Sad sign of the times

[David CO]

1 hour ago, Col. Flagg said:

Citizen militia members of the time typically did not own personal canon, swords or bayonets. They did not own many of the weapons (or shot) that most of the military used or had access to. The Founding Fathers could never envision the proliferation and variety of weapons available today.Their intent was to allow the people to defend themselves and rise up to meet any challenge from an opposing foreign power or government (even our own).

They did not mean for the right to bear arms to be equal to that of the military, per se. Which is why the 2nd Amendment reads in full "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." This does not mean that the people have the right to have the same weapons as the military. 

Civilian ships often carried cannon. Some of the Illinois militia units had 2 pounder "grasshopper guns" in their arsenals. I've seen one in a museum. Individual civilians could own punt guns, which were huge shotguns or small cannons.

 

[skeptic]

"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."

Ahhh.  This is what I see being pretty much ignored in most conversations.  Does not "well-regulated mean that controls of some form, such as laws and such, are part of the right noted?

 

Edited February 23, 2018 by RememberSchiff
Quote is 2nd Amendment , not written by David CO perhaps James Madison

[RememberSchiff]

 

Just now, skeptic said:

Ahhh.  This is what I see being pretty much ignored in most conversations.  Does not "well-regulated mean that controls of some form, such as laws and such, are part of the right noted?

I would add the context of 2nd Amendment is ignored well as can read in the Declaration of Independence.

[David CO]

1 hour ago, skeptic said:

Ahhh.  This is what I see being pretty much ignored in most conversations.  Does not "well-regulated mean that controls of some form, such as laws and such, are part of the right noted?

Skeptic, please correct your post. You attributed something to me that was posted by someone else.

In answer to your question, an explanatory clause is not usually seen as limiting or expanding the functional parts of a rule or law. 

The example I was given, when studying school law, involved firecrackers. The rule stated that students may not explode firecrackers at school, as they might frighten the horses and cause them to bolt. In later years, they no longer had horses, but the rule still applied because there were also other reasons why they might want to prohibit the use of firecrackers.

The explanation did not limit or negate the rule. 

 

Edited February 23, 2018 by David CO

[skeptic]

I cannot find the edit function on the post.  Perhaps one of the mods can delete it?  I overlooked the comma anyway which specifies People as opposed to the militia.  So the people are not regulated in the amendment.  If someone will point me to an edit function, I can take care of it too.  Thanks.

[RememberSchiff]

@David CO , @skeptic  hopefully my edit to skeptic's post will suffice. 

 

Edited February 23, 2018 by RememberSchiff

[David CO]

33 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

@David CO , @skeptic  hopefully my edit to skeptic's post will suffice. 

 

Your edit was both sufficient and funny. 

[Oldscout448]

As I understand it " regulated " in this context means to be " in good working order"

[David CO]

I saw a news report today that said the armed deputy sheriff who was working at the school took a defensive position outside the school instead of doing his job protecting the students from the shooter.

I am disgusted. 

 

Edited February 23, 2018 by David CO

[scoutldr]

I am never one to second-guess police officers on the scene.  Their decisions need to be instantaneous based on what they know at that moment.  The first thing that came to my mind was that perhaps he was trying to assess how many shooters there were and where they were.  Aren't they supposed to wait for backup rather than charging in blindly as the Sherriff suggested he should have?  Or have I been watching too much TV?  The fact remains the school was a soft target, there was no "security" in place, and there was only one resource officer assigned for a 3000 student, multiple building campus.  He was a 33 year veteran...certainly not a rookie.

[CalicoPenn]

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.

Most people focus either on a well regulated Militia or the right to bear arms not being infringed.  What most people don;t think about is "being necessary to the security of a free State".  This clause gives the reason why the second amendment even exists.  It doesn't exist so that people can use guns to hunt.  It doesn't exist so that people can have guns for self defense.  (Though those are secondary benefits which are still important - they're just not the primary reasons).

It exists so that people will be armed to come to the defense of their state and country.  The constitution presumes that the United States and the States within are free states.  It does not presume that the United States and the States are totalitarian dictatorships.  It certainly does not presume that when people have disagreements with their government that they can take up arms against that government (example - the Whisky Rebellion - President George Washington himself didn't hesitate to send the militia in to suppress and subdue armed and violent citizens that were threatening (and more) duly sworn representatives of the government there to make sure that a federal tax on domestic whisky was collected).

At the time the second amendment was created, the founding fathers were wary of having a standing professional army.  They had just seen how "ordinary citizens" (mostly - they did have help from "professional" soldiers) had defeated the most powerful army on earth at the time.  They knew that an armed citizenry was a powerful force that could be called upon to defend their government(s) from OUTSIDE forces.  They did not expect that people would need to defend themselves from their own government.  Yes, yes - we've all read the whole at times the tree of liberty needs to be refreshed by the blood of tyrants stuff but that was very much a political statement aimed at one particular tyrant.

Your right to keep and bear arms is meant to have an armed citizenry ready to come to the defense of the government (the State).  We've allowed the creation of a professional military to defend us.  In doing so, we have allowed ourselves to believe that we can leave the defense of our country to others while we go on with our lives.  This has allowed folks to twist the meaning of the second amendment to one of being able to defend themselves against their own government, and get away with it.  Those folks are deluding themselves in these modern times.  When you have a government with a standing army that can manipulate a silent drone from a thousand miles away to drop an explosive device on your home, there is no effective gun defense against your own government.

ps - yes, the Illinois Militia had 2 pound grasshopper guns (cannon).  Like every other state, the Governor/Legislature could call forth citizenry to form temporary militias - these were the armies of a state, the militia members were paid for their service while they were part of the militia, by the state.  While many members of the militia brought their own rifles, the state also had their own armories that they could outfit their militia from.  If a militia unit had 2 pound cannon with them, they were provided by the state armory - not brought by some random guy who happened to own a 2 pound cannon and just happened to be in the area that the state was recruiting people for militia service.

Abraham Lincoln was a member of two different militia units.  He served as elected captain (elected by the members of his militia unit) for 30 days, then when that militia units term expired (after 30 days), re-enlisted and served as a private.  His militia units were formed for one purpose only, to chase down the Sauk Indians refusing to give up their land that they felt was ceded to the US by people not authorized to do so.  We know it better as the Blackhawk War.  

[blw2]

ok, well let's back this whole thought up a bit.... if one is to think that this problem we have changes somehow because of technology....weaponry is more advanced than it was before.... 

why did we not start seeing these mass shootings long ago?

  these things in their more or less current state of design have been around a very long time....the AR-15 variants currently in the news have been available since when, the 1970's maybe?

and going back even further.... an M-1 rifle as an example was state of the art for it's time....military grade, built for killing, capable of rapid fire, and available in mind boggling quantities at cheap prices since the mid 1940's or so....

ditto the Sprigfield rifle and similar, before that.  Again in their day they were state of the art.... and at some point became readily available.  But we didn't have crazy folks using them so much like we do today.

So, how is it that the technology has somehow caused this to start happening now?

My guess.... it's lots of things, many layers....but it's not the technology. 

 

 

 

[David CO]

5 hours ago, scoutldr said:

Aren't they supposed to wait for backup rather than charging in blindly as the Sherriff suggested he should have? 

If that is the case, then we need to arm teachers. You can't expect people to rely on the police for their protection if the police are going to stay outside the building and wait for shooter to run out of ammunition.

[RememberSchiff]

18 minutes ago, blw2 said:

ok, well let's back this whole thought up a bit.... if one is to think that this problem we have changes somehow because of technology....weaponry is more advanced than it was before.... 

why did we not start seeing these mass shootings long ago?

  these things in their more or less current state of design have been around a very long time....the AR-15 variants currently in the news have been available since when, the 1970's maybe?

and going back even further.... an M-1 rifle as an example was state of the art for it's time....military grade, built for killing, capable of rapid fire, and available in mind boggling quantities at cheap prices since the mid 1940's or so....

ditto the Sprigfield rifle and similar, before that.  Again in their day they were state of the art.... and at some point became readily available.  But we didn't have crazy folks using them so much like we do today.

So, how is it that the technology has somehow caused this to start happening now?

My guess.... it's lots of things, many layers....but it's not the technology.

1966, Texas Tower shooting by Eagle Scout, former Marine sharpshooter Joseph Whitman. Killed 14, injured 31 others.  Autopsy revealed brain tumor. 

IMO, there are more people among us in need of help/supervision/medical than ever before.

 

2 hours ago, CalicoPenn said:

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.

Most people focus either on a well regulated Militia or the right to bear arms not being infringed.  What most people don;t think about is "being necessary to the security of a free State".  This clause gives the reason why the second amendment even exists.  It doesn't exist so that people can use guns to hunt.  It doesn't exist so that people can have guns for self defense.  (Though those are secondary benefits which are still important - they're just not the primary reasons).

It exists so that people will be armed to come to the defense of their state and country.  The constitution presumes that the United States and the States within are free states.  It does not presume that the United States and the States are totalitarian dictatorships.  It certainly does not presume that when people have disagreements with their government that they can take up arms against that government (example - the Whisky Rebellion - President George Washington himself didn't hesitate to send the militia in to suppress and subdue armed and violent citizens that were threatening (and more) duly sworn representatives of the government there to make sure that a federal tax on domestic whisky was collected).

At the time the second amendment was created, the founding fathers were wary of having a standing professional army.  They had just seen how "ordinary citizens" (mostly - they did have help from "professional" soldiers) had defeated the most powerful army on earth at the time.  They knew that an armed citizenry was a powerful force that could be called upon to defend their government(s) from OUTSIDE forces.  They did not expect that people would need to defend themselves from their own government.  Yes, yes - we've all read the whole at times the tree of liberty needs to be refreshed by the blood of tyrants stuff but that was very much a political statement aimed at one particular tyrant.

Your right to keep and bear arms is meant to have an armed citizenry ready to come to the defense of the government (the State).  We've allowed the creation of a professional military to defend us.  In doing so, we have allowed ourselves to believe that we can leave the defense of our country to others while we go on with our lives.  This has allowed folks to twist the meaning of the second amendment to one of being able to defend themselves against their own government, and get away with it.  Those folks are deluding themselves in these modern times.  When you have a government with a standing army that can manipulate a silent drone from a thousand miles away to drop an explosive device on your home, there is no effective gun defense against your own government.

ps - yes, the Illinois Militia had 2 pound grasshopper guns (cannon).  Like every other state, the Governor/Legislature could call forth citizenry to form temporary militias - these were the armies of a state, the militia members were paid for their service while they were part of the militia, by the state.  While many members of the militia brought their own rifles, the state also had their own armories that they could outfit their militia from.  If a militia unit had 2 pound cannon with them, they were provided by the state armory - not brought by some random guy who happened to own a 2 pound cannon and just happened to be in the area that the state was recruiting people for militia service.

Abraham Lincoln was a member of two different militia units.  He served as elected captain (elected by the members of his militia unit) for 30 days, then when that militia units term expired (after 30 days), re-enlisted and served as a private.  His militia units were formed for one purpose only, to chase down the Sauk Indians refusing to give up their land that they felt was ceded to the US by people not authorized to do so.  We know it better as the Blackhawk War.  

Colonial (local) militias of "ordinary citizens" were meant for the common defense. The tyrant , a foreign king or corrupt government or Indians or ...was not specified.

"When you have a government with a standing army that can manipulate a silent drone from a thousand miles away to drop an explosive device on your home, there is no effective gun defense against your own government."  Please tell that to the Taliban in Afghanistan so they will give up fighting after 16+ years. Their strategy is not new. Fight a guerilla war, win the PR war,  drag on the conflict,..  Our last Civil War had a higher American casualty total than any other war or conflict including WW2.

My $0.02

Edited February 23, 2018 by RememberSchiff

[HelpfulTracks]

2 hours ago, CalicoPenn said:

Your right to keep and bear arms is meant to have an armed citizenry ready to come to the defense of the government (the State).  We've allowed the creation of a professional military to defend us.  In doing so, we have allowed ourselves to believe that we can leave the defense of our country to others while we go on with our lives.  This has allowed folks to twist the meaning of the second amendment to one of being able to defend themselves against their own government, and get away with it.  Those folks are deluding themselves in these modern times.  When you have a government with a standing army that can manipulate a silent drone from a thousand miles away to drop an explosive device on your home, there is no effective gun defense against your own government.

 

It has been a very long time since I studied the documents debating the ratification of the Constitution and Bill of Rights (Federalist Papers, Anti-Federalist Papers, Remarks on the Federal Constitution and others), but as I recall, the concept of the potential need for the people defending themselves from our own government was absolutely part of the discussion and absolutely not far-fetched in the minds of the framers.

In the context of this discussion two things stand out about my own military training. We swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, not the government or any particular party or person. And we were drilled to question unlawful orders. If our own government were to become tyrannical, I have little doubt a significant portion of our military is both intelligent and patriotic enough to stand against such tyranny. I do believe that bar is extraordinarily high and would not be taken lightly, but there is a bar.  With that in mind, the concept of a civilian army standing against our professional military is plausible.

Also, there is a long history of civilian armies standing against professionals. Our own country (Revolution, War of 1812, Civil War), and others. The Soviet’s in Afghanistan, Britain in India, The French and U.S. In Viet Nam, and numerous South American conflicts come to mind.

Edited February 23, 2018 by HelpfulTracks