Preaching to the Choir

[stanc]

When we talk about a "war" over the 2nd Amendment, we're speaking figuratively, not literally.

It's WAR! Anti-Gunners Make Their Move - Outlaw Concealed Carry In CA

And all of that is still speaking figuratively, not literally.

[bwaites]

Yes, the "war" terminology always has bothered me, whether it's politics, sports, banking, whatever!

[JASmith]

Yes, the "war" terminology always has bothered me, whether it's politics, sports, banking, whatever!

Concur. IIRC Machiavelli felt the same way when he wrote that 'War is politics by other means.'

We are all better served using terms lke debate, struggle, political action, and so on to minimize the perception that the 2A is about violence as the first option. It is not, but has served as an effective deterrent over the years.

Emphasise defense against ... (Fill in the blank).

[Bravo Vector Tango]

Concur. IIRC Machiavelli felt the same way when he wrote that 'War is politics by other means.'

We are all better served using terms lke debate, struggle, political action, and so on to minimize the perception that the 2A is about violence as the first option. It is not, but has served as an effective deterrent over the years.

Emphasise defense against ... (Fill in the blank).

I agree and did not intent to direct the conversation toward an actual war, I feel actual conflict would be the worse case scenario, I hope and pray that peaceable solutions that diplomacy will prevail. My comments were just in response to Stan mentioning that the 2A crowd may be in it alone IF it came down to it, Which I (respectfully, although perhaps over-optimistically) disagree with.

As with all things in life I would prefer diplomacy over other less civilized measures. especially involving fellow countrymen - even those that may not see eye to eye.

No need to put too much weight in the humble opinions of this here New blood, After spending a good amount of time on these boards reading I have come to respect and value the insight shared both Grendel related and not, and I will go back to quietly reading for the most part.

[rickOshay]

Interesting perspective on the significant gap in liberal vs conservation views. Perhaps this may give us ideas on how to have better conversations with those who oppose.

http://www.ammoland.com/2016/06/incredible-hopelessness-americas-gun-conversation/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter#axzz4CnbhHtHQ

[stanc]

I agree and did not intent to direct the conversation toward an actual war, I feel actual conflict would be the worse case scenario, I hope and pray that peaceable solutions that diplomacy will prevail. My comments were just in response to Stan mentioning that the 2A crowd may be in it alone IF it came down to it...

You obviously misunderstood my remarks. I was NOT addressing what the situation might be during any hypothetical armed rebellion in the future. I was talking about matters as they are now, with pro-2A folks outnumbered by anti-2A people (and even most gunowners not truly pro-2A), and the media seemingly biased against private ownership of rifles like the AR15.

[jkla2016]

I love talking to anti gun people. I think it is the only way that we can make things better. Don't argue, scream, yell or berate just talk. I have found that 90% of them have never held a gun much less shot one. I have had a few that were just out right "guns are the devil" type of people. Then after a calm conversation with them explaining that the gun is not the root of the problem, it is the person behind the gun. Many have come back to talk further on the subject and I have had a few that are now avid shooters. If we just sit back and complain about the current situation then nothing gets better. WE have to get out and change minds.

[bwaites]

You obviously misunderstood my remarks. I was NOT addressing what the situation might be during any hypothetical armed rebellion in the future. I was talking about matters as they are now, with pro-2A folks outnumbered by anti-2A people (and even most gunowners not truly pro-2A), and the media seemingly biased against private ownership of rifles like the AR15.

Actually, Pro 2A people are NOT outnumbered by anti 2A people. Every recent survey says that the vast majority supports the 2A. The media and the politically left don't, but the people do. The media WANTS it to appear that most people don't support it, but every survey runs counter to that. NBC ran a survey two years ago where 82% of respondents said that you should have the right to carry in public. They are running the EXACT same poll right now and the current number is 92% in favor. That's BEYOND a landslide!

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/poll-do-you-think-people-should-be-allowed-carry-guns-public

[stanc]

Actually, Pro 2A people are NOT outnumbered by anti 2A people. Every recent survey says that the vast majority supports the 2A. The media and the politically left don't, but the people do. The media WANTS it to appear that most people don't support it, but every survey runs counter to that. NBC ran a survey two years ago where 82% of respondents said that you should have the right to carry in public. They are running the EXACT same poll right now and the current number is 92% in favor. That's BEYOND a landslide!

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/poll-do-y...ry-guns-public

Yes, it is beyond a landslide. Unfortunately, that poll is not being conducted in anything that even remotely resembles a scientific manner.

How could anyone possibly know if the results are actually representative of the public at large, or if it's a "false positive" resulting from large numbers of gun enthusiasts getting mobilized to go vote, like in one of arfcom's "Fire Missions"?



I still contend that most people (including most gun owners) are not truly pro-2A, and that can be demonstrated by the answers to the following questions.

Do you think that the general public should have unfettered access (no background checks, no government approval required) to buy or possess:

- Hand grenades?
- Claymore anti-personnel mines?
- Anti-tank mines?
- Recoilless rifles?
- Rocket launchers?
- Mortars?
- Artillery?
- Anti-tank guided missiles?
- Anti-aircraft guided missiles?
- Ballistic missiles?
- Nuclear weapons?

[JASmith]

Is this list intended to get a knee-jerk reaction, or a serious discussion of what bearing arms meant when the 2nd Amendment was written and ratified?

If it is the first possibility, no further comment is needed.

For starters, current public perceptions result from media propaganda and what the public school system is permitted to teach.

If the it is a serious discussion, a little review of the writings of folks who where around then would be a useful start. I will admit I don't have ready access to the time needed to properly research the question but hope one or more of our brother and sister Grendeliers might have the time, skills, and inclination to do a proper research task.

The following comments are offered to give prompts for Google and other search engines:

One of the Militia Acts (1797 I think) was on the books for more than a century and required that every able bodied male possess a firearm of the type used by infantry.

While that legislation, enacted by contemporaries of the writers of the Bill of Rights, specified rifles and not the more expensive ordnance, it does tend to illuminate what an individual might be expected to possess. I am pretty sure, however, that no particular restrictions were applied to artillery back then, but the stuff was far too expensive for an ordinary person to buy.

Fast forward to the first 1/3 of the 21st Century and we saw restrictions applied to who could own firearms, ostensibly because, e. g., Tommy Guns, were used by the Mafia and other semi-organized groups against the police. One speculates that the law was not a public safety measure but was enacted to prevent the need for law enforcement purchases of lots of modern firearms and training to keep up with the "Joneses."

[stanc]

Is this list intended to get a knee-jerk reaction, or a serious discussion of what bearing arms meant when the 2nd Amendment was written and ratified?

Neither, actually. I was quite specific. I posed a question, to be answered by anyone who cares to do so.

If the it is a serious discussion, a little review of the writings of folks who where around then would be a useful start. I will admit I don't have ready access to the time needed to properly research the question but hope one or more of our brother and sister Grendeliers might have the time, skills, and inclination to do a proper research task.

The following comments are offered to give prompts for Google and other search engines:

One of the Militia Acts (1797 I think) was on the books for more than a century and required that every able bodied male possess a firearm of the type used by infantry.

Second Militia Act of 1792 required every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45 to have a musket. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militi...ia_Act_of_1792

While that legislation, enacted by contemporaries of the writers of the Bill of Rights, specified rifles and not the more expensive ordnance, it does tend to illuminate what an individual might be expected to possess.

Except my question is not about what weapons an individual militia member was expected to possess by the Militia Act, but what weapons an individual is allowed to possess according to the wording of the 2nd Amendment.

Since all of those weapons listed in my previous post (with the possible exception of ICBMs and nukes) are suitable arms for equipping a modern militia force, it logically follows that -- if military-type rifles should be available to the public, without background checks or other 2A infringements -- then the noted weapons should be, too.

But, how many folks would really want hand grenades and Claymore mines (let alone any of the more advanced weapons) to be freely and widely available to anyone with the $$ to buy them?

[stanc]

BTW, it looks to me like citing the 1792 Militia Act is not a good basis on which to support the 2A.

This country long ago ceased depending upon militias to provide for the security of a free state. We now have a large, standing army, and state militias have been superseded by the National Guard. In both the Army and the NG, weapons are provided to the individual, not by him.

Accordingly, it is unnecessary for the individual to provide his own weapons for military service. Therefore, it could reasonably be argued that, since the rationale for creating the 2A is null and void, the "right to keep and bear" is also negated.

[JASmith]

I look forward to seeing comments based on research from a variety of forum members

[montana]

http://allnewspipeline.com/Media_Hiding_Truth.php

More mental masturbation!

http://www.redstate.com/diary/johnliberty/2013/11/27/why-the-national-guard-is-not-a-militia/

https://www.quora.com/Is-the-national-guard-a-well-regulated-militia

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/gun-quotations-founding-fathers

[stanc]

More mental masturbation!

http://www.redstate.com/diary/johnli...not-a-militia/

From the above link:



Unfortunately, the 2nd Amendment says absolutely nothing about the purpose of either the militia or the "right to keep and bear arms" as being defense against a tyrannical government.

More than that, the Constitution states that the militia is to be used to put down insurrections.

Since taking up arms against the government -- whether tyrannical, or not -- would be insurrection, we are left with the contradiction that the militia is (according to the Constitution) supposed to quell insurrection, but also is (according to the opinion of various private individuals, but not the Constitution or the 2nd Amendment) supposed to conduct insurrection.

=================

The author of that article is right about one thing, however: The National Guard is not a militia.

"A militia is an independent force under its own leadership that is formed by Constitutional state and local governments and the People."

This presents another problem for RKBA proponents. Since militias formed by state and local governments were superseded by National Guard units a century ago, the need for "a well regulated Militia" has disappeared. And, since members of the National Guard do not provide their own individual weapons, but are instead armed by the government, there is accordingly no longer a need for private ownership of arms suitable for militia use.

Worse still, the courts have repeatedly ruled that the right to keep and bear is not absolute, meaning that it is Constitutional to ban some times of weapons, as well as concealed carry. Plus, some of the stuff in Heller may prove to be serious problems for gunowners.