing armies were a necessary evil.

This was New Hampshire's thinking, not a Thomas Jefferson among them...

New Hampshire — TENTH, That no standing Army shall be Kept up in time of Peace unless with the consent of three fourths of the Members of each branch of Congress, nor shall Soldiers in Time of Peace be Quartered upon private Houses without the consent of the Owners... TWELFTH Congress shall never disarm any Citizen unless such as are or have been in Actual Rebellion.

New York

New York — That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, including the body of the People capable of bearing Arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State; that the Militia should not be subject to Martial Law, except in time of War Rebellion or Insurrection. That standing Armies in time of Peace are dangerous to Liberty, and ought not to be kept up, except in Cases of necessity; and that at all times, the Military should be under strict Subordination to the Civil Power.

Missing the point entirely-- European reality in a martial sense. During the 18th century, how long would it take France to invade Prussia (or vice versa) compared to the amount of time it would take either of them to invade the US? What would the difference in cost be?

Do you really think that awareness of this natural advantage didn't exist in the minds of the Founding Fathers?

They were well aware of all of that, and yet still felt that a standing army was more bad than good, and militias could do in a war until an army could be raised.

General Sumter in 1798:
Knowing the ardor and firmness of the Southern militia, and not doubting but the militia of the several States in the Union possess equal motives for their exertions, equal spirit and activity, I cannot but rely on them as the natural and main support of our national independence--a support fully effectual without a recurrence to a standing army. The instances which I have brought forward tend to show that the charges brought against the militia generally are as unfounded as they are cruel to their feelings; while, at the same time, they demonstrate that, if an invasion (which is a contingency by no means likely to happen) should actually take place, we may rely with confidence on the manly exertions of the militia to meet the attack, and to resist every effort, at least for such a period as until more effective aid shall be drawn down to their support, and more permanent measures adopted.

My point exactly. That advantage disappeared in the Cold War, hence the change in strategy. And the responsibility to defend one's person, family, and property from criminals? Still there, as it always had been.

Turdacious wrote:

nafod wrote:

Turdacious wrote:

nafod wrote:

Turdacious wrote: A lot of quotes from guys who never had to accept the basic European reality (when war comes you don't have the luxury of time to prepare). TJ, even less than the rest of them.

It was the European reality that drove them to this way of thinking.

The anti-federalists thought standing armies were evil. The Federalists thought standing armies were a necessary evil.

This was New Hampshire's thinking, not a Thomas Jefferson among them...

New Hampshire — TENTH, That no standing Army shall be Kept up in time of Peace unless with the consent of three fourths of the Members of each branch of Congress, nor shall Soldiers in Time of Peace be Quartered upon private Houses without the consent of the Owners... TWELFTH Congress shall never disarm any Citizen unless such as are or have been in Actual Rebellion.

New York

New York — That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, including the body of the People capable of bearing Arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State; that the Militia should not be subject to Martial Law, except in time of War Rebellion or Insurrection. That standing Armies in time of Peace are dangerous to Liberty, and ought not to be kept up, except in Cases of necessity; and that at all times, the Military should be under strict Subordination to the Civil Power.

Missing the point entirely-- European reality in a martial sense. During the 18th century, how long would it take France to invade Prussia (or vice versa) compared to the amount of time it would take either of them to invade the US? What would the difference in cost be?

Do you really think that awareness of this natural advantage didn't exist in the minds of the Founding Fathers?

They were well aware of all of that, and yet still felt that a standing army was more bad than good, and militias could do in a war until an army could be raised.

General Sumter in 1798:
Knowing the ardor and firmness of the Southern militia, and not doubting but the militia of the several States in the Union possess equal motives for their exertions, equal spirit and activity, I cannot but rely on them as the natural and main support of our national independence--a support fully effectual without a recurrence to a standing army. The instances which I have brought forward tend to show that the charges brought against the militia generally are as unfounded as they are cruel to their feelings; while, at the same time, they demonstrate that, if an invasion (which is a contingency by no means likely to happen) should actually take place, we may rely with confidence on the manly exertions of the militia to meet the attack, and to resist every effort, at least for such a period as until more effective aid shall be drawn down to their support, and more permanent measures adopted.

My point exactly. That advantage disappeared in the Cold War, hence the change in strategy. And the responsibility to defend one's person, family, and property from criminals? Still there, as it always had been.

What is your point exactly...that one of the core foundations on the Constitution (militias for the common defense) is BS? OK, fine. That doesn't change the fact that all of those sidearms in citizen's hands to ensure holding off the tyranny of the standing army (which is not what they were meant for in the first place) are a joke. Just a feel-good exercise in rah-rah back-patting patriotism, waiting for a single JDAM to lay waste.

It could still be that way, though, or closer. Devolve the Army to the National Guard militia in the states, and have more recall of citizen warriors and less life-long professionals. Bring back the draft. Share the defense load. If we are at war, the country should have more skin in the game.

nafod wrote:

Turdacious wrote:

nafod wrote:

Turdacious wrote:

nafod wrote:

Turdacious wrote: A lot of quotes from guys who never had to accept the basic European reality (when war comes you don't have the luxury of time to prepare). TJ, even less than the rest of them.

It was the European reality that drove them to this way of thinking.

The anti-federalists thought standing armies were evil. The Federalists thought standing armies were a necessary evil.

This was New Hampshire's thinking, not a Thomas Jefferson among them...

New Hampshire — TENTH, That no standing Army shall be Kept up in time of Peace unless with the consent of three fourths of the Members of each branch of Congress, nor shall Soldiers in Time of Peace be Quartered upon private Houses without the consent of the Owners... TWELFTH Congress shall never disarm any Citizen unless such as are or have been in Actual Rebellion.

New York

New York — That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, including the body of the People capable of bearing Arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State; that the Militia should not be subject to Martial Law, except in time of War Rebellion or Insurrection. That standing Armies in time of Peace are dangerous to Liberty, and ought not to be kept up, except in Cases of necessity; and that at all times, the Military should be under strict Subordination to the Civil Power.

Missing the point entirely-- European reality in a martial sense. During the 18th century, how long would it take France to invade Prussia (or vice versa) compared to the amount of time it would take either of them to invade the US? What would the difference in cost be?

Do you really think that awareness of this natural advantage didn't exist in the minds of the Founding Fathers?

They were well aware of all of that, and yet still felt that a standing army was more bad than good, and militias could do in a war until an army could be raised.

General Sumter in 1798:
Knowing the ardor and firmness of the Southern militia, and not doubting but the militia of the several States in the Union possess equal motives for their exertions, equal spirit and activity, I cannot but rely on them as the natural and main support of our national independence--a support fully effectual without a recurrence to a standing army. The instances which I have brought forward tend to show that the charges brought against the militia generally are as unfounded as they are cruel to their feelings; while, at the same time, they demonstrate that, if an invasion (which is a contingency by no means likely to happen) should actually take place, we may rely with confidence on the manly exertions of the militia to meet the attack, and to resist every effort, at least for such a period as until more effective aid shall be drawn down to their support, and more permanent measures adopted.

My point exactly. That advantage disappeared in the Cold War, hence the change in strategy. And the responsibility to defend one's person, family, and property from criminals? Still there, as it always had been.

What is your point exactly...that one of the core foundations on the Constitution (militias for the common defense) is BS?

I put it in bold for you. We had the luxury of not needing a standing army to fight our neighbors (Canucks or natives). Europeans didn't.
And as the founders knew: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689
An explicit right to bear arms has some precedent.

nafod wrote:Yet here we have the massive standing army that can travel halfway around the world and conquer the majority of the countries on the planet in days, or just eliminate them in hours.

You're talking nonsense, Nafod. The US military hasn't conquered anyone since we kicked Saddam out of Kuwait. They failed to conquer Vietnam, North Korea, Afghanistan, and probably Iraq (we beat their Army, not them).

When was the last time that the US military fought American civilians? Sherman's March, maybe? When the Bonus Vet put down where they use Lewisite on Civilians?

Do you seriously believe that the US military is going to do the same shit to US civilians that they've done to Iraqi or Afghani civilians? This ain't Argentina, my man.


Gun ownership makes tyranny painful and expensive. Raises the costs of government persons doing corrupt or nasty shit.

People sometimes confuse the National Guard with militia. This is the statute on the subject. Last changed after the canal zone went back to Panama in the 1970s.

10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes

(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.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

10 U.S. Code § 312 - Militia duty: exemptions

(a) The following persons are exempt from militia duty:
(1) The Vice President.
(2) The judicial and executive officers of the United States, the several States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.
(3) Members of the armed forces, except members who are not on active duty.
(4) Customhouse clerks.
(5) Persons employed by the United States in the transmission of mail.
(6) Workmen employed in armories, arsenals, and naval shipyards of the United States.
(7) Pilots on navigable waters.
(8) Mariners in the sea service of a citizen of, or a merchant in, the United States.
(b) A person who claims exemption because of religious belief is exempt from militia duty in a combatant capacity, if the conscientious holding of that belief is established under such regulations as the President may prescribe. However, such a person is not exempt from militia duty that the President determines to be noncombatant.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/312

nafod wrote:Devolve the centrally controlled army to the state National Guard militias. Do away with the massive professional standing army and return to militias where the citizens have to serve (and get professional training in weapons to boot).

Nice try on the bait 'n switch, Professor Nafod. You're just offering people the right to bear arms if they join a military.

What's next? Gonna confuse us on how much your M4 was like an AR-15 again? One goes ratatatat the other goes bang-bang-bang. In legal terms the difference between an AR-15 and an M4 is ten years in the Federal Pen and a $100,000 fine if you don't have the tax stamp.