"The fear of being seen as a coward or hypocrite hasn't motivated those who are standing in the way of reducing gun violence so far, after all."
How are 2A proponents standing in the way, exactly? By not banning guns that have been around for 100 years? Maybe there's something else going on. Maybe the increase in despair is a cause. Or loneliness. Or anti-depressants. Or poverty. Some blame Trump directly. So which is it? Is it really 2A? Are there other causes we could throw our energy toward?
Will banning the tool eliminate the cause? Or just move the depraved on to the next tool?
the modern usage of 'regulate' has eviscerated much of the constitution especially the commerce clause which now days is generally interpreted as literally the opposite of its original intent
> By definition a militia is separate from a country's military.
No, it's not, a militia is a way of providing a military. (The second amendment is grounded in the idea, alluded to but not explicitly stated in its preamble, that it is essential to freedom for a militia mobilized at need to be the exclusive way for providing a military, including armed domestic security services, beyond a minimal peacetime cadre for training and continuity; it isn't to guarantee freedom by providing a competing armed force to professional ones but instead by preventing the government from adopting professional forces in the first place. It, to be sure, has failed entirely in that goal.)
I don't buy it. The Continental Army and regional militias existed independently, both predate the Bill of Rights. It's debatable by the dictionary definition of the word, but definitely wrong in the context of the US Constitution.
From the Revolution until WW2, the US had a very small standing peacetime army which mainly served as a cadre for wartime forces, which temporarily expanded during wartime to a meaningful fighting force by mobilizing the organized portions of the militia (by placing state organized militias under federal operational command), mobilizing the unorganized militia by voluntary and compulsory means (radically expanding the army size for the duration of the emergency and assuring that size was filled through broad-based conscription).
That broke down significantly progressively after WWII, as the US transitioned to what is effectively a fully professional army.
The Continental Army was (mostly) formed under a "Cincinnatus agreement" that they would return swords to plowshares after the Revolutionary War. At least some of the founding fathers (and it is said even George Washington) were under the assumption that the country would not have a Standing/Permanent Army. There certainly were founding fathers that hoped the Second Amendment to be an attempt to prevent anything larger than regional/state militias from forming outside of defensive emergencies as similar "Cincinattus style" formations of farmers expecting to return home to farming once the war is over. America even named an entire (semi-)major city Cincinnati to try not to forget that war shouldn't be an industry, and warriors should stand down in times of peace. It's strange how remote an ideal that seems today in modern America.
I’m one of the freaks who believes that the 2nd Amendment exists in part to allow the citizenry to defend ourselves from federal tyranny.
However.
I’ve recently been wondering how we might maintain this bulwark while eliminating individual firearm possession, except in extraordinary and limited cases.
I wonder if incorporating the 2nd at the municipal level rather than at the individual level might be the answer.
Individuals could “own” guns, but would be required to store them at their local police station, and could check them out on a time-limited basis for recreational purposes, or for self-defense against a specified threat (using a similar process as getting a restraining order). Periodic psych evaluations would also be required to maintain check-out privileges.
And, if the federal government goes berserk, there still exists a massive arsenal outside of their immediate control. Even 5-10% of municipalities refusing to go along with federal orders would be enough to sustain an armed resistance that would make Afghanistan look like a tea party.
Seems like consolidated stockpiles of weapons would make for easy targets of destruction if there was to be a type of civil conflict. Plus if there is a civil conflict, guerrilla warfare is a huge strategic capability for the side that doesn’t have all of the money and technology to utilize. Having to go check out guns at a local municipality not only puts that strategy at risk during the checkout period, but I would imagine surveillance technology would then quickly identify “dissidents” and allow the federal government to target those dissidents quickly and easily.
Think of it more as an emergency extralegal escape hatch. Once we hit the point of civil conflict, I’d imagine that many firearms in anti-government municipalities would “go missing” and end up distributed back to resistance fighters off the record.
It’s not a freakish belief, it’s right there in the preamble to the bill of rights. People are too stupid to read.
So the federal government (the British) can seize the armory? No thanks.
I’ll be happy with gun laws when I can buy a 0.51 caliber, full auto, suppressed, short barrel rifle, anonymously via mail order, and pay with Bitcoin.
Federal tyrants have access to nuclear weapons, missiles, aircraft carriers, tanks, drones, satellites, etc. How do you expect to fend off tyranny with asymmetric military capabilities? At best it would put you in a perpetual state of guerilla warfare, which isn't any less of a tyranny.
Heavy armaments are tools of obliteration, not of occupation. You can't search homes with a drone. You can't enforce curfews with a battleship. Such weapons are useful in subjugating a foreign state whose people and infrastructure you care little for; they are not practical in suppressing widespread domestic insurrection. To control a population, you need boots on the ground, armed with small arms - against which we the people are evenly matched technologically and vastly superior in number. There would be nothing perpetual about the guerrilla situation - the feds would run out of feds.
A revolution is a matter of public opinion even more than it is a matter of martial might. The day that the feds start nuking their own people is a day by which they have already lost the war.
I don't understand these distinctions. North Korea doesn't control its population with only boots on the ground, it controls it by controlling the border (with ships), the political arena (with nukes), and by controlling infrastructure like roads, food distribution, media (with tanks, artillery, and manpower.) The US government doesn't need to control every person to control the population, it just needs to control its strategic assets, and it can do that with drones, bombs, tanks, etc just fine. If you can't get food because your crops are defoliated and your roads are barricaded, you're not resisting for very long.
Anyway, the argument here is as much about the government controlling the people as it is about the people controlling the government. If the US government turned against its own people militarily, the only way you could recover is if you could regain control of the military and turn it back against the government or if you could somehow get a more powerful military to overthrow it. A revolution from within can only succeed if it controls the actual military.
Threats requiring self-defense are rarely specified in advance.
To your larger point, though, I don't think I've ever met a municipality that, as an incorporated entity, had the spine to stand up to anything. You would be creating a locally-centralized stockpile that could easily fall into the hands of the feds or of the first angry mob that comes along and seizes it, whether by bending the town council or by storming the armory. Do you want me to simply hope that the mob will be on my side?
Its too late for that. There is already a lot of federal control and influence over local police stations. You really think every po-dunk town can afford those MRAP's and other military equipment?
I think that in case you might need to defend yourself against the municipal level too sometimes, not only federal.
I think the way to do is to not make it illegal to own a gun, but, if you want to buy or sell, or to mass produce, then you need a license (but it should not be banned entirely), and you also need mandatory training (but only once, not every month or year) to purchase a gun.
Also, I think that it should be preferred (but not mandatory) to use weapons and defenses other than a gun. You can fight by hand, arrows, sword, staff, stones, gardening tools, sharpening the edges of DVDs and throwing them, etc (or, if you are a pacifist, then you do not have to fight at all). So, having a gun should be discouraged, but it should not actually prevent you to have one if you wish. (If the weapon emits excessive amounts of ionizing radiation, then it would be banned, though.)
And, military service should never be required. (Requiring training to purchase a gun is good, but it should be only once; otherwise the law becomes too obstructive.)
Guns should not be mandatory either; some people don't like guns. (Apparently in one place, it is mandatory to own a gun unless you don't like guns, or cannot afford it, or any of a number of other exceptions. So, such law is not obstructive, and if it is shown to help, then it should be kept, but if it makes it worse, then it should be discarded.)
I live in Canada, and I think the law is that when transporting guns they must be unloaded, and that seem good to me (although the law as implementation may be a bit too strict), and once the police department said that anyone who has a gun but doesn't want it can voluntarily give to them, and I think that is OK too.
The second amendment was a compromise to allow a federal, standing army. Requiring enlistment in such is absurd, and goes against the reason it was written.
This is what I took away too. Its just so against the "spirit" of why the 2a was put in. Assuming every history teacher I've ever had wasn't lying to me. If that's the case, I've got bigger issues to deal with lol.
The 2A, like all rights in the Bill of Rights, is an individual right and not contingent on people forming a collective group to be realized. Pining for the 2A to be contingent on militia service is a common wish for gun control advocates but was simply not the intent of the founders (corroborated by many supporting documents of the period, and solidified in the Heller SCOTUS decision).
Therefore the foundation of this article is both moot and asinine.
>Therefore the foundation of this article is both moot and asinine.
Exactly, and thank you for making that point! I wanted to also highlight one highly inaccurate statement made in the article:
>>How different would our gun debate be today if the focus weren't on the selfish right to personal protection but on our responsibility to serve our country?
Er, that should be: "fundamental right to personal protection".
Reserve duty involves a lot of effort and sacrifice. That's fine, but it shouldn't be required to own a gun. Perhaps reserve duty should confer the right to have fully automatic weapons at home, just as with Switzerland...
Finally, in the context of the Founders and the 2nd Amendment, it was absolutely normal for just about every adult male to own and use firearms. There was certainly NO requirement to join a militia...
But what if I want to own a gun and I am not interested in killing people? Why do I have to sign up for murdering people in other countries just to geek out on engineering and target shooting? Maybe he should modify this dumb idea to make it so only the people who want to murder have to go play army. Put a “is this gun for human killing?” on the order form. If checked yes you have to Army.
So the US Military is just a bunch of murders? You should not throw around the word “dumb” (which this CNN clown and his proposal are!) when you make a completely insane and very disrespectful statement like this. It’s because of the US Military and the freedoms protected by same that you can say whatever dumb things you wish.
I've thought about whether I should respond to this or not. I think we got some wires crossed. This is a hot button issue and I don't want to kick off a flame war.
I was being glib, but I was not calling the US military a bunch of murderers. I was pointing out that it is extremely problematic to force military conscription to get permission to own a gun because gun ownership does not mean a person wants to or is capable to go to war and is willing or capable to take a life in a combat situation. Hell, some people that might want/need a gun may not even be fit for service. Like my grandmother living on her farm alone before she passed.
What I was calling dumb was the proposal that OP posted. I feel like maybe you got the opposite read of my intention because of the flip nature of my post and I think it's a good idea to clarify. Many apologies.
I support and respect military service people for being willing to take risks and sacrifice in ways I could not, but I do not think that should be mixed into being a qualifier for ownership of a firearm.
> a handgun license would simultaneously and automatically register you to serve as a reservist in the Armed Forces branch of your choice — it's that simple
Allow me to point to a simple loophole that would probably be discovered and exploited in 24 hours after the law were passed. The Armed Forces currently consist in 5 branches, but starting next year a new branch, the US Space Force, may be established [1]. Then millions of gun owners would register with this branch as reservists, and the inconvenience for them would be minimal to nil.
This is one of the dumbest things I've read in awhile, even for CNN.
The second wasn't too form a militia FOR the government, it was too form a militia AGAINST the government in case it became tyrannical.
Now, maybe you can figure out why efforts to remove firearms by the government are a non-starter for most people. This separates us from China and others who would remove our essential rights and liberties.
34 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 85.1 ms ] threadHow are 2A proponents standing in the way, exactly? By not banning guns that have been around for 100 years? Maybe there's something else going on. Maybe the increase in despair is a cause. Or loneliness. Or anti-depressants. Or poverty. Some blame Trump directly. So which is it? Is it really 2A? Are there other causes we could throw our energy toward?
Will banning the tool eliminate the cause? Or just move the depraved on to the next tool?
No, it's not, a militia is a way of providing a military. (The second amendment is grounded in the idea, alluded to but not explicitly stated in its preamble, that it is essential to freedom for a militia mobilized at need to be the exclusive way for providing a military, including armed domestic security services, beyond a minimal peacetime cadre for training and continuity; it isn't to guarantee freedom by providing a competing armed force to professional ones but instead by preventing the government from adopting professional forces in the first place. It, to be sure, has failed entirely in that goal.)
That broke down significantly progressively after WWII, as the US transitioned to what is effectively a fully professional army.
However.
I’ve recently been wondering how we might maintain this bulwark while eliminating individual firearm possession, except in extraordinary and limited cases.
I wonder if incorporating the 2nd at the municipal level rather than at the individual level might be the answer.
Individuals could “own” guns, but would be required to store them at their local police station, and could check them out on a time-limited basis for recreational purposes, or for self-defense against a specified threat (using a similar process as getting a restraining order). Periodic psych evaluations would also be required to maintain check-out privileges.
And, if the federal government goes berserk, there still exists a massive arsenal outside of their immediate control. Even 5-10% of municipalities refusing to go along with federal orders would be enough to sustain an armed resistance that would make Afghanistan look like a tea party.
So the federal government (the British) can seize the armory? No thanks.
I’ll be happy with gun laws when I can buy a 0.51 caliber, full auto, suppressed, short barrel rifle, anonymously via mail order, and pay with Bitcoin.
A revolution is a matter of public opinion even more than it is a matter of martial might. The day that the feds start nuking their own people is a day by which they have already lost the war.
Anyway, the argument here is as much about the government controlling the people as it is about the people controlling the government. If the US government turned against its own people militarily, the only way you could recover is if you could regain control of the military and turn it back against the government or if you could somehow get a more powerful military to overthrow it. A revolution from within can only succeed if it controls the actual military.
Threats requiring self-defense are rarely specified in advance.
To your larger point, though, I don't think I've ever met a municipality that, as an incorporated entity, had the spine to stand up to anything. You would be creating a locally-centralized stockpile that could easily fall into the hands of the feds or of the first angry mob that comes along and seizes it, whether by bending the town council or by storming the armory. Do you want me to simply hope that the mob will be on my side?
I think the way to do is to not make it illegal to own a gun, but, if you want to buy or sell, or to mass produce, then you need a license (but it should not be banned entirely), and you also need mandatory training (but only once, not every month or year) to purchase a gun.
Also, I think that it should be preferred (but not mandatory) to use weapons and defenses other than a gun. You can fight by hand, arrows, sword, staff, stones, gardening tools, sharpening the edges of DVDs and throwing them, etc (or, if you are a pacifist, then you do not have to fight at all). So, having a gun should be discouraged, but it should not actually prevent you to have one if you wish. (If the weapon emits excessive amounts of ionizing radiation, then it would be banned, though.)
And, military service should never be required. (Requiring training to purchase a gun is good, but it should be only once; otherwise the law becomes too obstructive.)
Guns should not be mandatory either; some people don't like guns. (Apparently in one place, it is mandatory to own a gun unless you don't like guns, or cannot afford it, or any of a number of other exceptions. So, such law is not obstructive, and if it is shown to help, then it should be kept, but if it makes it worse, then it should be discarded.)
I live in Canada, and I think the law is that when transporting guns they must be unloaded, and that seem good to me (although the law as implementation may be a bit too strict), and once the police department said that anyone who has a gun but doesn't want it can voluntarily give to them, and I think that is OK too.
Therefore the foundation of this article is both moot and asinine.
Do you believe the majority of Americans are going to willingly turn them in?
Exactly, and thank you for making that point! I wanted to also highlight one highly inaccurate statement made in the article:
>>How different would our gun debate be today if the focus weren't on the selfish right to personal protection but on our responsibility to serve our country?
Er, that should be: "fundamental right to personal protection".
Reserve duty involves a lot of effort and sacrifice. That's fine, but it shouldn't be required to own a gun. Perhaps reserve duty should confer the right to have fully automatic weapons at home, just as with Switzerland...
Finally, in the context of the Founders and the 2nd Amendment, it was absolutely normal for just about every adult male to own and use firearms. There was certainly NO requirement to join a militia...
I was being glib, but I was not calling the US military a bunch of murderers. I was pointing out that it is extremely problematic to force military conscription to get permission to own a gun because gun ownership does not mean a person wants to or is capable to go to war and is willing or capable to take a life in a combat situation. Hell, some people that might want/need a gun may not even be fit for service. Like my grandmother living on her farm alone before she passed.
What I was calling dumb was the proposal that OP posted. I feel like maybe you got the opposite read of my intention because of the flip nature of my post and I think it's a good idea to clarify. Many apologies.
I support and respect military service people for being willing to take risks and sacrifice in ways I could not, but I do not think that should be mixed into being a qualifier for ownership of a firearm.
Allow me to point to a simple loophole that would probably be discovered and exploited in 24 hours after the law were passed. The Armed Forces currently consist in 5 branches, but starting next year a new branch, the US Space Force, may be established [1]. Then millions of gun owners would register with this branch as reservists, and the inconvenience for them would be minimal to nil.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Space_Force
The second wasn't too form a militia FOR the government, it was too form a militia AGAINST the government in case it became tyrannical.
Now, maybe you can figure out why efforts to remove firearms by the government are a non-starter for most people. This separates us from China and others who would remove our essential rights and liberties.