Defensive Carry banner

21 - 38 of 38 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,770 Posts
Bump stocks were not banned because of the Las Vegas shooting. Bump stocks were banned because Trump signed an EO for the most draconian gun law ever. He did that on his own. Sorry, but Trumps record on gun rights isn’t good. It has never been good, other than when he wanted your vote, but not before, or after that time. As far as the rest of the campaign promises...meh. In some aspects he has exceeded my expectations, in others he has fallen short. I’ll call it a wash, but that doesn’t mean I will let that cloud my view of his stance on any specific subject.
Not clouding my views, just stating facts. I never said he was a 2nd amendment champ. The bumpstock issue WAS because of Vegas. The clown had all those rifles with bumpstocks laying around, staged that were never used........The dude was a patsy.......

Aside from the constitutional issues of making previously legal personal property illegal by a simple regulation with no compensation, bump stocks had to be the most worthless accessory every made.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,983 Posts
Not clouding my views, just stating facts. I never said he was a 2nd amendment champ. The bumpstock issue WAS because of Vegas. The clown had all those rifles with bumpstocks laying around, staged that were never used........The dude was a patsy.......
So? Trump didn’t have to ban bump stocks. That was all him. Can you cite a precedent before that for a POTUS redefining a word in order to fit an anti gun(or any other) agenda? I hope I am wrong and we will see him actually support some pro gun legislation, but I highly doubt gun rights will ever be mentioned by him in anything other than a campaign speech.

Whether you think they are worthless doesn’t matter. Its the only affect he has had on gun rights during his presidency. Yet we still have people all over the internet sharing articles about him supporting national reciprocity....in 2015.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Merovius

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,770 Posts
So? Trump didn’t have to ban bump stocks. That was all him. Can you cite a precedent before that for a POTUS redefining a word in order to fit an anti gun(or any other) agenda? I hope I am wrong and we will see him actually support some pro gun legislation, but I highly doubt gun rights will ever be mentioned by him in anything other than a campaign speech.

Besides Bill Clinton and the definition of "IS"? No. I can't disagree but he has certainly not been doing what Bloomberg, Northam and Insley have been doing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,983 Posts
Besides Bill Clinton and the definition of "IS"? No. I can't disagree but he has certainly not been doing what Bloomberg, Northam and Insley have been doing.
He didn’t campaign on doing what they are doing. People didn’t vote for him to do what they are doing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Merovius

·
Registered
Joined
·
927 Posts
First, I would submit that the use of the words "well regulated" refers to a governmental mandate, not an individual responsibility. The fact that our government has failed to properly organize, drill, or train the popular militia reflects only on a failure of our government, not a failure of any citizen.

Second, those who wish to argue about what the militia is, or what the militia is not, should start with the Militia Clause of the United States Constitution, then the operative portions of the Militia Act contained in Title 10, United States Code. One might also read the constitution and statutes of the individual states, most of which contain comparable bedrock law.

Once that basic research has been done, objectively there can be no argument against the fact that the militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied male residents over the age of 17 and under the age of 45. This has long been the underlying law supporting Selective Service (still a legal requirement for all adult males). Looking further, we find that there have been federal statutes and constitutional amendments prohibiting discrimination on the basis of age, gender, or disabilities; thus the militia must consist of all adult men and women residing within the United States. The only exceptions provided by law are for certain persons of religious scruples, certain disqualifying mental conditions, those having felony convictions, etc.

We have arrived at a clear understanding of what is known as the Popular Militia, those subject to call in times of need to defend our nation against invasion or insurrection. In addition to the Popular Militia we have the Select Militia, consisting of those who have been selected, appointed, or elected to serve in a full or part-time capacity, including state militias (National Guard, state police agencies, etc) and local law enforcement officers, as well as inactive reserve members of the armed forces.

Standing armies are expressly forbidden by Constitution and statutes. Military appropriations may not be committed for any period longer than two years.

Like it or not, if you are an adult resident of the United States and not excluded specifically by law you are a member of the Militia of the United States. Whether or not your government has provided an organizational effort, regular training or drills, or even bothered to notify you of your duties under the law there is no escaping these basic facts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,770 Posts
He didn’t campaign on doing what they are doing. People didn’t vote for him to do what they are doing.
We are not getting anywhere here. Your TDS is showing. Have a nice day.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,983 Posts
We are not getting anywhere here. Your TDS is showing. Have a nice day.
Lol. The OP was talking about getting rid of gun free zones. I made a post giving my opinion of the likelihood of it passing based on our current political climate. It was not even all about Trump but also about those who would have to vote on a bill for it to get to him. The only thing you posted about his record on gun control helped prove my point. Since you can’t prove me wrong, you call it TDS, and you’ll ignore the things I have said that I think he did right. You think my comments are about trump because he is trump, but my comments are about gun control because I am against gun control, whether it has an R or D next to it is irrelevant to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Merovius

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,079 Posts
Ruh Roh. A standing military in time of peace in strict subordination to the Virginia Democratic party.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
42 Posts
Discussion Starter #29
The term "well regulated" at the time of its inclusion in the Bill of Rights meant "to keep and make regular" according to a judge who is best described as a Constitutionalist.
This was just an idea to keep the mass shooting issue in the realm of public policy by giving Congress an off ramp and a way to redeem themselves without accepting any blame. But, I really believe it's a civil rights issue:

https://www.defensivecarry.com/forum/second-amendment-gun-legislation-discussion/466426-how-solve-mass-shooting-problem.html
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,269 Posts
Well weguwated mawitia . . .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,330 Posts
This was just an idea to keep the mass shooting issue in the realm of public policy by giving Congress an off ramp and a way to redeem themselves without accepting any blame. But, I really believe it's a civil rights issue:

https://www.defensivecarry.com/forum/second-amendment-gun-legislation-discussion/466426-how-solve-mass-shooting-problem.html
Excellent write-up. Don't know how I missed it. The only part I have a problem with is the race part. I am so sick and tired of hearing race brought into just about anything by people who believe they have much to gain by doing this. One of the things that most people miss is that the right to keep and bear arms IS a real civil rights issue, no different than freedom of speech and religion.

But you still wrote a well thought out and well worded piece of text.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Marc_Brooks

·
Banned
Joined
·
232 Posts
First, I would submit that the use of the words "well regulated" refers to a governmental mandate, not an individual responsibility. The fact that our government has failed to properly organize, drill, or train the popular militia reflects only on a failure of our government, not a failure of any citizen.

Second, those who wish to argue about what the militia is, or what the militia is not, should start with the Militia Clause of the United States Constitution, then the operative portions of the Militia Act contained in Title 10, United States Code. One might also read the constitution and statutes of the individual states, most of which contain comparable bedrock law.

Once that basic research has been done, objectively there can be no argument against the fact that the militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied male residents over the age of 17 and under the age of 45. This has long been the underlying law supporting Selective Service (still a legal requirement for all adult males). Looking further, we find that there have been federal statutes and constitutional amendments prohibiting discrimination on the basis of age, gender, or disabilities; thus the militia must consist of all adult men and women residing within the United States. The only exceptions provided by law are for certain persons of religious scruples, certain disqualifying mental conditions, those having felony convictions, etc.

We have arrived at a clear understanding of what is known as the Popular Militia, those subject to call in times of need to defend our nation against invasion or insurrection. In addition to the Popular Militia we have the Select Militia, consisting of those who have been selected, appointed, or elected to serve in a full or part-time capacity, including state militias (National Guard, state police agencies, etc) and local law enforcement officers, as well as inactive reserve members of the armed forces.

Standing armies are expressly forbidden by Constitution and statutes. Military appropriations may not be committed for any period longer than two years.

Like it or not, if you are an adult resident of the United States and not excluded specifically by law you are a member of the Militia of the United States. Whether or not your government has provided an organizational effort, regular training or drills, or even bothered to notify you of your duties under the law there is no escaping these basic facts.
This is a good argument, but it lacks one thing; precedent. Your first paragraph spells it out and that's the problem. The intent of the militia clause might have been different seeing as how the government, to my knowledge, has never called on, trained, or acted upon in any fashion, a militia. Some argue the National Guard is the militia. I don't think that's true because they limit the number, type, and until recently, gender of participants and they are not governed by civilians chosen to be leaders.

The framers were genus, but they could not tell the future. They could not foresee how convoluted society would become.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
A very good suggestion. Add some extra training for such people -- an 'active shooter' simulation, with instant-choice scenarios where you must NOT shoot -- and it might have a chance of passing.

Pro-2A people tend to play defense too much. We've got to show we ARE concerned about the 'armed maniac' situation, and not just throw up statistics, which no one who is not already pro-2A is going to believe anyway. We have to make counter-proposals, and force our opponents to argue against them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
927 Posts
This is a good argument, but it lacks one thing; precedent. Your first paragraph spells it out and that's the problem. The intent of the militia clause might have been different seeing as how the government, to my knowledge, has never called on, trained, or acted upon in any fashion, a militia. Some argue the National Guard is the militia. I don't think that's true because they limit the number, type, and until recently, gender of participants and they are not governed by civilians chosen to be leaders.

The framers were genus, but they could not tell the future. They could not foresee how convoluted society would become.
The popular militia was called into service and actively deployed as recently as 1945 in both California and Alaska, perhaps elsewhere. Native Aleutians engaged Japanese Naval Infantry and caused their retreat. California citizens responded to the call for patrols and observation posts along the coastline. In both Florida and at least one other east coast state (my old memory isn't as functional as it might once have been) local militia patrols interdicted and captured German saboteurs with both small arms and explosives.

At least one historic incident involving crooked local politicians rigging an election was resolved by local citizens who commandeered a National Guard armory for the means to put a stop to overt government tyranny on a local level (pretty good short movie about that, if I could just remember the title), time period post-WW2 late 1940's to early 1950's. By the way, all weapons were returned to the NG armory, properly cleaned, and the armory was properly secured just as soon as the crooks were locked up or run out of town and the ballot boxes were properly secured.

I am sure there are many such incidents in the historical record, and the research would make a good project for a scholar (which I do not pretend to be).

The fact remains that we are a government of the people, by the people, for the people. Our government has no inherent or assumed powers or authorities except those that we, the people, have delegated to our elected and appointed representatives. Our government consists of our servants, not our rulers or our masters. That is the message that must be repeated, again and again, until it is fully understood.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,190 Posts
The incident is called the Battle of Athens and was triggered by voter fraud.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,330 Posts
This is a good argument, but it lacks one thing; precedent. Your first paragraph spells it out and that's the problem. The intent of the militia clause might have been different seeing as how the government, to my knowledge, has never called on, trained, or acted upon in any fashion, a militia. Some argue the National Guard is the militia. I don't think that's true because they limit the number, type, and until recently, gender of participants and they are not governed by civilians chosen to be leaders.

The framers were genus, but they could not tell the future. They could not foresee how convoluted society would become.
I may have to beg to differ a little with this. It is true that very few can tell the future, but the Framers were very skeptical about the future of their new country and new system. Jefferson. Franklin, Hamilton, Henry, Mason and other worried about what may come of their new design after they were all gone. They well knew the temptations of something like they had created and this was a very real concern with them.

The driving force of our system comes from those who remember the past and apply it to the present and the future. Without them, there is a very real possibility of it all getting lost to history.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
42 Posts
Discussion Starter #37
Excellent write-up. Don't know how I missed it. The only part I have a problem with is the race part. I am so sick and tired of hearing race brought into just about anything by people who believe they have much to gain by doing this. One of the things that most people miss is that the right to keep and bear arms IS a real civil rights issue, no different than freedom of speech and religion.

But you still wrote a well thought out and well worded piece of text.
Thanks. I'm sick of the race stuff, too. But, the Left will keep doing it and the media will keep letting them get away with it until we turn the tables on them and set the record straight. That's what the strategy you referenced is all about.

https://www.defensivecarry.com/forum/second-amendment-gun-legislation-discussion/466426-how-solve-mass-shooting-problem.html
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
119 Posts
Well-regulated, as in managed and functioning efficiently and effectively, like a well-regulated timepiece. It does NOT mean having a bunch of restrictive regulations imposed upon it, which is apparently the Democrat interpretation.
 
21 - 38 of 38 Posts
Top