Let's talk about guns. . . . . .

Bagginski

Bagginski

Well-Known Member
I can tell you flat-out, I don’t want those M5s in the hands of civilians, INCLUDING (especially) police.

I’ve been second-amendment-supportive all my life…but as I enter old age, I can see it has problems.

The first and foremost problem with it is that, as a justice system, we’ve simply pushed our way past the militia, well-regulated or not. Which is to say, gun manufacturers and their lawyers / politicians (and fellow-travelers) have consistently called on courts to simply ignore the opening clause of the text. I’ve turned up no case in which the decision considered it at all: in *practice*, we act AS IF it says “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed“ and no more.

But, that’s NOT what it says. We just ignore the rest. Every time the topic comes up.

(Just like we do with the 9th amendment: whenever it comes up, it’s ruled ‘not applicable’…”Justice” Amy Barrett drew a TOTAL blank on the existence of the north amendment during her QA in the Senate (remember her assertion that the ONLY protected rights were the ones SPELLED OUT?). We push past the establishing clause as if it weren’t even there, just like we push past the *explicit* text of the 9th…as if it weren’t even there.

I’ve heard plenty of folks say we can’t just ignore the parts we don’t like…but that’s just what we’ve been doing: “we” WANT guns, so we push past THE ORIGINAL TEXT (with the supreme court’s blessing, those stunning originalist) on our way to allowing EVERYONE to carry guns *anywhere* all the time. We *really* shouldn’t do that. The sheer number & rate of killings OUGHT to make that point: Reagan shut down mental health facilities all across the country…they all went somewhere, and I’m sure we have more now, free-range.

My point? If we’re actually going to talk about “gun rights” and the second amendment as their source and justification, then we’re WAAAY overdue for a conversation about WHAT THE REST OF THE TEXT MEANS.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State
Click to expand...
First off, let’s understand that Proud Boys, Oathkeepers, Aryan Nation, Posse Comitatus and the rest are NOT militias as understood by the men who wrote this thing…and then wrote the part that heats everyone up.

Militia in their world meant the community-defense equivalent of a volunteer fire department, except that every able-bodied of sufficient age was required to participate. they were trained for the purpose with the same no-nonsense rigor as firefighters (and the military in ways) are today, and expected to function together as a military unit. These were not private clubs or political organizations: imagine a Devonshire village that knows about the Vikings, and the villagers plan what to do & who’ll lead where and prepares in advance.

”necessary to the security of a free state” seems kinda ‘duh’ but the framers were highly wary of a standing army (one constantly ready for deployment): those were the tools of kings with suppression and conquest in mind (also why they wanted US to steer clear of foreign attachments). The concept was to have each state organize, train, and equip (if necessary) the able-bodied men of their state, which militias could defend their home state and communities - and which could be called up by the national government to defend the nation.

Hardly any of the ‘constitutional scholars’ I meet on the net are aware that the Constitution forbids Congress from maintaining a national call-up for longer than two years. They also don’t know that after WW2 we decided we wanted to get around that (hello, military-industrial complex, we need a permanent military establishment without the bother of a new amendment, can you help us?). It’s called the defense authorization act, and they pass and sign a new one, every two years, just before the old one runs out….

And, oh yeah, the National Guard….

So…if we’ve established a permanent full-time military (industrial complex), we…have NO *USE* for a militia. At all. Exclamation point! I mean, if we’re going to go to all the hypocrisy, double-talk, and (staggering) expense of staying at the top of the world national-defense heap - by once again, simply deciding to ignore the original text of our founding document - *why* do we want to make sure everyone who wants to carry a gun can carry as many as they can physically drag around with them?

Utter silence on *all* this from the traditional-patriotic-American-values crowd…because, that’s not a question they want people to ask. A LOT OF MONEY is riding of us cheating ourselves and never letting ourselves notice, but people get attached to their friends and families: when they turn up dead, they get as pissed as Florida Man does when he sees a smiling black woman. Legalese-by-the-pound is a hard sell when you want to snatch someone bald-headed…but I SURE would love to hear someone explain to me how we can nitpick away what should be UNDENIABLE, UNALIENABLE rights and freedoms while just flat ignoring the founding texts we pretend to adore.

I really want to hear why that’s okay AT ALL. I *really* want to know how THAT’s supposed to work.

AFAIC these are fundamental questions, and we need to nail the wolves to the barn until we get some answers - before we start even ONE more round of public proliferation of firearms - or attempt another useless hand-waving.
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Bagginski said:
I can tell you flat-out, I don’t want those M5s in the hands of civilians, INCLUDING (especially) police.

I’ve been second-amendment-supportive all my life…but as I enter old age, I can see it has problems.

The first and foremost problem with it is that, as a justice system, we’ve simply pushed our way past the militia, well-regulated or not. Which is to say, gun manufacturers and their lawyers / politicians (and fellow-travelers) have consistently called on courts to simply ignore the opening clause of the text. I’ve turned up no case in which the decision considered it at all: in *practice*, we act AS IF it says “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed“ and no more.

But, that’s NOT what it says. We just ignore the rest. Every time the topic comes up.

(Just like we do with the 9th amendment: whenever it comes up, it’s ruled ‘not applicable’…”Justice” Amy Barrett drew a TOTAL blank on the existence of the north amendment during her QA in the Senate (remember her assertion that the ONLY protected rights were the ones SPELLED OUT?). We push past the establishing clause as if it weren’t even there, just like we push past the *explicit* text of the 9th…as if it weren’t even there.

I’ve heard plenty of folks say we can’t just ignore the parts we don’t like…but that’s just what we’ve been doing: “we” WANT guns, so we push past THE ORIGINAL TEXT (with the supreme court’s blessing, those stunning originalist) on our way to allowing EVERYONE to carry guns *anywhere* all the time. We *really* shouldn’t do that. The sheer number & rate of killings OUGHT to make that point: Reagan shut down mental health facilities all across the country…they all went somewhere, and I’m sure we have more now, free-range.

My point? If we’re actually going to talk about “gun rights” and the second amendment as their source and justification, then we’re WAAAY overdue for a conversation about WHAT THE REST OF THE TEXT MEANS.



First off, let’s understand that Proud Boys, Oathkeepers, Aryan Nation, Posse Comitatus and the rest are NOT militias as understood by the men who wrote this thing…and then wrote the part that heats everyone up.

Militia in their world meant the community-defense equivalent of a volunteer fire department, except that every able-bodied of sufficient age was required to participate. they were trained for the purpose with the same no-nonsense rigor as firefighters (and the military in ways) are today, and expected to function together as a military unit. These were not private clubs or political organizations: imagine a Devonshire village that knows about the Vikings, and the villagers plan what to do & who’ll lead where and prepares in advance.

”necessary to the security of a free state” seems kinda ‘duh’ but the framers were highly wary of a standing army (one constantly ready for deployment): those were the tools of kings with suppression and conquest in mind (also why they wanted US to steer clear of foreign attachments). The concept was to have each state organize, train, and equip (if necessary) the able-bodied men of their state, which militias could defend their home state and communities - and which could be called up by the national government to defend the nation.

Hardly any of the ‘constitutional scholars’ I meet on the net are aware that the Constitution forbids Congress from maintaining a national call-up for longer than two years. They also don’t know that after WW2 we decided we wanted to get around that (hello, military-industrial complex, we need a permanent military establishment without the bother of a new amendment, can you help us?). It’s called the defense authorization act, and they pass and sign a new one, every two years, just before the old one runs out….

And, oh yeah, the National Guard….

So…if we’ve established a permanent full-time military (industrial complex), we…have NO *USE* for a militia. At all. Exclamation point! I mean, if we’re going to go to all the hypocrisy, double-talk, and (staggering) expense of staying at the top of the world national-defense heap - by once again, simply deciding to ignore the original text of our founding document - *why* do we want to make sure everyone who wants to carry a gun can carry as many as they can physically drag around with them?

Utter silence on *all* this from the traditional-patriotic-American-values crowd…because, that’s not a question they want people to ask. A LOT OF MONEY is riding of us cheating ourselves and never letting ourselves notice, but people get attached to their friends and families: when they turn up dead, they get as pissed as Florida Man does when he sees a smiling black woman. Legalese-by-the-pound is a hard sell when you want to snatch someone bald-headed…but I SURE would love to hear someone explain to me how we can nitpick away what should be UNDENIABLE, UNALIENABLE rights and freedoms while just flat ignoring the founding texts we pretend to adore.

I really want to hear why that’s okay AT ALL. I *really* want to know how THAT’s supposed to work.

AFAIC these are fundamental questions, and we need to nail the wolves to the barn until we get some answers - before we start even ONE more round of public proliferation of firearms - or attempt another useless hand-waving.
Click to expand...
Back then, “well-regulated” meant possessing enough skill and a weapon in good tune, which resulted in shots on target. It did not mean the modern usage, constrained by law. Thus the opening clause is not conditional or limiting; rather it gives the reason for the guarantee: the nation relied on a volunteer army called up from the eligible population (the militia). It needed to know how to use a rifle, and like English longbowmen that took constant practice, which required that that population had guns handy to keep their skills up and shoot well.

Otherwise I agree with a lot of your post. Even though I live in a state that wont let me own an M5, I wouldn’t want one. Unlike a revolver or a bolt gun, I would probably not care to shoot it.

I whole-heartedly agree that police should not get them. In fact I say that as civilians, police (excluding federal, who should be the sole operators of SWAT) should be held to state and local laws. The police exemption for forbidden guns is offensive and hypocritical. Cops should be as armed or disarmed as other law-abiding civilians.
 
Bagginski

Bagginski

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
Back then, “well-regulated” meant possessing enough skill and a weapon in good tune, which resulted in shots on target. It did not mean the modern usage, constrained by law. Thus the opening clause is not conditional or limiting; rather it gives the reason for the guarantee: the nation relied on a volunteer army called up from the eligible population (the militia). It needed to know how to use a rifle, and like English longbowmen that took constant practice, which required that that population had guns handy to keep their skills up and shoot well.
Click to expand...
Honestly, I think you’re describing “minimally-capable” as opposed to “well-regulated: IIRC correctly, Washington was not impressed by the training of the men who mustered for the Revolution. They were unfamiliar with basic commands or field movements, had little discipline, but typically they *could* hit what they shot at. They were simply ungovernable from a military POV.

I personally think that “well-regulated” has been deliberately watered down & deprecated over the years for political & economic reasons - largely for the purpose of removing it as a consideration when considering the amendment’s scope: that “pushing past” I referred to. This is my view, and I didn’t get it from anywhere; it simply makes no sense to me to describe a company of (even volunteer) soldiers who can’t move effectively as a unit - in co-ordination with other units - as “well-regulated”…or even “regulated”. It seems basic to the purpose of the organization.

I could for sure be wrong….
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Bagginski said:
Honestly, I think you’re describing “minimally-capable” as opposed to “well-regulated: IIRC correctly, Washington was not impressed by the training of the men who mustered for the Revolution. They were unfamiliar with basic commands or field movements, had little discipline, but typically they *could* hit what they shot at. They were simply ungovernable from a military POV.

I personally think that “well-regulated” has been deliberately watered down & deprecated over the years for political & economic reasons - largely for the purpose of removing it as a consideration when considering the amendment’s scope: that “pushing past” I referred to. This is my view, and I didn’t get it from anywhere; it simply makes no sense to me to describe a company of (even volunteer) soldiers who can’t move effectively as a unit - in co-ordination with other units - as “well-regulated”…or even “regulated”. It seems basic to the purpose of the organization.

I could for sure be wrong….
Click to expand...
I think you have a point, although i don’t remember reading that Washington’s forces were that bad. We went to a standing army and a professional officers’ corps in order to maintain the sort of institutional knowledge with which a large fighting force could be more quickly brought to fieldable condition.
 
GoatSoup

GoatSoup

Well-Known Member
I only pointed this out to show "Both Sides". As infrequent as is, this is the case. It might be one Armed Scumbag, takes out a murderous Scumbag. However the report provides minimal information.
 
DIY-HP-LED

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
You can't get rid of the guns! The obvious solution is off the table because so many citizens are cowards who live in fear! Own a gun for self defense and you are reacting in response to fear and living in fear. Vote to allow others to be governed by fear and you will live in fear, for yourself and your family. Fear of the "other" will destroy your freedom and freedom from fear is one of the basic four freedoms of the Atlantic Charter founding the UN.

Are the kids in Uvalde Texas afraid to go to school? Are their parents? There will be no solutions to this problem, if you ignore the obvious one, the one that works everywhere else. Your election officials are now being threatened by gun violence, as are witnesses in public hearings, there are thousands of death threats a week and the horrors of mass murders every week too. Guns are the major instrument of rightwing terrorists and create a distance between the people and their politicians for safety reasons.

Even the NRA does not allow guns inside their conventions, they want open carry in public and at school board meetings, but not at their own. Vote the way we want, or the goons with AR15s and body armor standing at the back of the room screaming, might just murder you!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


'Disgraceful': Texas senator goes off on Uvalde school shooting commander
 
Roger A. Shrubber

Roger A. Shrubber

Well-Known Member
GoatSoup said:
3 dead in Indiana mall shooting; witness kills gunman


Good Guy takes out Bad Guy!
Click to expand...
that's not really something to get excited about...yes, it's good that someone stopped him from killing more people...
but the reasons they were able to stop him are the same fucking reasons the asshole was able to get the guns he used to kill those people...unreasonable, stupid, careless, negligent gun laws...more than likely, neither one of those people should have had a weapon...
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Roger A. Shrubber said:
that's not really something to get excited about...yes, it's good that someone stopped him from killing more people...
but the reasons they were able to stop him are the same fucking reasons the asshole was able to get the guns he used to kill those people...unreasonable, stupid, careless, negligent gun laws...more than likely, neither one of those people should have had a weapon...
Click to expand...
I imagine more lenient civilian gun rights could be kept, but it would take two changes to the basic way we do things.

1) Federalize gun law. States’ rights are a big part of the problem. Wyoming and Hawai’i should have the same gun laws.

2) Aggressively and more uniformly enforce the new even gun law. A Rittenhouse should get the same sort of judicial attention as a poor woman from Guatemala.

I despair of either of these, as they directly weaken the program of the theocrats. I expect civilian handgun and autoloading rifle ownership not to survive me, with the odious exception of special police privileges.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top