Bear with me- another 2nd amendment thread. - Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest

Go Back   Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > Politics, Government, or Religion Chat
GL4x4 Live! GL4x4 Casino

Politics, Government, or Religion Chat Bring your flamesuit!

greatlakes4x4.com is the premier Great Lakes 4x4 Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
Search
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old January 2nd, 2013, 10:26 PM   #1
BlooMule
Jet powered
 
BlooMule's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-08-05
Location: a mile from the shithole
Posts: 26,501
iTrader: (12)
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Default Bear with me- another 2nd amendment thread.

A little personal background-

I grew up in a 'non-gun' household, which is not the same as 'anti-gun', my mother had nothing against someone owning a gun, or several, nothing against hunting, she just didn't want one in the house. I was always interested in shooting, but until recently did not own any firearms due to various reasons.

However, I always felt that anti gun, and by extension anti 2nd amendment, people were missing the point.

Quote:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The word 'militia' seems to be a major hanging point for liberals. They want us to believe that a 'militia' means 'military'. That just isn't the case.

Wikipedia

Quote:
mi·li·tia

/məˈliSHə/
Noun
  • A military force of civilians to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
  • A military force that engages in rebel activities.
Merriam-Webster


Quote:

Definition of MILITIA

1
a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency
b : a body of citizens organized for military service

2
: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

Military organization of citizens with limited military training who are available for emergency service, usually for local defense. In many countries the militia is of ancient origin. The Anglo-Saxons required every able-bodied free male to serve. In colonial America it was the only defense against hostile Indians when regular British forces were not available. In the American Revolution the militia, called the Minutemen, provided the bulk of the American forces. Militias played a similar role in the War of 1812 and the American Civil War. State-controlled volunteer militias in the U.S. became the National Guard. British militia units, begun in the 16th century for home defense and answerable to the county sheriff or lord lieutenant, were absorbed into the regular army in the 20th century. Today various paramilitary organizations, from U.S. white supremacists to revolutionaries in the developing world, use the term militia to accentuate their populist origins.
Even the 'politically left' Webster definition still refers to 'militia' as citizens available for military service, which at best could be considered Reserves today. However, it is further defined as " the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service" which does not imply that these men are already trained by the military.

Which brings up what the definition of militia would have been in 1791, when the 2nd amendment was adopted.

Keep in mind, George Washington was the Commander in Chief of the Continental Army- not the Continental Militia

From Wiki-
Quote:
After the Battles of Lexington and Concord near Boston in April 1775, the colonies went to war. Washington appeared at the Second Continental Congress in a military uniform, signaling that he was prepared for war.[29] Congress created the Continental Army on June 14, 1775. Nominated by John Adams of Massachusetts, who chose him in part because he was a Virginian and would thus draw the southern colonies into the conflict, Washington was then appointed Major General and Commander-in-chief.[30][31]
So- it should be apparent that the Founding Fathers knew the difference between an army and a militia- the militias of the time were regular citizens that could be called upon to fight if necessary.

Now, 'Well Regulated'- what could they have meant by that? I doubt that they meant 'army', since there is ample evidence to show that at the time there was a distinction between the army and the militia.

Let's have a look at the thesaurus for synonyms of 'well regulated'

Quote:
Main Entry: systematical Part of Speech: adjective Definition: methodical Synonyms: all together, analytical, businesslike, by the book, by the numbers, careful, cut-and-dried, deliberate, disciplined, efficient, exact, fixed, framed, in a groove, logical, methodic, methodized, meticulous, neat*, ordered, orderly, painstaking, planned, regular, scrupulous, set-up, structured, systematic, tidy, together, well-regulated
(sorry for some of the shaded words, here's a link to the reference http://thesaurus.com/browse/well-regulated )

The need to add 'well regulated' was to ensure that there would be a certain level of proficiency and professionalism in the militias. In other words, if you wanted to be in the militia, you had to practice. It was voluntary, but if you could not demonstrate a certain level of proficiency, you were out. This make sense, you don't want your militia shooting each other or your troops.

Did I make this up out of thin air?

Nope- Alexander Hamilton wrote this:

Quote:
The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.
--- The Federalist Papers, No. 29.
So, it can be established that the Founding Fathers did not use 'army' and 'militia' interchangeably, and that 'well regulated' did not imply 'government regulated', but instead that there should be a level of expertise required.

Now- without getting into the issue of whether or not the Founding Fathers intended this militia to be able to take on the regular army in the case of tyranny- this should be enough proof that the 2nd amendment was added to guarantee that all citizens of the United States have the right to arm themselves for self protection. Why? Because even then, there were threats to 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' whether it was from hostile natives (that's another argument there) or hostile neighbors, or hostile foreign invaders. War of 1812 anyone?

Please excuse the length of this post, as I wanted to include the research I used to present this side of the argument. I am aware I am preaching to the choir, but if you are arguing 2A with an anti, you need to have more than catch phrases.
__________________
-rw-rw-rw
BlooMule is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old January 2nd, 2013, 10:32 PM   #2
revho
$9.00 vanilla malt
 
revho's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: beaverdam, mi
Posts: 2,488
iTrader: (5)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

You are excused.
revho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 2nd, 2013, 10:53 PM   #3
GreaseMonkey
Pew pew!
 
GreaseMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Madison Heights, MI
Posts: 18,043
iTrader: (22)
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Default

Nothing groundbreaking here. I appreciate the time you put into this, however any libtard who was to read all of that completely logical and accurate information would still call it bullshit.
__________________
GreaseMonkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 2nd, 2013, 11:45 PM   #4
BlooMule
Jet powered
 
BlooMule's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-08-05
Location: a mile from the shithole
Posts: 26,501
iTrader: (12)
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Default

True- but the only way to fight this is with real facts, not slogans.

Just saw Chicago, which already bans guns, wanting to ban them more to stop shootings. And I guess if that doesn't work, then they'll triple ban them.

I'm not trying to break 'new ground', just give something to the argument that isn't an opinion.
__________________
-rw-rw-rw
BlooMule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 3rd, 2013, 12:02 AM   #5
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,579
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

From a little further down in the Federalist No. 29:

Quote:
Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.
"But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it.
It's obvious that he felt that "well regulated" meant a little more that "have a gun and know how to use it".

For the record I support the right to bare arms, and agree that singling out certain weapons because how they look is stupid. I just thought that that definition of "well regulated" was weak. Just being my usual argumentative self.
brewmenn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 3rd, 2013, 01:13 AM   #6
BlooMule
Jet powered
 
BlooMule's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-08-05
Location: a mile from the shithole
Posts: 26,501
iTrader: (12)
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Default

But in order to have a 'select corps of moderate extent', you need to have a larger pool from which to select.

I need to look further (as time allows) but I have yet to find anything suggesting that the FF's felt that only 'some' of the people should have arms, only the passage you quoted indicating that a select group get additional training.
__________________
-rw-rw-rw
BlooMule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 3rd, 2013, 08:31 AM   #7
GreaseMonkey
Pew pew!
 
GreaseMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Madison Heights, MI
Posts: 18,043
iTrader: (22)
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlooMule View Post
True- but the only way to fight this is with real facts, not slogans.

Just saw Chicago, which already bans guns, wanting to ban them more to stop shootings. And I guess if that doesn't work, then they'll triple ban them.

I'm not trying to break 'new ground', just give something to the argument that isn't an opinion.
I'm with ya.
__________________
GreaseMonkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 3rd, 2013, 09:32 AM   #8
TJJEEP
Senior Member
 
TJJEEP's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-08-05
Location: Orchard Lake
Posts: 2,973
iTrader: (2)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to TJJEEP Send a message via MSN to TJJEEP
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlooMule View Post
True- but the only way to fight this is with real facts, not slogans.

Just saw Chicago, which already bans guns, wanting to ban them more to stop shootings. And I guess if that doesn't work, then they'll triple ban them.

I'm not trying to break 'new ground', just give something to the argument that isn't an opinion.
I disagree, facts get you know where. Elections and decisions are made with emotions.
TJJEEP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 3rd, 2013, 09:59 AM   #9
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,579
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlooMule View Post
True- but the only way to fight this is with real facts, not slogans.

Just saw Chicago, which already bans guns, wanting to ban them more to stop shootings. And I guess if that doesn't work, then they'll triple ban them.

I'm not trying to break 'new ground', just give something to the argument that isn't an opinion.
Yea, somehow Chicago still hasn't figured out that criminals don't pay attention to gun bans.
brewmenn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 3rd, 2013, 10:11 AM   #10
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,579
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlooMule View Post
But in order to have a 'select corps of moderate extent', you need to have a larger pool from which to select.

I need to look further (as time allows) but I have yet to find anything suggesting that the FF's felt that only 'some' of the people should have arms, only the passage you quoted indicating that a select group get additional training.
No I agree, I think the intent was to allow everyone to have guns., and to be part of the Militia. I just don't think that we have anything right now that resembles in any way what they envisioned as a "well regulated militia".
brewmenn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 3rd, 2013, 10:43 AM   #11
Jeeper52
Budget, what budget?
 
Jeeper52's Avatar
 
Join Date: 08-27-11
Location: windsor ontario
Posts: 680
iTrader: (4)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

I can see the lib. point but dont believe it. As gun owners we might have to come to a point of bargaining and making some concessions. we should be prepaired. Like what is going to be "assault rifle.
Jeeper52 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 3rd, 2013, 10:43 AM   #12
kickstand
sHaMoNe!
 
kickstand's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09-20-06
Location: fenton
Posts: 31,968
iTrader: (46)
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Default

All this talk of gun laws on a forum where the majority own guns crack me up. The choir, you're preaching to it aren't you?
kickstand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 3rd, 2013, 11:16 AM   #13
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,579
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kickstand View Post
All this talk of gun laws on a forum where the majority own guns crack me up. The choir, you're preaching to it aren't you?
Even I don't have a good argument in favor of more gun control.
brewmenn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 3rd, 2013, 11:18 AM   #14
TJJEEP
Senior Member
 
TJJEEP's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-08-05
Location: Orchard Lake
Posts: 2,973
iTrader: (2)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to TJJEEP Send a message via MSN to TJJEEP
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeeper52 View Post
I can see the lib. point but dont believe it. As gun owners we might have to come to a point of bargaining and making some concessions. we should be prepaired. Like what is going to be "assault rifle.
Concession and compromise on this is the beginning of a slippery slope. First it is "assault weapons" when that doesn't work it will be hand gun bans, then when that doesn't work it will be rifles and shot guns.

This is the beginning of a movement to an outright ban on all guns. A complete ban doesn't happen overnight. Our rights are slowly eroded away over time.
TJJEEP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 3rd, 2013, 11:19 AM   #15
marshall
locally famous
 
marshall's Avatar
 
Join Date: 02-12-11
Location: mayville MI
Posts: 3,159
iTrader: (4)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Amen
marshall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 3rd, 2013, 11:29 AM   #16
kickstand
sHaMoNe!
 
kickstand's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09-20-06
Location: fenton
Posts: 31,968
iTrader: (46)
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
Even I don't have a good argument in favor of more gun control.
It depends on how you define gun control.

I am NOT in favor whatsoever of restricting the rights of US citizens in owning whatever or how many ever guns they want.

I do not mind further regulation as to the consequences for irresponsible gun control.

Think of it like a car, you have to register your car each year, renew your drivers license every couple of years. You can use a car to kill people, you can use a car to rob a bank, you can use a car to distribute drugs, you can use a car to do all sorts of illegal things.

I don't want to add additional costs that would make owning firearms prohibitive, but I would not have any sort of problem whatsoever increasing the penalties of gunowners who didn't register their guns, or let their guns get into the wrong hands, etc.

I also would not have a problem with a 5 year re-registration, or renewal or whatever to maintain some sort of responsibility and accountability for legally sold firearms.

I don't think background checks need to be more stringent (maybe they do, I don't really know what the requirements are for owning a gun of any sort), I think training courses or certifications, or something need to be more stringent once a gun is owned (say every couple of years some sort of refresher courses, etc)

Encouragement of responsible ownership, storage, use, etc. rather than taketh away.
kickstand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 3rd, 2013, 12:00 PM   #17
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,579
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kickstand View Post
It depends on how you define gun control.

I am NOT in favor whatsoever of restricting the rights of US citizens in owning whatever or how many ever guns they want.

I do not mind further regulation as to the consequences for irresponsible gun control.

Think of it like a car, you have to register your car each year, renew your drivers license every couple of years. You can use a car to kill people, you can use a car to rob a bank, you can use a car to distribute drugs, you can use a car to do all sorts of illegal things.

I don't want to add additional costs that would make owning firearms prohibitive, but I would not have any sort of problem whatsoever increasing the penalties of gunowners who didn't register their guns, or let their guns get into the wrong hands, etc.

I also would not have a problem with a 5 year re-registration, or renewal or whatever to maintain some sort of responsibility and accountability for legally sold firearms.

I don't think background checks need to be more stringent (maybe they do, I don't really know what the requirements are for owning a gun of any sort), I think training courses or certifications, or something need to be more stringent once a gun is owned (say every couple of years some sort of refresher courses, etc)

Encouragement of responsible ownership, storage, use, etc. rather than taketh away.
Yes, I would agree with that. Specifically I don't want see a bunch of gun bans put into effect. Most of these crazies involved in these mass shootings get their guns illegally or because someone was careless with their gun storage. Those intent on killing people will find another way to do it without a gun.
brewmenn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 3rd, 2013, 12:04 PM   #18
dreezy
Haggard Fab
 
dreezy's Avatar
 
Join Date: 03-28-08
Location: Holland Mi
Posts: 10,326
iTrader: (7)
Mentioned: 23 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to dreezy Send a message via MSN to dreezy
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kickstand View Post

Encouragement of responsible ownership, storage, use, etc. rather than taketh away.

This part. You can kill anybody with any type of gun. So why is the registration requirement of a pistol different than a 30-06.? I agree you should not be able to go to a gun show and walk out with an opperational or parts to make an opperational gun.

Tracking the ownership of long guns could use some improvement. I don't believe this will lead to a total confiscation. Has Barry knocked on anybody's doors and taken their pistol away? And people who "lose" or sell there guns with out following proper procedure should be punished.

I don't believe guns kill people though. And unfortunately none of this would have prevented the sandy hook incident.
__________________
"you think you're precious, I think you're shit."

Quote:
Originally Posted by ScOoTeR View Post
Ryan, if I wanted any shit from you, I'd go looking for Leah's strap-on.
dreezy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 3rd, 2013, 12:09 PM   #19
Mulely
Senior Member
 
Mulely's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-04-06
Location: St Joseph, MI
Posts: 1,195
iTrader: (13)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to Mulely
Default

I would have to say to curtail gun crimes one would need stiffer penalties for such violent crimes. Self defense and accidents exempt, I would have no problem having mandatory death penaltys for anyone who uses a gun in an act of murder and then bury them in an ummarked grave so as not to create a "celebrity" status. With anything, the greater the responsibility, the greater the price of failure. Europe does this and it works well enough it seems. Let people have/do what ever they want but if they make a gross error and kill someone, throw the book at them.
Mulely is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 3rd, 2013, 12:13 PM   #20
FORD FLARESIDE
Hockey, it is what it is!
 
FORD FLARESIDE's Avatar
 
Join Date: 04-09-06
Location: Comstock Park
Posts: 22,274
iTrader: (24)
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kickstand View Post
It depends on how you define gun control.

I am NOT in favor whatsoever of restricting the rights of US citizens in owning whatever or how many ever guns they want.

I do not mind further regulation as to the consequences for irresponsible gun control.

Think of it like a car, you have to register your car each year, renew your drivers license every couple of years. You can use a car to kill people, you can use a car to rob a bank, you can use a car to distribute drugs, you can use a car to do all sorts of illegal things.

I don't want to add additional costs that would make owning firearms prohibitive, but I would not have any sort of problem whatsoever increasing the penalties of gunowners who didn't register their guns, or let their guns get into the wrong hands, etc.

I also would not have a problem with a 5 year re-registration, or renewal or whatever to maintain some sort of responsibility and accountability for legally sold firearms.

I don't think background checks need to be more stringent (maybe they do, I don't really know what the requirements are for owning a gun of any sort), I think training courses or certifications, or something need to be more stringent once a gun is owned (say every couple of years some sort of refresher courses, etc)

Encouragement of responsible ownership, storage, use, etc. rather than taketh away.
I see where you are going with this but in reality the difference is that "Cars' are not in the second amendment. You do not have the right to drive, its a privlege. However the second amendment says I have the right to bear arms;

A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

FORD FLARESIDE is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > Politics, Government, or Religion Chat

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:17 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd. Runs best on HiVelocity Hosting.
Page generated in 0.39748 seconds with 81 queries