leov
Well-Known Member
It formed on emergency situations.So, where are all these well regulated Militias that all gun owners have formed?
.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
It formed on emergency situations.So, where are all these well regulated Militias that all gun owners have formed?
.
Cool! You still have your banjo?I live in Appalachia. That's like asking if I have ever breathed.
Yeah. It gets more difficult for me to find the time.Yes, I hunted for many years. Not recently due to health though.
It would be very different going up against well trained and equipped enemy soldiers.How is that relevant?
I am not sure anyone did. I didn't.Who said citizens had to be military trained to own a gun?
I misread your post. I thought you were saying that the military got to choose who they would defend. I somehow missed that you were talking about rebellion. Though I doubt that the issue would dissolve into open rebellion by the entire gun control crowd. Maybe some factions, but whether the military would need to be called in for them is debatable, and I think doubtfulThey are sentient human beings, not robots ya know.
Good. Good. Tell me more that I won't understand. You can even make some stuff up. Heck I won't understand that either.I am talking about a subject beyond your understanding. Simple as that. You have no idea how the military works so just babble and bluff.
I do agree that the term "well regulated militia" is a bit outdated to say the least. Though I have heard the argument that at that time the word "regulated" was a synonym for "armed".But outside of the National Guard, I do not know of any organized, well-regulated and trained militia. I have serious doubts that the citizenry of this country could spontaneously form military units capable of repelling a significant foreign military incursion. I wonder how effective it would really be.
Don't get me wrong, I support the 2nd Amendment, it is just that some of the reasoning behind it is dated. I think self-defense is sufficient. But it would be irresponsible and ignorant to pretend we do not have some problems in this country that involve the illegal use of firearms. But I honestly do not know what the solution is. Removing rights seems to be as wrong headed as some of the reasons people use to defend rights.
That assumes and ignores much. For one, there is no revolution so we don't know who the army will be going after (but there are gun nutters among the Left as well), and the military has been sent in before. And they've been sent against native tribes, college students, looters and rioters, and the Klan and other "makers of trouble" in the former Confederate states during the Reconstruction years. And the Confederate Army.If the military ever is asked to come in they will face the revolutionaries. Anti-gun folks are the ones revolting against the constitution. It's just simple logic.
Good. Good. Tell me more that I won't understand. You can even make some stuff up. Heck I won't understand that either.
Of course, I have no idea how the military works. Clearly, they get to choose whether they fight this battle or that battle or that army or some other army.
It's all so simple and Chad here explained it all. Like I am even reading your posts more than just enough to come up with these meandering pointless responses.
Yeah. Those who have their hunting rifles and shotguns often don't have anymore than those. But, every once in awhile, there will be someone who has tons of guns, so many guns you probably could arm a small militia with them. Not the most effective militia, but it would be a "rag-tag better than nothing" effort. But there's not that many people around they'd actually have to share with because lots of people in rural areas have at least one gun (the NRA even used to rate Bernie Sanders highly because his ideas for gun control work for a rural state and people still have guns). These people, who really aren't even collectors, inexplicably have a crap ton of guns. More than they reasonably need for anything. It is clearly not an armory, but more of a fetish.Except for the fact that you said "And lots of those rural homes have a shotgun or rifle. They don't have enough to arm a militia." You are assuming how arming will come about based on little.
We have a right that I fully support and we have a problem that is getting worse. How do we resolve that? Not just mass shootings, but a better means to keep guns out of criminal hands in general.To be honest I do not think that the National Guard was the sort of militia intended by the founders. And also please note, the right to bear arms has already been ruled not the right to bear any arms. One can get a fully automatic rifle if one lives in the right state and is willing to go through massive regulation.
By the way, for those that claim that regulation would not end the some of the latest mass killings that we have seen how many were done with fully automatic weapons? The one possible example was the killings in Las Vegas with a bump stock. Those only work when there is a massive crowd of people because they are incredibly inaccurate.
I am for reasonable gun control. There really is no purpose for the size of magazines one can get for some rifles. Not for self defense, not for hunting. And the last time there was a zombie apocalypse was almost 2,000 years ago.
Yeah. Those who have their hunting rifles and shotguns often don't have anymore than those. But, every once in awhile, there will be someone who has tons of guns, so many guns you probably could arm a small militia with them. Not the most effective militia, but it would be a "rag-tag better than nothing" effort. But there's not that many people around they'd actually have to share with because lots of people in rural areas have at least one gun (the NRA even used to rate Bernie Sanders highly because his ideas for gun control work for a rural state and people still have guns). These people, who really aren't even collectors, inexplicably have a crap ton of guns. More than they reasonably need for anything. It is clearly not an armory, but more of a fetish.
I am not even reading your posts Chad. If you want to feel big and beat up on someone, fine. But I studied military science for two years. I am familiar with it. I simply misread a post, but my responses were still correct with the context of the misunderstanding. I can admit that I made an error, but I do not think you can. That's ok son. I forgive you.You have yet to refute a single thing I said and babble about something I never said. Yawn
You can take your foot out of your mouth now.
Posse Comitatus Act - Wikipedia
What is Insubordination?
https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1575&context=californialawreview
That is why it easy to counter your points. You put in no effort to your posts and research You just babble and bluff. You become upset when someone points out you have no idea what you are talking about.
I am not even reading your posts Chad.
If you want to feel big and beat up on someone, fine.
But I studied military science for two years.
I am familiar with it.
I simply misread a post, but my responses were still correct with the context of the misunderstanding.
I can admit that I made an error, but I do not think you can. That's ok son. I forgive you.
Here's a start:And what regulations is that?
I specifically stated they aren't collectors. They have tons of guns, few of them of any real interest to a gun collector.Collecting something does not make it a fetish merely because you dislike the object collected.
I specifically stated they aren't collectors. They have tons of guns, few of them of any real interest to a gun collector.
Do you dislike guns or do you just dislike the unlawful use of guns?I specifically stated they aren't collectors. They have tons of guns, few of them of any real interest to a gun collector.
Is disagreeing with an Amendment of the Constitution the same as revolting against this country? Are you saying that people do not have a right to not agree with our present state of gun ownership or seek means to change it?If the military ever is asked to come in they will face the revolutionaries. Anti-gun folks are the ones revolting against the constitution. It's just simple logic.
Here's a start:
High capacity magazines
Licensing
Registration
Complete background checks for all purchases
Is disagreeing with an Amendment of the Constitution the same as revolting against this country? Are you saying that people do not have a right to not agree with our present state of gun ownership or seek means to change it?
.
The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
My question: What is the significant difference between:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
AND
"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
.
I agree with you on this. But it was stated as if that was the case.Of course not. Amendments can be changed, or even eliminated if there is enough support to do so.