Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumWhat did the Founders mean...
Last edited Fri Jul 28, 2017, 09:36 AM - Edit history (2)
...in the Second Amendment? What was their plan for arms ownership? Who are the "militia"? {edited to add html formatting}
**To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops.**(my emphasis here to set off the number of the militia.)
Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it."
By James Madison in New York Packet, Tuesday, January 29, 1788 (excerpted from Federalist #46)
ETA: (So there was a post removed. I suppose that's validation.)
ETA: (formatting)
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Original post)
Post removed
Warpy
(113,130 posts)with a citizen army, the founders thought that would do to repel any sort of invasion. They knew within 10 years of the signing of the constitution that it wasn't going to work, citizen militias being lax about discipline, training, and sobriety during such, that they instituted a small professional army under the command of the central government.
That's the reason for that amendment, why it reads the way it does and why it remains an anachronism.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,577 posts)> They knew it wasn't going to work
> knew citizen militias were lax
> they instituted a small professional army
They learned that stuff and created army. Took all the steps to fund, equip and organize that army. Commissioned leadership, allocated lands, planned for training....
They did all that stuff; set it motion and left the 2A as originally passed. 
malchickiwick
(1,474 posts)As far as the 2A, the founders were skeptical of a standing army and angry at the way British troops had been deployed to enforce various unpopular acts of Parliament. They favored the creation of "well-organized" citizen militias when necessary.
Eko
(8,489 posts)that agrees with your argument it does not automatically make you right.
They also thought this.
1789: The Constitution grants the states the power to set voting requirements. Generally, states limited this right to property-owning or tax-paying white males.
1790: The Naturalization Act of 1790 allows white men born outside of the United States to become citizens with the right to vote.
1792: Beginning of the abolition of property qualifications for white men, from 1792 (Kentucky) to 1856 (North Carolina) during the periods of Jeffersonian and Jacksonian democracy.[5]
1792-1838: Free black males lose the right to vote in several Northern states including Pennsylvania and New Jersey
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,577 posts)However, the fact that some of the founders made many mistakes does not serve to show that the second amendment was an error or that the founding documents were in some way unsound.
I suggest that the people and the world are the judges of what was done near the close of the eighteenth century in my hometown of Philadelphia. The articulation of the principles upon which the nation is to operate, the division of power among branches and levels of government and the rights due each of us and the protections accorded to them has become a pursuit of people and developing governments everywhere.
https://usa.usembassy.de/etexts/gov/constexport.pdf
"Since that seventeenth day of September 1787, a one-document constitution has been deemed an essential characteristic of nationhood. Today, of the 192 independent nations of the world, all but a very few have such a constitution or are committed to having one.
--------------
Albert P. Blaustein was professor of law at Rutgers...School of Law. He authored numerous scholarly works on the subject of constitutionalism including a six—volume work on the U.S. Constitution entitled Constitution of Dependencies and Special Sovereignties. Blaustein helped draft more than 40 constitutions worldwide and visited many of those countries. In 1991, he helped to write the constitution for the Russian Republic."
Eko
(8,489 posts)does it show that it is the truth and always should be the truth. There have been 15 amendments added since the last of the founding fathers died some of them contradicting what they thought. As James Madison and Alexander Hamilton said in The Federalist Papers Madison said in No. 43: “That useful alterations will be suggested by experience could not but be foreseen.” Hamilton added in No. 85: “I never expect to see a perfect work from an imperfect man….If the constitution proposed should once be ratified by all the [13] states as it stands, alterations in it may at any time be effected by nine states.” (At that time, the nation consisted of 13 states, but the Constitution allowed for amendment through the initiative of nine, or two-thirds.) https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/constitution-check-does-the-amendment-process-need-to-be-amended
I think that even the founders would tell you that using a conclusion that is over 200 years old as a reasoning for an argument is not advisable.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,577 posts)Agreed! 
I much prefer the course of logic and reason when assessing the value of a proposed law. I'm also flexible in what I accept as an approach. My point is that the Founders intent was that all of the people have the right to be militia equipped. I favor that right for more reasons than than are covered in the Bill of Rights.
If you have a conflicting opinion and would like to detail it, I'd be happy to discuss those areas of your position that I do or don't agree with and why.
Thanks for the reply. 
Eko
(8,489 posts)For having a citizen militia? Our military is the largest in the world, and one of the best equipped.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,577 posts)...which was my question. I will give my answers to this but hope you'll answer in reply.
A militia of the people with some similarities to the Swiss system is what I see as ideal. Since WWII our military budget has run past what is reasonable. We are over-equipped and over trained for fighting WWIII and under-trained for dealing with domestic problems, UN obligations and smaller conflicts in places like the Middle East and Pakistan.
Militia training should include aspects such as negotiation, communication and community assistance.
However, possession of and skill with arms is important not only for militia service but also for personal protection. I would like to see our military be reduced some.
Eko
(8,489 posts)I didn't realize you had asked a question. I agree that our military budget is past what is reasonable. I'm not sure of the over equipped and over trained for fighting WWIII, not even sure there will be a WWIII. Under trained for the rest I agree with. The founding fathers did sign into law Militia Acts of 1792 of which the National Guard is part of, so that is still going. That act did not give all Americans the right for military arms as it only applied to all those enrolled. Having pretty much the same discussion over here, https://www.democraticunderground.com/1172203727 , come join us. Ive learned quite a bit from it and this.
Thanks!!
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,577 posts)Please answer my question as to what of today's firearm laws take issue with.
What should be illegal that now is not illegal?
What should be legal that is now illegal?
Thanks
Eko
(8,489 posts)Having the same gun laws as the Swiss would be pretty reasonable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Switzerland
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,577 posts)...in conjunction with the US system for the "unorganized militia".
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)The Militia Act of 1792 doesn't have that much to do with the national guard since it isn't a state militia. It is funded and trained by the federal government.
Also, the founders did not, nor did any of the Enlightenment thinkers, believe the State gave individual rights. They were, as am I, strong believers in natural rights theory. Meaning, the rights protected by the BoR are limits on the government from infringing on individual natural rights. Meaning, you have the right because you exist. Today, I think that is the fundamental difference between liberals and progressives. Liberals, which I am, still believe and support the Enlightenment and Natural Law Theory, described by Locke and Paine while progressives, which I am not, seem to have more in common with European conservatives 200 years ago.
What is it about Swiss gun laws you like? What tangible benefit to our society do you think there would be? Switzerland, like most of Europe and Canada, views it as a privilege like driving. But then, given a number of restrictions on speech etc, I'm guessing what we take for granted as rights are simply privileges.
No, I don't consider ideological reasons valid. Outside of shill studies that cherry pick data, there is no evidence gun laws affect crime rates. In fact, that is the plurality of criminology studies show. What there is a perfect correlation between the GINI coefficient and crime.
The real issue amounts to wealth inequality and decaying infrastructure especially in the urban centers like Baltimore, Chicago, and Newark. Since the Democrats are viewed as the "party of gun control", which is not popular, which is why the euphemism of "gun safety" is used, that loses elections. As more POC and women are getting involved in the shooting sports, and Generation Z is projected to be far more conservative than any generation in my lifetime, the prospects doesn't look good for us does it?
Just three things to explain where I'm coming from
I am personally opposed to malum prohibitum laws in general. Since CCW liberalization, violent crime either continued to drop at the same rate as before. No shootouts over parking spaces etc. That tells me that the prohibitions had no added value and shouldn't have existed.
Laws don't prevent anything. They simply define what is acceptable in a society. Heroin has been strictly controlled if not banned for over a century. More Americans still die of heroin overdose than gunshot wounds.
Which party do you trust to deal with the root of the problem I mentioned above? Same here. So why shoot that party in the foot?
"All members of the National Guard of the United States are also members of the militia of the United States as defined by 10 U.S.C. § 246" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_of_the_United_States
Uh, nope.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
37% of everyone not in the NG.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)Which would probably get some real pushback if it mattered.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,577 posts)...guns are only for the militia. But that idea loses favor when it is pointed out that the militia means everyone.
I think a proper qualification of who may own a gun is at least whoever is allowed to vote.
"National Guard units are under the dual control of the state and the federal government." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_of_the_United_States
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)state militias are not.
Eko
(8,489 posts)injury by gun in crime? of course they do. You use crime rate and fail to mention that countries that have restrictive gun laws have way less firearm related deaths than we do. Talk about cherry picking. We are not talking about shoplifting.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)The suicide rate by firearm would drop, but not the suicide rate. If those 100 gun deaths become 100 rope deaths, I fail to see the improvement, unless it is about guns per se and not saving lives. The murder rate won't drop either. In the US, it is mostly criminals killing each other in a black market trade. Frankly, that is my honest impression of gun control activists. They don't actually care about the violence or deaths, just the guns.
Back to injuries. Most of these injuries are criminals, usually trading in black market items from other countries, shooting each other. Those are lumped together with citizens and police defending themselves.
Also, not the murder rates. Name one country that has a murder rate higher than ours that doesn't also have very restrictive gun laws. You will find some of them are more restrictive than the UK. Also, you're assuming that there is a connection or cause and effect is a logical fallacy, post hoc ergo propter hoc. That is typical of gun control arguments, just a collection of logical fallacies, questionable statistics, and outright bullshit.
What your post says is that your goal isn't so much about saving lives but making a better world, but don't like the means used.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2012/12/17/worst-countries-for-firearms-related-deaths/#5942f5606e30
And no, it isn't cherry picking. Cherry picking is using a few countries or localities that support your position while ignoring the rest.
jimmy the one
(2,717 posts)johnston: The Militia Act of 1792 doesn't have that much to do with the national guard since it isn't a state militia. It is funded and trained by the federal government.
The militia act of 1792 has nothing to do with anything anymore, having been superseded. States do train their state guards, which can be incorporated into the national gds..
johnston: Most civilian arms were superior to military weapons. For example, civilians had rifles, while the military only had muskets. The same is true of repeating weapons from that time until well into the 19th century.
I've not heard this argument, that civilian arms, esp civilian rifles, were superior to military arms. You can't mean in revolutionary & post revolutionary era, 1770 thru circa 1820s? Do you take into account numbers & percentages?
1803 Dearborn census, well past rev-war: 183,000 muskets, 40,000 rifles, 13,000 pistols etc; ~17% rifles.
1840 War Dept census, 569,000 muskets, 8,000 pistols, 30,000 rifles (less than 1803!); ~6% rifles. Of course these figures are for govt provided firearms, not necessarily including civilian rifles, but 1803 would likely be civilian as well close enough, imo.
Rifles were more accurate in a marksman's hands, but also took 3 or 4 times longer to load the powder & bullet, than the musket, not a good thing during an ongoing battle, but better in sniping & guerrilla tactics. The slower loading time for rifles was due the bullet could not just be pushed down the barrel to the powder as in the smooth musket barrel, the rifle grooves offered resistance so the bullet needed be twisted down. Sometimes the rifle bullet become stuck or wedged, rendering rifle either useless or inoperable till fixed. Most military leaders preferred the musket, and while this agrees with your premise, it was because they saw the musket as more effective overall, what with the bayonet feature.
And prior to the rev-war, there were only about 60,000 firearms in the colonies, most all muskets or pistols ranging from junky to dubious to 'shootable' - it was only after the french sent washington circa 1775 100,000 charlemagne musquettes and the belgians 25,000, did the US have a sudden surge in national gunstock, and this was of course for war use, not divvied up to individuals unless they enlisted etc. All of Morgan's rifle company were provided rifles by the US govt..
So when you say that civilians had rifles which were better than muskets, it's disingenuous, since rifles were not abundant, and had tactical defects of their own.
Congressional Board of War, 1776: Were it in the power of congress to supply musketts, (sic) they would speedily reduce the number of rifles and replace them with the former, as they are more easily kept in order, can be fired oftener and have the advantage of BAYONETS (+emph)..
russian vasilyevich: "The bullet is a mad thing; only the bayonet knows what it is about,
johnston: .. there is no evidence gun laws affect crime rates..
There is evidence that higher state gun ownership rates will generally result in higher gun crime rates, other things being nearly equal such as population density, urbanity, demographics and region.
johnston: Since the Democrats are viewed as the "party of gun control", which is not popular, which is why the euphemism of "gun safety" is used, that loses elections.
Faulty premise. Gun control has majority support in most polls, with inherent issues ranging from 90% on background checks, to about 60% for high capacity magazines.
What is not popular, is the pro gun nra approach, yet it prevails due creepublican legislatures.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)what was military issue. Also, provide a source.
jimmy the one
(2,717 posts)johnston first wrote: Most civilian arms were superior to military weapons. For example, civilians had rifles, while the military only had muskets. The same is true of repeating weapons from that time until well into the 19th century.
johnston: I was refering to what was available on the commercial market vs what was military issue. Also, provide a source.
I could agree after rifle technology had been developed further, into the early 1800's, that civilians had access to the better of the two firearms, musket or rifle. (And rifled muskets were what they were called early on).
Tench Coxe post war sold firearms to both civilians and the govt/militias, didn't matter to him - his sales pitch was something like 'americans should be armed' (and today gun zealots drool). The national armories at Springfield & Harpers Ferry didn't start producing many guns till early 1800's, so both military & civilian were pretty much dependent upon commercial sales. I think eli whitney was contracted by the govt to provide over 10,000 guns - he failed miserably. Excepting of course the 'fms' foreign military sales circa 1775 from france & belgium re 100,000 charlemagnes & 25,000 belgian muskets.
But to call civilian arms ie rifles 'superior' to military weapons ie muskets is a wrong way to put it. Sure the rifle was superior to the musket for civilians hunting game or plinking varmints or sniping from behind trees when time was not of the essence when you did not have to stand & defend, but the musket was far superior for military battles, when 3 musket balls could be loaded for every rifle bullet, and the musket could wield a bayonet while the rifle could not.
You read in a previous post of mine how the late 1790's congressional war dept (was it?) thought the musket superior to the rifle. You are either using modern sophisticated rifles & comparing with muskets, or are under some misconception.
What specifically do you want a source for?
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)equally useful for both. Also, you focused on a narrow part of history. But yes, my description of superior stands.
Besides, rifles could be made with bayonet lugs.
cite all of your sources because I doubt their scholarship.
jimmy the one
(2,717 posts)johnston: cite all of your sources because I doubt their scholarship.
Uh, no, I don't have to do that.
I do tend to post sources when posting statistics or quotes, but can't get to em all. I work a lot from memory head, and don't really have the time to appease one or two particular antagonistic adversaries on a message board where it would be too time consuming to do so, for no reward.
If you want to challenge a particular contention then ask & I will do my best to provide it & show you to be fos.
You say you doubt my scholarship, show where I have been wrong, without a retraction or clarification from me. I can show a dozen of yours, as I have several, & can again.
Tho I likely can't get to it till maybe september, I escaped to canada for the summer months & it's such a relief to be away from right wing cretinism which has taken hold in america. But this wifi is slow & also, ironically, time consuming.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)suck. They are often activists, what Robert Kennedy calls "biostitutes"
I said I doubt your source's scholarship. I never questioned yours.
jimmy the one
(2,717 posts)johnston: said I doubt your source's scholarship. I never questioned yours.
Need to keep your insults consistent, you took cheap shots then the scholarship sh**:
johnston previous post: I usually don't read your posts because they are usually incoherent and irrelevant, not to mention chock full of logical fallacies. cite all of your sources because I doubt their scholarship.
johnston: The fact check article points out that most of them are suicides, and rural areas everywhere have higher suicide rates. Higher gun suicide rates do not always equate higher suicide rates. Nice card stacking
What ridiculous reasoning. What an absurd remark to contend I am 'card stacking' by citing FACT CHECK, a reputable fact checker.
You are blind to what is going on here, and simply resort to utterly SPECIOUS absurdity to counter what is so obvious, that higher gun ownership rates correlate to higher gun crime rates, and are the main cause for them compared with areas with low gun ownership rates, under equable conditions. You live in denial to put up the pathetic arguments you do.
johnston: The Trace is Bloomberg's Pravda. It is the same as me citing the NRA. The study in the Trace was not peer reviewed, or did the Harvard School of Public Health admit their bias, that they are funded by the Joyce Foundation, the same plastic farmers who bankroll VPC and what is now Brady Campaign. Also, it admits that correlation is not causation, basically negating the premise of the "study". IOW, it is complete bullshit.
The garbage you posted above is what is complete B...S...; and you evidently think, in your, um, mind, that you have successfully refuted what I posted and have therefore 'won' the battle of the evening.
You cite the broken lamp defense, this & that & that & this is so, so it must be faulty; I didn't break the lamp, somebody else broke the lamp. The lamp was already broke. I couldn't've broken the lamp I wasn't there. It could've fallen off the shelf. I don't like lamps. It was a cheap lamp so who cares?
You say 'nor' did the 'harvard school of public health admit their bias'. This is supposed to be a rational argument from you? As if the nra is supposed to begin every critique with 'we are biased pro gun'? What a sophomoric remark from johnston.
You say that the trace study 'admits that correlation is not causation, basically negating the premise of the "study"'. How utterly absurd. They did not negate the premise of the study whatsoever, because correlation can indeed indicate causation. You show a complete lack of understanding what the correlation/causation tenet means. It only means that causation cannot be definitely attributed to correlation without further analysis, but it does NOT RULE OUT THAT A CAUSATIVE EFFECT CAN INDEED RESULT FROM A CORRELATION.
And of course most readers won't remember johnston's gaffe about correlation/causation, a few years back thinking it was correlation does not mean coordination (or something along those lines). It took little ole me to set him straight, and even then he tried to wiggle out of his faux pas.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)You are card stacking by using a few select cities.
Fact check is "reputable" according to whom? It is only as good as the writer's intelligence, curiosity, and honesty. Journalism does not attract people with a high amount of two of those three qualities. Fact Check used one study and ignored the tens of studies that use a better methodology that contradict it.
Also, criminals and gangs get guns from the black market or make their own. They don't go to Gander Mountain or a gun show to buy them. That disproves any cause. Also using your "reasoning" that legal gun ownership causes crime, Canada, Norway, Czech Republic, should have similar murder rates to ours while it should be almost non-existent in Mexico and Brazil.
Also, the "study" in the Trace, does not say there are a cause and effect, just tries to imply it to the noncritical thinker. It does not show any connection outside of its "adjusted" statistics, yet never explains how those are adjusted or why it is relevant. All of these studies use the same sentence to hand wave the fact that their "statistics" do not match official statistics.
Your "broken lamp" shows that at least your imagination compensates for your critical thinking skills or lack of. But then, you are still pissed about a liberal court not ruling your way in Pink Pistols v DC and Wrenn v DC. How does it feel that the dissenting judge is a right wing "originalist" who used the ink to claim that Marbury vs Madison was wrong and should be overturned.
jimmy the one
(2,717 posts)gejohnston: You are card stacking by using a few select cities... This is where we get to the card stacking. You use a few select cities that you call "pro gun"
You've gone off the deep end. I didn't select the cities, they 'just happened to be' the top ten cities for either highest gun crime rate for a particular year, or highest gun murder rate, or the top ten lowest (ditto).
How am I stacking the deck by using tables & lists which are derived from fbi statistics? The only stacking I could possibly have done is labeling the cities either pro gun or gun control, but my labels are consistent with conventional wisdom for the states and cities. I've been 'discussing' gun control & rkba for decades now and pretty well know which states and cities lie on which side of the fence or atop it.
gejohnston: you are still pissed about a liberal court not ruling your way in Pink Pistols v DC and Wrenn v DC.
This is the first I've heard about these two cases, so how could I possibly be 'still pissed'? when I never was to begin with. Wrong again batman. (Should I be abashed readers?)
I didn't stack any decks, but you better check to see if you're playing with a full one - I have small doubt.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Yes you were card stacking. If the murder rate in Hous
https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/blog/highest-murder-rate-cities
https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/blog/top100safest
You ignore cities that have lower or higher rates within the same state with the same laws. That is card stacking. Also, conventional wisdom is almost always wrong. Conventional wisdom according to whom?
OK, maybe not pissed, but bewildered. Or pissed because liberal judges put the Constitution ahead of your ideology. Either way, defensive without a logical or rational response. But then, that is to be expected with such shallow reasoning.
BTW, look up the GINI coefficients of each of these cities.
https://extranewsfeed.com/this-one-number-explains-americas-violence-problem-700d95917ab8
Here is an evolutionary psychologist explaining the significance.
jimmy the one
(2,717 posts)Johnston: Yes you were card stacking. If the murder rate in Hous
https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/blog/highest-murder-rate-cities
https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/blog/top100safest
You ignore cities that have lower or higher rates within the same state with the same laws. That is card stacking.
Oh for chryce sake you make argumentum rectumium. I was comparing two large cities with populations over 500,000 with similar demographics, gun control Chicago and pro gun Houston, in order to show that Houston with it's larger total crime rate was being ignored by gun nuts while they gleefully enjoyed attacking gun control Chicago, complaining about the smell in Chicago while ignoring the STINK in their own backyard. In a equable comparison you don't compare smaller cities with Chicago.
To show how stupid your argument is, Gary in pro gun Indiana has or has had over twice the murder rate as Chicago. Doesn't that make pro gun policy asinine by your above argument? Now THAT would be card stacking.
You have such little proper debate skills; you substitute disassembling OF the truth, for a valid rendering of what IS true.
Take your cheap shots, your ignorance of valid argumentation, and bias against what your own democrat party supports overwhelmingly, and go away.
Johnston: Also, conventional wisdom is almost always wrong. Conventional wisdom according to whom
Again with the stupidium. Conventional wisdom is NOT 'almost always wrong', it is usually spot on. You again make the absurd argument that since something is not 90% or better it is a faulty system, or since it is occasionally wrong it can't be trusted. That might apply to lie detector polygraphs going to court, but the lie detector is still 90% accurate.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Take your cheap shots, your ignorance of valid argumentation, and bias against what your own democrat party supports overwhelmingly, and go away.
BTW, it is "Democratic party", not "democrat" party. That is the Republican term. Might want to double check your voting registration.
Actually, conventional wisdom is usually dead wrong
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-04-25/opinion/sns-201204251900--tms--ahuffcoltq--m-a20120425apr25_1_conventional-wisdom-introverts-extroverts
https://www.amazon.com/Untruth-Conventional-Wisdom-Almost-Always/dp/0812991648
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conventional_wisdom
Relying on conventional wisdom is also a logical fallacy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
jimmy the one
(2,717 posts)johnston: not relevant, since modern firearms are equally useful for both. Also, you focused on a narrow part of history.
Johnston says I 'focused on a narrow part of history'. Duh, can I remind you of the title of the OP thread?:
What did the Founders mean in the Second Amendment? What was their plan for arms ownership? Who are the "militia"?
Yes, I responded to a narrow part of history, what the founding fathers intended, & your own first post on it.
Your first post was in reply to something about the militia act of 1792:
eko wrote: That {1792} act did not give all Americans the right to military arms as it only applied to all those enrolled.
johnston replied: The Militia Act of 1792 doesn't have that much to do with the national guard since it isn't a state militia..
Most civilian arms were superior to military weapons. For example, civilians had rifles, while the military only had muskets. The same is true of repeating weapons from that time until well into the 19th century.
Duh, which time period was johnston referring to? why the time period about when the militia act of 1792 was enacted (hint, 1792), and thru the early 1800s, which is what I was referring to. Stop spinning like a top johnston.
johnston: But yes, my description of superior stands. Besides, rifles could be made with bayonet lugs.
Then you acknowledge that the military/militias had by far more muskets than rifles, by about a 5 to one margin.
Your remark that "civilians had rifles, while the military only had muskets." is pathetic as well as untrue. The militias had 20% rifles, ~80% muskets or pistol, and few citizens could afford a rifle, most couldn't afford a musket.
To risk circa 1800 warping a rifle barrel by attaching a socket bayonet & using it as a spear would not have been wise.
wiki: The relative inaccuracy and short range of the musket was not considered to be significant on the battlefield, because smoke from the black powder used at the time quickly obscured the battlefield and rendered the longer range of the rifle useless, especially as a battle progressed.
.. Rifles were more expensive to make than muskets, and were typically used by small units of specialized riflemen trained not to fight in closed ranks, but in open order, spread out as skirmishers or sharpshooters.
Their greater accuracy and range made rifles ideal for hunting, but the slower rate of fire was a significant impediment for widespread military use, along with the fouling caused by normal firing which made them steadily more difficult to load.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifled_musket
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)that only matters using the tactics European armies used. A militia using guerrilla tactics. Also, I said well into the 19th century when such tactics were discarded and metallic cartridges were common.
BTW, rifled muskets did have bayonets, but were made obsolete by the long range weapon.
Why don't you apply some reason and logic to your arguments?
jimmy the one
(2,717 posts)I wrote: There is evidence that higher state gun ownership rates will generally result in higher gun crime rates, other things being nearly equal such as population density, urbanity, demographics and region.
johnston replied: Not any study that followed the scientific method, peer reviewed and published in a criminology journal. The only studies claimed that were funded by activists with a predetermined conclusion and done by MDs with no relevant education in statistics or the scientific method.
You post baloney. You remind me of marco rubio in that debate where he kept using the same rehearsed pat reply 3 times about obama only wants to further his agenda or slt, and chris christie chrucified him for it. What you write above is obviously your pat response, your knee jerk reaction when somebody mentions studies which redound negatively about guns.
You need not do a study to note the higher incidence of gun crime where states have higher gun ownership rates. It's like saying that people who live near the water will have more fish in their diets. You need only look at the statistics, which don't lie (tho can be manipulated).
All of the top ten following states are pro gun with higher than avg gun ownership rates (NMex??): For 2013, the 10 states with the highest firearm age-adjusted death rates were: Alaska (19.8), Louisiana (19.3), Mississippi (17.8), Alabama (17.6), Arkansas (16.8), Wyoming (16.7), Montana (16.7), Oklahoma (16.5), New Mexico (15.5) and Tennessee (15.4).
Eight of the following top ten states are gun control states with lower gun ownership rates - pro gun, lean gun boldened.
The 10 states with the lowest firearm age-adjusted death rates were, starting with the lowest: Hawaii (2.6), Massachusetts (3.1), New York (4.2), Connecticut (4.4), Rhode Island (5.3), New Jersey (5.7), New Hampshire (6.4), Minnesota (7.6), California (7.7) and Iowa (8.0).
One gun control state: 2013 .. 70% of homicides for the year were by firearm. The 10 states with the highest homicide rates were: Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, Maryland (gun control), Oklahoma, South Carolina, New Mexico, Missouri and Michigan
Eight of the following are pro gun, but as I mentioned in first sentence premise above, low population density & low populated states: The 10 states with the lowest homicide rates are: North Dakota, Vermont, Wyoming, New Hampshire, Utah, Idaho, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts and Oregon.
This one is indeed from a study, but simply citing statistics is hard to peer review dispute: States with the highest gun-ownership levels (Wyoming, Montana, South Dakota, Arkansas, Arizona, West Virginia, North Dakota, Idaho, Mississippi, and Alabama), meanwhile, had 6.8 times the rate of firearm assaults, 2.8 times the rate of firearm homicides, and twice the rate of overall homicides than states with the lowest gun-ownership levels.
Get a grip J, face the facts, and think twice before using your pat answer.
Note, I momentarily & errantly forgot to post sources for the above, but herewith within a half hour I do, at the suggestion of gejohnston who requested them.
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/10/gun-laws-deaths-and-crimes/
https://www.thetrace.org/2015/06/new-study-is-latest-to-find-that-higher-rates-of-gun-ownership-lead-to-higher-rates-of-violent-crime/
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)because the claims do not match FBI sources. They are bullshit. Even if accurate, your argument is a logical fallacy. None of your arguments are valid.
jimmy the one
(2,717 posts)johnston: cite your sources, because the claims do not match FBI sources. They are bullshit. Even if accurate, your argument is a logical fallacy. None of your arguments are valid.
An oversight on my part which I will clear up right now by posting the sources to my previous post. I intended to for that post, but forgot at last moment. Thanks for the heads up.
So now, post the fbi data & source which disproves what i posted. Practice what you preach.
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/10/gun-laws-deaths-and-crimes/
https://www.thetrace.org/2015/06/new-study-is-latest-to-find-that-higher-rates-of-gun-ownership-lead-to-higher-rates-of-violent-crime/
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)points out that most of them are suicides, and rural areas everywhere have higher suicide rates. Higher gun suicide rates do not always equate higher suicide rates. Nice card stacking
The Trace is Bloomberg's Pravda. It is the same as me citing the NRA. The study in the Trace was not peer reviewed, or did the Harvard School of Public Health admit their bias, that they are funded by the Joyce Foundation, the same plastic farmers who bankroll VPC and what is now Brady Campaign. Also, it admits that correlation is not causation, basically negating the premise of the "study".
IOW, it is complete bullshit.
jimmy the one
(2,717 posts)johnston: Most of your "arguments" are not even arguments.
Johnston wrote the above then went on to make the absurd claim below that 'conventional wisdom is almost always wrong, and, usually dead wrong', citing a link which does not bear that out; the link demonstrates that johnston describes himself when he writes 'most of your arguments are not even arguments'.
johnston, #75: Actually, conventional wisdom is usually dead wrong
Johnston: Also, conventional wisdom is almost always wrong.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-04-25/opinion/sns-201204251900--tms--ahuffcoltq--m-a20120425apr25_1_conventional-wisdom-introverts-extroverts
Excerpts from johnston's link:
Title: Conventional wisdom often dead wrong
Duh, johnston, 'often' does not mean 'usually'; often is ambiguous & can range from most to some to relatively few. To equate often with usually is an error in reasoning, argumentum stupidium.
first usage in article of conventional wisdom: Stephen Dubner, .. whose work amply demonstrates his humor, willingness to challenge conventional wisdom, and passion for starting conversations.
Duh johnston, yeah it's OK to 'challenge conventional wisdom' which indeed sometimes does not have it completely right, but dubner is NOT claiming that conventional wisdom is usually wrong.
2nd usage of 'conv wisdom': And she (susan cain) chipped away at the conventional wisdom surrounding introverts, extroverts and success.
Right, but she's not saying that conventional wisdom is 'usually wrong', she's challenging it on a case basis.
3rd time: Sandel said the conventional wisdom that "markets are the primary instrument of achieving the public good" has been on the rise for three decades.. And America's unyielding faith in the power of markets - even in the wake of the financial crisis - is nothing less than a threat to our country's soul, he said
Sandel singles out market influence as being conventional wisdom, but is not claiming conv wisdom is 'usually wrong'.
HuffPo conclusion: All of these thinkers, in very different ways, reinforce an important lesson: that conventional wisdom, no matter how deeply held, is often dead wrong. When we assume that it is right, we limit not only the range of our debate, but our chances of arriving at the solutions we so desperately need.
Nowhere does the article claim conventional wisdom is usually wrong. It simply states that conventional wisdom needs be scrutinized to locate any potential flaws or inconsistenties or inapplicable applications.
Conventional wisdom says wash your hands after visiting the men's room. You wanna argue that johnston?
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)This type of argument is known by several names,[1] including appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to democracy, appeal to popularity, argument by consensus, consensus fallacy, authority of the many, bandwagon fallacy, vox populi,[2] and in Latin as argumentum ad numerum -"appeal to the number"-, fickle crowd syndrome, and consensus gentium -"agreement of the clans". It is also the basis of a number of social phenomena, including communal reinforcement and the bandwagon effect. The Chinese proverb "three men make a tiger" concerns the same idea.
As for Colonism:
Terry Pratchett, Jingo
jimmy the one
(2,717 posts)icon: Meh- a prolix, badly formatted argumentum ad populum *and* sheer Colonism:
You don't understand much of anything you post, you just copy & paste from a tangentially related argumentation theory which you somehow think is a solid refutation of 'conventional wisdom' - and that is a presumption on my part, since you didn't even have the courtesy of an explanation what you were driving at other than 'shock & awe' with latin definitions.
icon posts: In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum -Latin for "argument to the people"- is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."
Yeah, that CAN be so, but it's not a refutation of conventional wisdom. Can't you two get that thru your heads?
here's one: ab uno disce omnes from one, learn all From Virgil, Aeneid, Refers to situations where a single example or observation indicates a general or universal truth. Visible in the court of the character King Silas in the American television series Kings.
here's another: abusus non tollit usum misuse does not remove use The misuse of some thing does not eliminate the possibility of its correct use.
So to refute icon's vague argument, virgil believed that a single observation could, but not necessarily did, indicate a general truth, which is the beginning of conventional wisdom, & in part to a correlation.
The second latin term tells icon & johnston that even if conventional wisdom is misused, it does not eliminate the possibility of its correct use.
Another one especially for icon: advocatus diaboli Devil's advocate ... Someone who, in the face of a specific argument, voices an argument that he does not necessarily accept, for the sake of argument and discovering the truth by testing the opponent's argument. Confer the term "arguendo".
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)In case you never heard of the exact definition
A factoid is either a false or spurious statement presented as a fact[1[2] or a true, but brief or trivial, item of news or information.
The term was coined in 1973 by American writer Norman Mailer to mean a piece of information that becomes accepted as a fact even though it is not actually true, or an invented fact believed to be true because it appears in print.[3] Since its creation in 1973, the term has evolved, now often being used to describe a brief or trivial item of news or information.]
No it isn't. It is commonly accepted, but that does not mean it is true. Claiming something is true because it is "conventional wisdom" is a logical fallacy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conventional_wisdom
For someone who claims to be an expert debater, you have a lot of logical fallacies misdirection.
jimmy the one
(2,717 posts)Wtf does posting a definition of 'factoid' have to do with anything? argumentum reddum herringum.
johnston: It is commonly accepted, but that does not mean it is true. Claiming something is true because it is "conventional wisdom" is a logical fallacy.
YMMS. Now you've walked back your previous contentions & become a genius for the obvious.
Conventional wisdom is usually correct, it is NOT 'usually wrong' or 'almost always wrong' as you put it.
And once again you post a link, cherry pick a few disparaging snippets thinking you're refuting, when upon scrutiny of the link it only proves you way out of line.
From your link: In a more general sense, {conventional wisdom} is used to refer to the accepted truth about something which nearly no one would argue about, and so is used as a gauge (or well-spring) of normative behavior or belief, even within a professional context
galbraith, inventor of term: It will be convenient to have a name for the ideas which are esteemed at any time for their acceptability, and it should be a term that emphasizes this predictability. I shall refer to these ideas henceforth as the conventional wisdom
Galbraith specifically prepended 'The' to the phrase to emphasize its uniqueness, and sharpened its meaning to narrow it to those commonplace beliefs that are also acceptable and comfortable to society, thus enhancing their ability to resist facts that might diminish them.
Conventional wisdom is not necessarily true.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)because it is based on belief and usually not on evidence or reason.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipse_dixit
The fallacy of defending a proposition by baldly asserting that it is "just how it is" distorts the argument by opting out of it entirely: the claimant declares an issue to be intrinsic, and not changeable...
...In the late 18th century, Jeremy Bentham adapted the term ipse-dixit into the word ipse-dixitism
Bentham, Jeremy. (1834). Deontology; or, The science of morality, Vol. 1, p. 323; excerpt, "ipsedixitism ... comes down to us from an antique and high authority, —-it is the principle recognised (so Cicero informs us) by the disciples of Pythagoras. Ipse {he, the master, Pythagoras), ipse dixit, -—he has said it; the master has said that it is so; therefore, say the disciples of the illustrious sage, therefore so it is."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_assertion
This fallacy is sometimes used as a form of rhetoric by politicians, or during a debate as a filibuster. In its extreme form, it can also be a form of brainwashing.[1] Modern politics contains many examples of proofs by assertion. This practice can be observed in the use of political slogans, and the distribution of "talking points", which are collections of short phrases that are issued to members of modern political parties for recitation to achieve maximum message repetition. The technique is also sometimes used in advertising.
Eko
(8,489 posts)In 2013, the number of heroin-related drug-poisoning deaths for men (6,525 deaths) was nearly four times that for women (1,732 deaths). https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db190.htm
"In 2013, there were 73,505 nonfatal firearm injuries (23.2 injuries per 100,000 U.S. citizens),[2][3] and 33,636 deaths due to "injury by firearms" (10.6 deaths per 100,000 U.S. citizens)" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States
That is four years ago but it you have more recent stats to validate your claim I am all ears.
hack89
(39,179 posts)Drug overdose deaths in 2016 most likely exceeded 59,000, the largest annual jump ever recorded in the United States, according to preliminary data compiled by The New York Times.
The death count is the latest consequence of an escalating public health crisis: opioid addiction, now made more deadly by an influx of illicitly manufactured fentanyl and similar drugs. Drug overdoses are now the leading cause of death among Americans under 50.
Although the data is preliminary, the Times’s best estimate is that deaths rose 19 percent over the 52,404 recorded in 2015. And all evidence suggests the problem has continued to worsen in 2017.
Early data from 2017 suggests that drug overdose deaths will continue to rise this year. It’s the only aspect of American health, said Dr. Tom Frieden, the former director of the C.D.C., that is getting significantly worse. Over two million Americans are estimated to be dependent on opioids, and an additional 95 million used prescription painkillers in the past year — more than used tobacco. “This epidemic, it’s got no face,” said Chris Eisele, the president of the Warren County Fire Chiefs’ Association and fire chief of Deerfield Township. The Narcotics Anonymous meetings here are populated by lawyers, accountants, young adults and teenagers who described comfortable middle-class upbringings.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/05/upshot/opioid-epidemic-drug-overdose-deaths-are-rising-faster-than-ever.html
Look at the graph - the rate of increase is shocking.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)BTW, 2/3 of those deaths are suicides. Would those become rope violence? gun violence is a buzz word and thought stopping cliche.
About heroin
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/12/08/heroin-deaths-surpass-gun-homicides-for-the-first-time-cdc-data-show/?utm_term=.b7bbcf71fc41
As for Wikipedia, it is important to check citations and read the citations, because anyone can edit it and the last time I read the article it did not include suicides as "gun violence". The citations for primary sources are also kind of sketchy in this article. If the source is full of shit, then the article is full of shit. That is why your kid's teacher won't let them use Wikipedia as a source, or at least shouldn't.
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)Why on earth would the government (presumably) give itself power to "well regulate" the militia when the whole purpose of the 2A is to protect the citizenry from a government run amok?
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,577 posts)pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)That's the bottom line. My argument was directed to those who fail to recognize this fact in order to point out the internal silliness of their "argument".
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,577 posts)The body of the preamble from the BoR makes clear the objective of the Founders. The text of the rights as articulated and passed was drawn mainly from George Mason's Virginia Declaration of Rights. Mason proposed the Bill of Rights be added to the original Constitution. Several states required the inclusion of a Bill of Rights in their conditional ratifications of the Constitution.
In the excerpted text I have highlighted via underline three reasons for and characterizations of the Bill of Rights. For those who suggest that the 2A (or any of those ten articles) are useful to somehow limit individual rights, I suggest that they read and ponder the paragraphs below and the entire BoR.
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.
ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)Nice! I'll dive into this myself later today when time permits. Along these lines, I just received a link to a youtube vid from a friend that I think is a pretty damn good explanation of what 2A critics need to deal with:
MichMary
(1,714 posts)"well regulated."
We tend to think of regulated as meaning controlled by the federal government. I believe that it may have had a different meaning to the founders and people of their time.
yagotme
(3,816 posts)like a clock mechanism.
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)I would argue that while it may be disagreement, it's not honest disagreement. As it was explained to me by a person with far more knowledge than I do here, 'well regulated' was synonymous to well trained/equipped/organized at the time the 2nd was inked.
MedusaX
(1,129 posts)IMO......
This Democracy and Bill of Rights was considered an experiment...
As with any experiment, there is always risk of failure.
History suggests that it is not uncommon for a ruling figure to use the might and force of the soldiers under his control to carry out acts of oppression & violence against the people.
A right to bear arms was expressly given to the American people in order to accomplish 2 things:
1. Serve as a deterrent for those Presidents who might consider abusing their powers to oppress the citizens they were elected to serve....
2. Empower the American people with the means necessary to defend themselves & their Constitutional rights from being oppressed (or eliminated) by a corrupt power abusing government.
Hence, the military exists to defend our "experiment" from foreign attackers and the 2nd amendment exists so that, should the need arise, an ad hoc citizens' group can defend our "experiment" from a corrupt Administration.
>snip<
Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion,
that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession,
than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors.
Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it."
By James Madison in New York Packet, Tuesday, January 29, 1788 (excerpted from Federalist #46)
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,577 posts)...truly don't understand what a right is.
Alea
(706 posts)that if a time comes where militias are needed, it is expected that the people provide their own weapons. In a time of national crises the Government may not, or will not have the resources to arm the militias or people. The Government may not even exist at that point. Many people say Admiral Yamamoto once said you can not attack the Mainland of the United States for there would be a gun behind every blade of grass. It has been disputed whether Yamamoto actually said this, but that doesn't really matter. Every potential enemy this county may ever face should believe that there will be a gun behind every blade of grass, that all or most all of the citizens of the United States will be armed and ready to defend this country.
We live in an increasingly unstable world and I myself don't put it past a few countries like Russia, North Korea, Iran, China, and whomever they can get to throw in with, get together and "Take America out". Conventionally or Nuclear, but either way at some point the fight could be right here on our soil, and I hope if that time ever comes there will be and American with a gun behind every blade of grass.
I think that's just one part of what the Founders meant. I think they felt all Americans had a right to self defense in any crises that may arise, whether one on one, or Army vs Army, or Government vs Citizens. It may not all be encompassed in the Second Amendment, but within the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the additional Amendments, the Federalist Papers, and the writings of many of the other founders, I believe they wanted us to protect ourselves and the Country, with deadly force if necessary.
That's my take on it
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,577 posts)"Out of every one hundred men, ten shouldn't even be there, eighty are just targets, nine are the real fighters, and we are lucky to have them, for they make the battle. Ah, but the one, one is a warrior, and he will bring the others back." ― Heraclitus
If we accept the possibly low estimate of 80,000,000 gun owners and eliminate half as having various issues precluding their interest and/or ability to participate in a conflict, then there are about 400,000 armed warriors in the US. I believe that they would reject tyranny to their last breath.
jimmy the one
(2,717 posts)alea: .. I hope if that time ever comes there will be {an} American with a gun behind every blade of grass... I think that's just one part of what the Founders meant. I think they felt all Americans had a right to self defense in any crises that may arise, whether one on one, or Army vs Army, or Government vs Citizens. It may not all be encompassed in the Second Amendment, but within the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the additional Amendments
The founding fathers meant only for white males to have the right to keep & bear arms, and certainly not 'all Americans'. No slaves or women. Indeed the reason for American 'have arms' decrees included slave uprisings. The 1792 Militia Act limited this to adult white males 17-45, or less than 20% of americans. Women could not even vote. Slaves were specifically barred.
You couch your remarks by saying '..Americans had a right to self defense in any crises..', but your previous argument clearly is based upon people providing their own weapons and arms, ie a rifle behind every blade of grass. The right to self defense had existed for millennia prior to the 2nd amendment, and should not be conflated as equivalent to a right to keep & bear arms.
alea: I believe they {Fd'gFathers} wanted us to protect ourselves and the Country, with deadly force if necessary.
Right, collectively, by militia. Individuals with guns were largely worthless without organization (Justice Jos Story, circa 1825).
alea: .. if a time comes where militias are needed, it is expected that the people provide their own weapons
Expected by whom? the govt? gunowners? I'd agree if you mean rightwing fanatics, wayne lapierre-head would chant this the loudest. But the 1792 Militia Act is defunct, there's no requirement for militias to provide their own arms, that I know of. The govt arms most all of the national & state guards.
When would massed citizen militias ever plausibly be 'needed'? under what conditions could state governors or the president call up the unorganized militias to overcome tyranny within or without, thinking rough cut militias with small arms could handle a situation better than the armed forces? if it were friendly armed forces itself as tyrannical, unorganized militias would simply be cannon fodder, and people would avoid 'joining' any resistance out of pragmatism, realization that it would be ultimately futile.
“You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.” – Yamamoto
Verdict: Fake
Another phantom Yamamoto quote, also with no source or corroboration to back it up, and generally regarded to be made up. While the quote has become popular on the internet and with gun-rights advocates, it doesn’t have any relevance to Japan’s situation in the war. Japan never intended any kind of landing in the mainland US, waging war instead to build up her economy, create defensive rings around the Home Islands and to safeguard her natural resources. Even if Japan had wished to eventually conquer the world she had nowhere near the resources necessary to carry out such a dramatic offensive. Even performing the needed reconnaissance for a landing on the West Coast was far beyond Japan’s means, much less transporting the millions of men and thousands of tons of equipment that would be needed.
https://skeptoid.com/blog/2013/01/14/historical-misquotes-war/
Japan did not even invade Hawaii, no serious plans, which had a much shorter oil supply route. Furthermore, it's hyperbole, and americans in 1940 had largely revolvers & bolt action rifles & carbines, a far cry from modern sophisticated firearms.
Alea
(706 posts)Most of what you just said is just your opinion. You have your opinions and I have mine.
Also, I acknowledged in my post that it has been disputed that Yamamoto may have never made the Blade of Grass statement so I don't know why you chose to write a paragraph dedicated to dispelling it, unless you were just trying to appear to be smarter than someone else. There's actually no proof either way if he said it or not. I never said definitively that he said it, but you did say definitely that it was Verdict: Fake which could make you as wrong as anyone claiming it was infact a true quote. Your link to substantiate the claim as fact, is just someone else opinion.
You also say The right to self defense had existed for millennia prior to the 2nd amendment, and should not be conflated as equivalent to a right to keep & bear arms. That's also just your opinion. We use the tools available to us today. You have every right to use what you want for your own self defense, pointy stick, rock, jawbone of an ass, or even the piss your pants method of self defense. I would never take that right away from you. Me? Until you convince me that the evils in this world don't exist, I'll use something a bit more practical.
jimmy the one
(2,717 posts)alea: Most of what you just said is just your opinion. You have your opinions and I have mine
How trite.
If italics are unavailable I use sideways arrows >>>other person's text<<<<<, or similar.
area: I acknowledged in my post that it has been disputed that Yamamoto may have never made the Blade of Grass statement so I don't know why you chose to write a paragraph dedicated to dispelling it,
You cited yamo's quote, acknowledged the uncertainty, & I posted the preponderance of the evidence that it was fake. I did not contend you posted a bogus quote, as gun zealots sometimes do, nor did I insult you. I simply posted the fact checked opinion which I adhere to. To just have posted 'that's a fake quote imo from yamo' would have not had the convincing affect that a fact checking website does.
area: There's actually no proof either way if he said it or not... Your link to substantiate the claim as fact, is just someone else opinion.
The preponderance of evidence is that it is a fake bogus quote. It is an educated opinion based on essentially a 'lack' of evidence which should be there, as well as the likelihood it was concocted to support a 2nd amendment mythology.
area: Until you convince me that the evils in this world don't exist, I'll use something a bit more practical.
I'm well aware of the evils in the world, but don't think that carrying a pistol about is a proper solution, nor do I believe in some paranoid belief that we're all in the eventual cross hairs of some tyrannical american govt, nor by a diabolical foreign govt which our own military couldn't handle.
(area wrote): We live in an increasingly unstable world and I myself don't put it past a few countries like Russia, North Korea, Iran, China, and whomever they can get to throw in with, get together and "Take America out". Conventionally or Nuclear, but either way at some point the fight could be right here on our soil, and I hope if that time ever comes there will be {an} American with a gun behind every blade of grass.
Paranoia, big destroya. If that were to transpire, civilian AR15s wouldn't mean diddly squat.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)Last edited Tue Jun 20, 2017, 09:28 AM - Edit history (1)
over a 100 years when representatives of the people usurped power to recreate the militias of the several states into the militia of the United States (the NG).
Federalist #29
"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, or even a week, 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....
...
"But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable...
...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. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
And of course an more exact details of what the militias of the several states were, who they were and how they were arm themselves, and be organized, disciplined & regulated:
Militia Acts of 1792
"...That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia,
...
That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder;...The officers to be armed with a sword or hanger, a fusee, bayonet and belt, with a cartridge box to contain twelve cartridges; and each private of matoss shall furnish themselves with good horses of at least fourteen hands and an half high, and to be armed with a sword and pair of pistols, the holsters of which to be covered with bearskin caps. Each dragoon to furnish himself with a serviceable horse, at least fourteen hands and an half high, a good saddle, bridle, mail-pillion and valise, holster, and a best plate and crupper, a pair of boots and spurs; a pair of pistols, a sabre, and a cartouch box to contain twelve cartridges for pistols.
...
That within one year after the passing of the Act, the militia of the respective states shall be arranged into divisions, brigades, regiments, battalions, and companies, as the legislature of each state shall direct;
...
That the rules of discipline, approved and established by Congress, in their resolution of the twenty-ninth of March, 1779, shall be the rules of discipline so be observed by the militia throughout the United States,"
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,577 posts)...many vacuums left by the inaction of states have been filled by usurpations by the federal government.
jimmy the one
(2,717 posts)jmg: Did you also note that 'everyone' else who isn't in the NG, is also a member of the militia?
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males....
(b) The classes of the militia are—
. .(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
.. (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Dunno which side you argue for; Ostensibly you're contending the US code endorses the 'ghost' sedentary militia called the UNorganized militia, but the UNorganized Militia fails the litmus test of the 2ndA in that it's not well regulated - indeed the opposite according to the definition of unorganized.
The unorganized militia is a JOKE, & never intended by the founding fathers. It is a malignant aberration from 2ndA. It never meets, has no officers, no pay grades, no mobilization points, has only been activated once during wwII with only ~5,000 men showing up due to west coast invasion hysteria. A good portion of people are over 45 before they even realize they were in it. Governors are wary to activate their Unorg'd militias for fear that more harm than good could ever prevail with large groups of sparsely trained gun nuts running about, ditto with the presidents.
As well, dunno how you define 'everyone', when percentage wise it would be perhaps 30 - 40% of all americans who might belong to either B1 or B2 above (either ng or unorg'd militia). Update for jmg, 'everyone' means 100%, accd'g to my oxford lexicon.
jmg: And of course {in} more exact details of what the militias of the several states were, who they were and how they were arm themselves, and be organized, disciplined & regulated:
Militia Acts of 1792 "...That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is {18}, and under {45} shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia,
Dunno what you argue here. You cite the militia act(s) of 1792, which pertained closely to the contemporary view of the 2nd amendment of 1791, shortly after you posted that teddy roosevelt's subsequent militia act of early 1900 included 'everyone' else not in the national guards. There was no 'unorganized militia' in america in 1792, the term unorg'd militia didn't even appear until circa 1830.
The militia act of 1792 was enacted 5 months after the 2nd amendment was enacted in bor, and the militia act of 1792 was kind of obviously a more detailed definition of the well regulated militia as described in the 2nd amendment.
The founding fathers never had any intention of creating an 'unorganized militia', it was clearly desirous of a 'well regulated militia'. The unorg'd militia is what developed after the 2ndA was subverted into the two schisms of individual vs militia rkbas, in the following decades.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)by the militia - which was indeed composed of "well-regulated" entities of the States.
Though Hamilton had specific notions, which were originally overruled by the traditional definition of militias which existed for decades, and especially under the AoC, he did represent well what it meant for those composing the militia to be "well-regulated".
Militia Acts are quite specific on what the militias were, who would compose them, and how they would be organized, trained and armed...aka Well-regulated.
Which of course, as we agree, by definition does not cover any UN-organized militias.
Doug.Goodall
(1,241 posts)The Government can restrict any gun manufactured after 1793. The Government can (and should) prevent the ownership of all self loading guns.
Want a six-shooter? Get one with six barrels and six triggers.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)The Government can restrict promulgation of speech using any method manufactured after 1793.
The Government can (and should) prevent the ownership of all forms of mass communication.
Want to express your political opinions? Get a soapbox or a bunch of quill pens and one of these:
Doug.Goodall
(1,241 posts)Net neutrality, hate speech, child poronigraphy, copyright, intellectual property rights
It is far easier to regulate single purpose instruments of death than control the motives of people who want to kill. A person only needs one or two shots to hunt or defend themselves. Self loading guns are for combat - something we do not need in modern society.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)For self defense?
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)...did your confirmation as Secretary of Needs pass the Senate while escaping my notice?
Your opinion on what society needs will matter only when it is issued as a majority opinion of
then Supreme Court.
Leave that 'abrogating Constitutional rights that *I* don't like' shit to the Republicans.
Your attempt to do it to the Second Amendment is quixotic at best and only serves to give
the Trump/Pence junto top cover to do the same to the rest of the Constitution
They, too feel there's things "we do not need in modern society", and that the Supremes have
gotten decisions about those things wrong.
see "two-edged sword"
Doug.Goodall
(1,241 posts)1. My opinion is not welcome because of limited knowledge about guns. Not correctly using cartridge, round, and bullet in a sentence immediately makes my points invalid.
2. Limited knowledge of guns and Constitional law is an obvious indication of lack of intelligence, low cognitive ability, and being a tool of a nefarious agenda.
3. Making an argument is an indication of a right wing troll and my post get alerted.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,577 posts)Your courage and interest in this discussion is the very core of democracy. It is only by the light of disagreement, debate and discussion that progress is affected and, in particular, that this topic can be examined and relevant opinions formed such that rights are better protected.
IMHO, liberty is most valuable. As Patrick Henry said: "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel."
I apologize for any offense.
Alea
(706 posts)You feel like you were picked on?
You said things like:
Want a six-shooter? Get one with six barrels and six triggers.
Self loading guns are for combat - something we do not need in modern society.
and
Revolvers are for people who display poor marksmanship or who intend to kill multiple times.
So you were challenged on these opinions. That's how it works in this group. This isn't the antigungeon where people get banned for any sort of dissenting opinion that doesn't align with an anit-gun opinion.
You're playing the victim card.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Also, I've not alerted on any of your posts and doubt very much that any else did.
If you seek only agreement with your views, I would suggest the group
"where seldom is heard a discouraging word" :
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1262
Marengo
(3,477 posts)It without challenge regardless.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,577 posts)Actually the government can make constitutional (and reasonable per the Heller decision) regarding arms regardless of age. Pre-1792 cannon (as in artillery pieces) are probably regulated by several state and federal laws.
Maybe you could elaborate on your reasoning for banning revolvers, and semi-autos. I'm always willing to listen to reasonable ideas.
Welcome again
Doug.Goodall
(1,241 posts)Revolvers are for people who display poor marksmanship or who intend to kill multiple times.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Really?
I never knew that Eleanor Roosevelt was a spree-killer in waiting, since she obviously was a good shot,
and owned a revolver for years (note the dates):
Someone far less charitable than I might just get a teensy suspicion that some of the following
is going on...
Of course, I would *never* accuse you of such a base thing.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,577 posts)They are indeed crew served. That does not stop the government from regulating them. I think you were talking along the idea that they aren't small arms and I agree there as well.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)Muzzle loading artillery are generally regulated the same as ML rifles, shotguns and pistols (including revolvers).
However " modern" artillery is regulated some what tighter. But again, all you need is MONEY.
You want an artillery piece?
http://cannonsonline.com/classifieds/classifieds_listings.htm
Something more modern?
These are a bit more expensive , and require a 4-6 month background check.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)By a considerable degree.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Good to know.
(Currently anything classified over .50 caliber is a Destructive Device rather than a firearm, and effectively banned.)
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)I built a 62cal. Hawkin a few years ago to hunt Elk with.
Drew a cow license from the Apache Indian Reservation in southern NM. Dropped a fine cow from 70yds with one shot.
Damn fine eating.
Also built a 62cal in a fullstock match lock. English fishtail pattern.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)No center fire bigger than .50 under current laws.
MichMary
(1,714 posts)are about restrictions on the power of the government over people. In the context of that, it seems incongruous that there would be an amendment restricting the rights of individuals.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,577 posts)
"in pari materia"
: on the same subject or matter : in a similar case
https://www.merriam-webster.com/legal/in%20pari%20materia
...or from wiki:
In pari materia ( "upon the same matter or subject" )
When a statute is ambiguous, its meaning may be determined in light of other statutes on the same subject matter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_interpretation#Textual
You are, IMHO, spot on! The purpose of the BoR is the confirmation, articulation and protection of rights of individuals. Powers assigned to the government and departments and agencies therein are not AFAIK ever referred to as rights.
Thank you
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)And yes.....welcome to "The Gungeon"!
Edited to add: Also mind-boggling that pro-"control" folks are O.K. with the idea that an amendment intended to protect citizens from a potentially tyrannical government could be "regulated" by the government. Derp!
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,577 posts)...a new law, stricter law, better law... is the answer to mostly all problems facing society. The problem there comes from the fact that some of those folks are law makers and law makers have a bit more to say about making laws than most of us. Unfortunately, the old saying, 'when all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail' plays a big role in legislation.
I would hazard a guess that many laws, which were written and passed with the best intentions, have taken unintended turns and have actually caused problems for the people.
Many folks want to end around any state government and have the feds make it law from sea to shining sea.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)" Is there any reason to trust the opinion of someone who was alive when the BoR was written and passed? "
NO, they were all white, slave owning, rich men. who are all DEAD now. Why should ANYTHING they said or wrote matter to us.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,577 posts)...is to return to the drawing board and call another Constitutional Convention.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,577 posts)Story was born in Massachusetts, never owned slaves and hated slavery. Several of his opinions while an SC justice were against slavery and slave owners/traders.
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)Things that I find so frustrating ---
It seems as though a good percentage of restriction supporters believe that good intentions translate directly to good legislation. The law of unintended consequences never enters their minds.
Studies have been done which indicate that many people support legislation (not just gun legislation) which they don't believe will accomplish the stated goal. Huh? The old "Well we have to do something" "argument".
Relating specifically to the gun restriction debate, they also seem to be completely comfortable with legislation drafted solely on the basis of 'sticking it to the gun humpers'.......oblivious to the fact that poor legislation not only backfires politically, but hurts the country more broadly. People react to arbitrary law by ignoring it, and further, it creates contempt for the law in general.
I know that all this is stating what has been stated many times before, but perhaps new viewers/lurkers will ponder these propositions.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,577 posts)pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)You could actually substitute the word 'contempt' for hatred......but of course contempt evolves to hatred.
The Ann Richards vs. George Biush case would be a prime example. Richards showed contempt for her constituency when she vetoed concealed carry twice, but particularly the second time when it came up by referendum. Her supporters knew that blue states such as Oregon, Washington etc. trusted their citizens.....so they were easy to flip by Bush who made CCW part of his platform.
The stupid infuriates.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,577 posts)"I've always said that in politics, your enemies can't hurt you, but your friends will kill you." ...Know what I mean?
jimmy the one
(2,717 posts)pablo marmol: The Ann Richards vs. George Biush case would be a prime example. Richards showed contempt for her constituency when she vetoed concealed carry twice, but particularly the second time when it came up by referendum..
You don't know what you're talking about. YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
Ann Richards vetoed a request for a referendum on concealed carry, once, because she had majority texas support for disallowing concealed carry - early 1990's polls showed texas DID NOT WANT CCW, like 55% no, 40% yes iirc.
She vetoed the referendum request due the polls showing opposition to ccw, on the basis a referendum would be a waste of taxpayer money just to prove the polls right that texas did not want ccw. Texas LEGISLATURE, not the 'will of the people' rammed shall issue ccw thru.
PABLO DOES NOT KNOW WHAT HE"S TALKING ABOUT. FOS pablo.
The incumbent Democrat, Ann Richards, had vetoed a 1993 bill to permit a statewide referendum on allowing Texans to carry concealed weapons. Mr. {GW} Bush pledged to sign such a bill...
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/08/07/us/2000-campaign-gun-issue-bush-stand-used-turn-election-into-showdown.html
.. Suzanna Gratia Hupp, who subsequently led a spirited and well-financed public campaign for a Texas concealed-carry law. A veto threat from Governor Ann Richards blocked the bill during the 1993 session, though the Legislature did pass legislation calling for a referendum on the issue. Governor Richards vetoed that bill.. George W. Bush’s victory cleared the way for concealed-carry legislation during the 1995 legislative session. http://notevenpast.org/george-lege-part-4-concealed-weapons/
pablo: The stupid infuriates.
You sure do. Retract now & stop believing in 2nd amendment mythology, & right wing bull****.
pablo: Her supporters knew that blue states such as Oregon, Washington etc. trusted their citizens.....so they were easy to flip by Bush who made CCW part of his platform
Huh? translation please.