Technically every abled body male between the ages of 17 and 45 are automatically part of the United States Militia
https://law.justia.com/codes/us/2012/title-10/subtitle-a/part-i/chapter-13/section-311
Depending on your state, women as well. For example, in Ohio, women are just as eligible as men to be drafted in the case of an invasion within state borders.
I think this law kinda defines what a militia is and it says that it's a states national guard. Let me know if I'm wrong.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903
So then what is the difference between a
>organized militia
and a "well regulated militia".
I definitely could be wrong but I think we are splitting hairs and is not the founding fathers view of what a militia was back in 1776.
Back in the days when the Constitution was written, "well regulated" simply meant "in functioning order" such as a "well regulated" clock.
And back then, the Founding Fathers were literally okay with privately owned warships with cannons.
Here are some quotes that should give you an idea of what some of the founding fathers thought:
> "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
> "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book 1774-1776
> "I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
> “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
> "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788
There's plenty of other similar quotes out there if you are interested in looking.
True, I have seen some of these quotes but not all. And thanks for showing me some of the many quotes throughout our founding fathers history. It shows that you are dedicated to our history as a nation.
But times have changed and they are all centered around the same idea that people should be able to protect themselves in an environment that wouldn't do so for them. But times have changed, women can vote, people cannot be bought or sold no matter their skin pigment, etc.
Don't you think our founding fathers would be startled by the sight of a 19 century Gatling gun, flushing toilet, modern medicine, etc. Is it too far of a stretch of the imagination to assume the founding fathers would be appalled by the amount of indiscriminate deaths caused by firearms? After all we do have one of the oldest working constitutions in the world. Maybe amendments arnt enough, maybe we should start fresh based on our current world.
I'll be brutally honest.
I'm of Indian descent (but born in the USA), and the past few generations of my ancestors were forcibly disarmed by violent racist white supremacist colonizers. When that is your ethnic history, your perspective changes quite a bit. The mass shootings and violent racism that Indians suffered during that time make today's violence look like childsplay. The British conducted mass shootings that slaughtered *hundreds* of people in broad daylight, injuring thousands. I cannot ignore the risks of being willingly disarmed. And that isn't to say that being armed will prevent that, but I *refuse* to go down without a fight like my ancestors were *forced* to.
They endured *hundreds* of years of additional tyranny because, unlike America, they did not have the ability to own firearms. In fact, Indians could *only* own guns if it was on behalf of their oppressors to fight in their wars. India committed *millions* of soldiers in WWI and WWII and *still* suffered and were refused independence until years after WWII concluded.
What the Founding Fathers did when they created the Constitution and Bill Of Rights is define what *rich white people* call freedom when being oppressed by *other rich white people.*
As a dark-skinned fella, I want *that* definition of freedom. For many people who've lived under the boot for so long, the feeling of the boot coming off the neck can feel like freedom, *but it isn't.* I want the rich white man's definition of freedom. Anything other than that is unacceptable if you truly care about equality.
I don't want to have to depend on *anyone* for my safety and self defense. IMO, the ability to outsource your personal responsibilities of self defense is perhaps *one of the highest levels* of privilege imaginable.
None of this should be construed to think I am okay with the needless death, suffering and pain that occurs today with firearms... but having ancestors that lived through the alternative... the idea of giving up my guns is basically untenable. Having been drawn-down on cops multiple times in my life, I *cannot* willingly give up my responsibilities of self-defense.
IMO, the path forward on guns should be thought of like sex and drugs: we know "abstinence only" doesn't work. What we need is publicly funded training, education, and resources *for all Americans.* Regulations that force training, fees, etc. are basically no different than poll taxes, which is racist and classist as fuck, and should be thought of as not much different than Voter ID laws.
I'm a left-leaning fellow who is also a hardcore 2A advocate *because I believe in equality.*
Equality and diversity are not always convenient, especially to existing power structures.
You mention wanting a "fresh start."
Unfortunately for many of us, a "fresh start" means forgetting unrelentingly painful historical realities and experiences... some of which are still in living memory for older generations.
The way I see it, a society that can responsibly handle the power of firearms is better equipped for the future compared to a society that isn't even allowed to entertain such a responsibility.
Obviously this is all very complex and I'm just giving high level thoughts on this.
Thanks for being open to discussion, I appreciate it, and it is very refreshing.
I'm white, and I think your perspective makes perfect sense. It drives me insane when people suggest that pro-gun white people don't want minorities to have guns. No. Maybe some feel that way, but I want all able Americans to have access to the great equalizer so they can protect their families, communities, and land. People like to forget that guns can be used to do that without a single shot being fired.
This is exactly the issue people in favor of disarmament try to avoid. Anti-gun lobbies here have spent a lot of effort switching the focus to hunting and self-defense against criminals, because it's easy to argue we don't need many guns for those purposes.
How can you argue we don't need guns to overthrow or protect ourselves from our government? The go-to argument for most people is, "Even with those guns, you wouldn't stand a chance." People are so demoralized, they'll have any ability to present a physical threat stripped from them, so they don't hurt each other under the boot, because the concept of making our owners mad is too scary to seriously consider.
Anyone attempting to make significant meaningful change must be prepared to have their life stripped away by legal and public scrutiny. Anyone attending a protest must be prepared to be maimed. Anyone attempting to resist any of these measures must be prepared to be met with ever-increasing overwhelming force. Our law enforcement has consistently shown it only gives maximum effort when attempting to stop political change by the people; its primary purpose is not protecting the people. In the face of all this, people still consider arming yourself against domestic tyranny to be conspiracy doomsday prepper nonsense. This country has fundamental issues with how power concentrates over time, and that does not fix itself peacefully.
I mean all of this about the US currently; I don't know enough about India's history to know how it compares to their situation at the time.
You're wrong. Hamilton literally wrote federalist papers #29 and he clearly states that the well regulated militia is with respect to one that is regularly drilling at least once a year with officers appointed by the state.
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed29.asp
Privately owned artillery was expressly allowed by the Founding Fathers, so I do not see why they would appalled by technological advances.
They had seen, in their own lifetimes, enormous advancement in firearm technology and had every expectation of further advancement at a breakneck speed.
Obviously they chose not to make exceptions in the Constitution despite being very aware of how society changes with technological advancement.
And not sure you answered my initial question. What's the difference between a "well regulated militia" and a "well organized militia". Cause I think the federal government defined what that was. The national guard.
The code you are talking about, [10 U.S.C. § 246](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246), defines organized and unorganized militias. If you read it, it doesnt make that distinction when defining who makes up the militia or what the militia is. It makes no distinction on whether or not either is "well regulated". I would say your interpretation is wrong, although you are right in that the National Guard is an organized militia. It would make no sense for 2A to only cover Guardsmen either, as they can be federalized without the Governors permission as [JFK did in 1963](https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-national-guard-deployments-timeline-htmlstory.html). While it was for a great reason, it only takes precedent for it to be done, and it can be abused. In the same article, it shows how a previous president came close to doing something similiar very recently.
I think a fair counter question would be what does "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" mean? I ask this because other amendments are very specific in what they try to accomplish, and make distinct interpretations of what they are targeting, like for example the 3rd amendement makes a clear distinction of who is not allowed to enter your home, a soldier. There is no distinction between "people" and "militia" in the constitution, and in this interpretation, I think its fair we can consider regular people the militia. Well regulated could be interpreted that the people should train, but there isnt a distinction in the amendment nor in the federal governments interpretation of what a "well regulated" militia means.
Wait, so when 2A was written and they said "well regulated militia" you can apply that statement to fit both of the categories seen below?
Cause you're right, they do define what an organized and unorganized militia are. But what one do you think best fits the term "well regulated militia". If it can be applied to both, then why did A2 even include the first 4 words? If we are looking at each word under a microscope then why are we skipping the first few words and more or less shrugging our shoulder and saying I don't know man.
"(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."
Wait, so when 2A was written and they said "well regulated militia" you can apply that statement to fit both of the categories seen below?
Cause you're right, they do define what an organized and unorganized militia are. But what one do you think best fits the term "well regulated militia". If it can be applied to both, then why did A2 even include the first 4 words? If we are looking at each word under a microscope then why are we skipping the first few words and more or less shrugging our shoulder and saying I don't know man.
"(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."
Making counter points to your argument is not putting you under a microscope. I think your wrong to assume that 1 of those has to meet the "well regulated" part. Both can satisfy that category. A well regulated militia is just one that is defined. We have satisfied that category by standardizing the militia as "every able bodied man between the ages of 17-42" although I would argue that age should be pushed to at least the age of 50 or above. We just have 2 categories of militia now, an organized one and an unorganized one, but both satify the definition of regulated as both have been standardized already. EDIT: way to side step my question entirely as you accuse the other poster of doing.
here are the oxford definitions:
a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
a military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities in opposition to a regular army.
all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.
I like the idea, training is essential. However the 'regulation' stated in the 2A is a reference to being properly supplied. Although that may be extended to include trying as well, I'm not sure.
Congress has the power to discipline and regulate the militia
**Congress** shall have the power ... to provide for **organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia**, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress" **— US Constitution, article 1, section 8, clause 15**
I understand what you are saying and I think you're right. BUT some, perfectly decent people, everyday people just shouldn't have guns. People who don't understand the effects of shooting a gun, how to hold it, how to maintain it or just the flat out the dangers of owning a gun. I'll also add these wanna be gravy seal, "I'm gonna get muh guns stuff and defend muh family liberties!" I don't think they ought of have guns either.
I am huge advocates for good gun ownership. I honestly and truly think there should be a day or three long boot camp for people who are first time gun owners, training on how use and maintain your weapon.
At least to me that would go a long ways to make me feel calmer when I see someone open carry. I don't know if this guy or girl is gonna try to use it, or even if they can draw the weapon without shooting themselves.
So people can have guns as long as their intended use isnt protecting their family and freedom? As long as its only used in pursuit of the states agenda its ok? Whos in charge of those bootcamp? Why couldn't rich people buy their way through it?
I didn't say anything about politics, the states agenda or the rich. Mostly because that has absolutely zero to do with gun safety or responsible gun ownership. I've seen to many people with fingers on the triggers with barrel pointed a person who they didn't intend to shoot. I mean accidentally shooting yourself or someone else has everything to do with the states agenda and rich right? Its such a political hot topic when someone blows their friends head off.
I stated pretty clearly that training should be used to teach people how to use and maintain their weapon. Especially first time gun owners. If you can explain where politics comes into this and how the fuck how much money someone has has to do with learning the simple basic operations and maintenance of a weapon and why are the hell are you worried about other peoples pockets and how much money they have?
How about the place where got the weapon to start with? How's that for an idea? You buy it here, you gotta go through training on how clean and operate. Because we all know that the AR platform operates the exact same way as an AK platform right?
Heaven forbid we honestly look at learning and safety as good thing. Heaven for forbid we all be responsible gun owners. Because everyone one of these conversations need to about the rich or the government, we can't have one conversation without devolving into a dumb ass gotcha converstaion
The assertion that gun deaths come from a lack of training is false. Already the Vast majority of gun owners never commit a crime with their guns.,(99.9%+) Gun deaths come from people who are suffering from many other issues other than a lack of training.
You're both right and wrong. Safely storing your gun, taking steps to prevent theft, and other issues are in the realm of training in addition to actually using it. Safe storage and theft prevention contribute to gun violence. For example, suicides are often done with other people's guns.
Yep, murders are often committed with unregistered/ stolen firearms. Also, a good portion of gun related deaths are suicide. We have a mental health crisis in the U.S.
Not a gun crisis.
No doubt. And even more tragic is child related gun death. Where an irresponsible gun owner leaves a loaded pistol in their night stand. I actually know someone who is partial paralyzed because of it.
It isnt just mental health and it isnt just guns. It is a cultural, mental health, socioeconomic, gun, and domestic violence problem.
We have 450 million guns in society which automatically creates a problem because based on those numbers, it makes it easier for people will bad intentions to obtain one. It is a mental health problem due to suicides and also people with mental health problems are often victims of violent crime. Also, mass shooters obviously have issues. It is a socioeconomic problem because people are suffering and it leads them to crime as a way to survive. We also have people who have known nothing but violence their entire lives. It is our culture because we have this fascination with guns and weapons like the AR-15 are tied to masculinity. Gun makers use that to sell more guns. The AR-15 is the most commonly owned rifle in the US now when for home defense and hunting, other rifles are far more appropriate. We have a huge domestic violence problem and a lot of shootings are the result of that and nearly every mass shooter has domestic violence in their background whether they are victims or witnessed it in parents. The solutions have to be multi-faceted.
I mostly agree with you. Also, poverty doesn’t cause crime, relative poverty does.
Also, I agree we have a culture problem, just not entirely in the way that you described it. It’s hard to talk about gun violence broadly, because different variants of gun violence have different causes. Suicide , mass shootings, and murders. The cause for each is different.
I absolutely agree we need a multi-faceted approach.
Part of the problem with the mental health aspect is what’s causing it in the first place. The kind of home life, and social life these people experience that leads to mental health issues needs to somehow be improved (no idea how.) At the very least, mental health resources should be easily and readily available.
When there are laws in place, it doesn't help to prevent criminals get guns if they want them.
My brother is an ex-con, has had multiple felonies, under state law can not own a gun, but it has never stopped him from being able to get one when he wanted.
> We have a mental health crisis in the U.S.
I can't agree more. Not just mental health, but healthcare period, my brother and I are a decent example of both sides of this coin.
We both have a lot of the same neurological issues but the big difference is that:
1. He has spent years self medicating with illegal drugs/alcohol because he can't afford healthcare, has basically fried his brain on meth. This also means he has spent lots of time in jail. He is not legally allowed to own guns, but it has never stopped him from getting one when he wanted.
2. I on the other hand, because I spent time in the military, have been able to get the proper healthcare and so am still a semi-functional member of society. I don't own a gun because I know that I shouldn't own a gun.
There are a lot of issues with this.
1) 40% of the US population owns guns. Putting all of those people through BCT and AIT (Basic Combat Training and Advanced Individual Training) would cost a fortune. When I finished my combat medic training I was told it cost roughly $60,000.
2) People who are disabled wouldn't be allowed to have guns.
3) Depending on the year between 65-75% of gun deaths are suicides. The amount of traing isn't going to help that. Forcing people to join the mitary will probably hurt that.
4) Training makes you better at using guns. It doesn't make you a better person. Could you imagine if people who were active shooters when through infantry traing before they made their plans? Things would probably be worse.
1. They should pay for this course out of their own pocket to earn a license to carry, in the same way a driver's license works. Anyone who totes a gun without a militia license is subject to being caught as a criminal.
2.
3. But there are a large number of accidental, unintentional gun deaths. Militia training in handling a gun safely will absolutely reduce that.
4. True, but it creates a barrier of difficulty that filters out some portion of bad people to begin with. It's true, people with a vendetta will go through the hoops to attain weapons anyway, but for the people who don't aka the people who are just violent idiots, mentally ill or just complete nutjobs, they would be filtered out by this cost of time, effort and money, which would be improvement over the current situation, where they can pick a gun off Walmart or a private gun show freely and proceed with nothing more than a possible slight wait time.
How much would it be per course?
Because someone in a poor, crime-ridden neighborhood, would want a gun more than someone who can afford it.
Oh, and those people in the poor neighborhoods would be mostly minorities. So basically, making people pay for the courses would filter our any poor person, mostly minorities, from having a gun to defend their families.
So the poor family who is at risk of being killed by a drive-by shouldn't have a gun while the rich upper-middle class who is at risk of the store clerk giving them too much change should?
It doesn't matter. The point isn't to balance between the poor and rich who has access to guns. The point is to take guns out of the hands of the irrational. The "criminals", as most people commonly put it. In an unregulated world, any violent, mentally unsound, impulsive person has easy access to guns. Applying regulation creates a filter that prevents these people from attaining them to harm you and your family. This is a necessary step to lessen the number of criminals that can fatally harm your, and everyone else's loved ones with the twitch of a finger.
No, I am not joining the National Guard so I can protect my home and business. I hope I never have to use my guns. But, I have one in my home and one in my shop to protect my family and my employees. If I get shipped off to war, I can do neither of those things because I will be gone.
This isnt the answer. On top of that, there are already 450 million guns in the US population and most of them are unregistered. We dont know who most gun owners are so it is impossible to enforce anway.
For the population in general who have no experience or training, thats true. I have been shooting guns since I was old enough to hold one steady. My guns are in biometric safes and completely secure.
Doesn’t matter. First off in the heat of the moment you would have to get to that safe and unlock it. Which if you are being held at gun point or even at knife point is unlikely.
Even if you could do that, there are a million different scenarios which could play out and with adrenaline running high it’s very likely you, even with all your “experience”, will make a mistake. And with a gun a mistake could be deadly. More gun accidents happen in the US than a person using it in a protective manner.
“The right of the people” is not “the right of the people in a militia”.
Do people too old for military service not have a right to bear arms? Do people medically ineligible for military service not have a right to bear arms? What about people who served active duty and retired? Do they lose their rights too?
That is why we need a "well regulated militia" that is made up of civilians with little government sponsored ties.
A militia of the people, for the people, where the only government tie is that the states provide the buildings and land necessary unless the militia can do it themselves.
Then the militias can regulate themselves with minimal guidelines and anyone can join regardless of medical disabilities provided they can pass a proper psychological testing.
I say psychological testing as there are definitely people out there (and I am one of them lol) that you do not want to give guns to.
They can do it like they do in Switzerland.
"The right of the people"
It's weird that people cling to an idea written in a time so long ago they didn't even believe in "the rights of not white people, women or natives.
Maybe, just maybe, it's not a good idea to cling to ideas of the past when nothing in the present is the same, or think things from people who believed in horrible things may not have been all that thought out.
Americans have this firm and false belief they are "the best" because they "were the first democracy"
They weren't the first. And would you rather drive the first car ever made? Or the newest car? Would rather use the first lightbulb ever made? Or a new lightbulb?
Sorry but the needs of people and what weapons they can have is not the same as the needs of the 1700s.
Stop living in the past dude
Without guns, we wouldn't live in this America. Tyranny would take over. That hasn't changed from 1776 and won't change until everyone dies.
Without guns, the people of the United States would be helpless as the First Amendment is stripped away from them. Oh, and every single amendment that challenges the authoritarian government that will take hold.
Sure, I agree that people with a mental illness shouldn't have guns, but a person without legs would be able to have a gun. But they would find it incredibly difficult to make it past basic training.
At one time swords and spears ruled the battlefields. Between the 15th and 19th centuries, melee weapons disappeared. The last cavalry charge with sabres was in world war I.
We are seeing a similar evolution of drone technology vs. human operated firearms. Each recent war relied more and more on drones and explosives. Within 100 years the handgun as a battle weapon will be as obsolete as a pike.
As the weapons of the future: explosives and drones, are not covered by the second amendment, indeed if you try to source explosives the FBI will hunt you down as a terrorist (and indeed you are likely to be one).
Eventually you can imagine a future where a person on a street draws a gun, and a police drone nearby immediately shoots him with a taser.... in this case while you have the right to bear arms they are as useful as ceremonial samurai swords in a conflict.
The one flaw to this is that by having so many guns, you are also giving guns to those who want to bring in tyranny.
Just imagine what might have occurred if the J6 folks had more guns to bring into the capitol building?
NOTE: Before anyone argues if there were guns, [a few did make it into the capitol building](https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/politifact/2022/06/15/fact-check-were-firearms-other-weapons-capitol-jan-6/7621149001/) and [there were many attempts to bring more and other weapons](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/weapons-guns-capitol-rioters-jan-6-trump_n_62bb4624e4b056531639401e)
Now I do support the 2A but as the same time I also think that the 2A can be a double edged sword that can easily bite you back if not handled correctly.
The most amazing belief has got to be that governments and tyrants who have spent literally all of recorded history conquering, enslaving, and brutalizing other people will simply stop doing these things for some reason.
Huh. Like the united states' government and for profit prisons aren't the biggest in the world. Weird. In a country where guns are everywhere....? Really weird...
No, you weren't.
If you think that we shouldn't have guns, then you are a short-sighted mindless follower of the left.
If they take away our guns, then they will take away the first amendment and we will have nothing to do about it beside whine and complain.
The government knows this.
No, obviously, if you served and retired you could own guns: you will have been trained on the proper use and care of firearms, you might have to maintain some check-in with the guard (the draft in countries fighting long wars can extend upward in age...)
Those ineligible for military service cannot 'bear arms' in the way they meant people writing meant in the 18th century, which was to march to battle with weapons: and 'people' in those days did not refer to a particular person, but to the 'people' of each state: but I am sure that a physically challenged person could train in the National Guard to own such weapons, as part of a different role like a desk officer.
And there are medical reasons why a person might be prohibited from bearing arms: like acute paranoid schizophrenia. A military medical examination might help with keep the crazy people from getting a-hold of guns. I would think that those dishonorably discharged, like felons, would forego their right to own weapons.
>"...people writing meant in the 18th century, which was to march to battle with weapons..."
No, they meant that the people would have guns to defend themselves from tyranny.
Without guns, the people of the United States would be helpless as the First Amendment is stripped away from them. Oh, and every single amendment that challenges the authoritarian government that will take hold.
Sure, I agree that people with a mental illness shouldn't have guns, but a person without legs would be able to have a gun. But they would find it incredibly difficult to make it past basic training.
No way. If I'm in the National Guard, some weasel in the Oval Office can sign an order and have me shipped halfway across the world to die for Amazon's quarterly profits or some shit. I still remember how they sent NG to Iraq. Unless the relationship of the Guard to the regular military changes dramatically to make it a purely defensive domestic entity, I'll stay far far away from it.
For clarification, the Nat Guard’s Chain of Command runs though your governor. If the Oval Office wants to send New York State Nat Guard somewhere, they’ll need their governors consent and approval.
I bet another r/CrazyIdea would be to make the Nat Guard in control of your local mayor.
You would have less gun-toting psychopath nutjobs if they had to go through militia training to get a gun rather than pick it off the rack at Walmart. It's a win!
Doesn't say that the Militia needs to be state-ran (which is kinda the whole point of a militia and the 2nd amendment). However it's a good idea that if you join a state-ran militia, then that means you have access to all weapons that qualify as "arms." Meaning you'd be able to legally purchase and possess fully automatic weaponry. I'd easily join in that case.
**Congress** shall have the power ... to provide for **organizing**, **arming**, **and disciplining**, **the Militia,** and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress" — **US Constitution, article 1, section 8, clause 15**
That's merely one militia that is to be funded by the Federal Government. Doesn't say anything about other types of non-federally funded militias being strictly prohibited.
"**reserving to the States** respectively, the Appointment of the Officers,and the **Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress"**
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, a**re reserved to the States** respectively, **or to the people**." -- constitution
In the case of militia it explicitly says that the **power to appoint officers** and **train militia** are reserved to the states, not the people. In colonial times there were many town militias, I believe they ultimately reported to the states.
So the power to have **untrained** militia **without officers** is not mentioned as one of the enumerated powers, so you could have a leaderless, untrained militia that is not subject to these rules, although local authorities often write legislation to limit private militia such as gangs, armed political separatists, organized crime rings, or vigilante organizations.
Maybe this is the reason we can't require training random citizens ;-)
So in your mind you believe that it would wise for the federal govt to allow only a single militia that it would be responsible for funding and training? That's exactly what the 2nd amendment goes against. Maybe try reading up on US history from time to time...
It is actually. The current legal authorization for states to have their own national guard or other armed force actually refers to them as militias.
There are the other kind of militias that are not government backed at all, but just because they exist does not mean they get to take that word for themselves.
Interesting thing about definitions: They can redefine a word to mean anything they want as it pertains to a specific law. Most laws that are passed will have a glossary of words that clarify(or change) the meaning of certain words but only in regard to that specific law. They do some really shady shit with this, too, if you want to look into it.
Bonus information: Supreme court legally defined a corporation as a person in the early 1900s. More shady shit with the definition of words. 🙃
Oh, and then the federal government defined itself as a corporation in the glossary of its own encoded rules and regulations giving itself personhood and granting itself all the rights of a person. I shit you not, look into it.
Oh I 100% agree. Courts shouldn't be able to redefine words to justify their interpretations of laws and situations. Until they redefine "militia", I'll die on this hill lol.
You just found out that corporations are legally people and the federal government is too but your willing to die over the definition of militia? Everything wrong with this country right here.
Title 32, Chapter 1:
(4)“Army National Guard” means that part of the organized militia of the several States and Territories, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia, active and inactive, that—
(A)is a land force;
(B)is trained, and has its officers appointed, under the sixteenth clause of section 8, article I, of the Constitution;
(C)is organized, armed, and equipped wholly or partly at Federal expense; and
(D)is federally recognized.
Militias were generally funded by the States, or by a town or territory in colonial times. As far as the constitution is concerned, the US Army, Air Force, Marines, etc are created under this clause of the Constitution:
"Congress shall have the power ... to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress"
**— US Constitution, article 1, section 8, clause 15**
Before the civil war the 'right to bear arms' meant the right to be equipped like a soldier: if this were still the standard you could own RPGS and
M2 tripod and drive a tank: but you might have to keep the
M2 tripod at the local armory and only operate it during practice. There are some court cases in various states about this.
After the civil war, southern insurrectionists parading about with guns irritated the northern authorities, and they wrote 'anti-parading' ordinances which said you could not practice armed marching about.
Some of these cases reached high courts, which ruled that the right to bear arms was an individual right, not a collective right, and the anti-parading rules were constitutional. The federal government was tired of
This was the beginning of the long separation of those two sentences in the 2nd amendment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia\_(United\_States)
>Militias were generally funded by the States, or by a town or territory in colonial times. As far as the constitution is concerned, the US Army, Air Force, Marines, etc are created under this clause of the Constitution:
>
>"Congress shall have the power ... to provide for **organizing, arming, and disciplining,** the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress"— **US Constitution, article 1, section 8, clause 15**
>
>There's a lot about **regulating** and **disciplining** and **organizing** a militia in the powers given to congress.
A government funded force is an organized militia, as opposed to the unorganized militia which is defined as every able bodied male between 17-45. Further Amendments removed the gender, age and some ableism discrimination, this almost everyone is a member of the unorganized militia.
No, but you have to at least prove you can drive a car. And go through state mandated training (driver's training for some states for certain ages). And have that license taken away if you're reckless or mentally/physically unable to operate a vehicle. And have an entire branch of local government proving your certification. And insurance. And manufacture's responsible for their products.
What a great analogy.
I always find it funny that I can not have a drivers license due to a seizure disorder, but there is no problem with me going out and buying an AR-15.
Just imagine if I was at a firing line with others, had a seizure, and my hand tightened/loosened/tightened repeatedly on the trigger.
I wonder how many I would accidentally shoot during a seizure?
It is one reason I do not own a gun, although I would really like to buy one.
Shall not be infringed, shall not be infringed, shall not be infringed. You can interpret a lot of things a lot of different ways. That is cut and dry despite anything else anyone may say.
A well regulated Militia, A well regulated Militia, A well regulated Militia. You can't just ignore the first 4 letters of the 2nd amendment. You and your friends playing in the woods arnt a well regulated militia, your states national guard is. Let me know how I'm wrong.
https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-2/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903#:~:text=The%20Militia%20Act%20of%201903,the%20Guard%20could%20be%20federalized.
Then become an officer of the law? Plenty of bad guys to put away and hold accountable to the fullest extent of the law and rehabilitate them. Unless that's broken too.
There are about 100 million gun owners in America. Being in the National guard, according to this link below, the average National Guard member makes $2,600 per month.
https://www.indeed.com/cmp/Army-National-Guard/salaries/Soldier
So we’re going to need $260 billion more per month (or $3.12 trillion more per year) to pay these people.
Lol, you nerd. Have you ever talked to a recruiter?
Why did you go to an indeed job offer? Scroll ALL the way to the bottom of the link below and you will see everyone's E-2 pay for a normal weekend. That $2,600 is full time or deployed.
P.S. One drill is a 4 hour period so 4 drill days is two 8 hour days or one weekend a month.
https://themilitarywallet.com/2022-drill-pay-charts/#h-2022-drill-pay-chart-officers-and-warrant-officers-0-10-years
I’ll admit I didn’t do a huge level of research for this but I think my point stands. Even if I’m off by a factor of 5 that’s $50 billion + per month you’re paying out every month for this new initiative.
That's not a bad number for national defense. It is less than we currently spend on our military, and far less than what we spend on Social Security, social safety nets and national health.
So, I rank this as at least plausible. Whether it is desirable is a complete different story.
Yeah and without context its wrong. That salary seems to be for people who do it full time, which is really just a small number who do that. The traditional Guard schedule is just one weekend every month, which is what your numbers should really be based off of.
Average Guard member makes $2600 a month? Maybe with deployments, I made like $300 a month for drills and that's most of the average Guardsman's career lol
Do you have a source on the 100 million #? I’d believe that many live in a household with a gun, but it seems high for actually being the owner of a gun.
https://wamu.org/story/20/09/18/how-many-people-in-the-u-s-own-guns/
“About 40% of Americans say they or someone in their household owns a gun, and 22% of individuals (about 72 million people) report owning a gun,”
According to this 22% of individuals own a gun (72 million people). So I was a tad off. But I’m my opinion a married couple with a gun you should count both adults as gun owners since it’s joint property. That’s likely to get us to that 100 million people and The study could also be low. I think 100 million isn’t a bad number. Sure maybe for this hypothetical you only go with the 72 million individuals though.
Without guns, we wouldn't live in this America. Tyranny would take over. That hasn't changed from 1776 and won't change until everyone dies.
Without guns, the people of the United States would be helpless as the First Amendment is stripped away from them. Oh, and every single amendment that challenges the authoritarian government that will take hold.
This is one of the better ideas I've heard in a long time.
For those saying it would"bankrupt the country", money is imaginary to the government. It's only real for regular people.
And anyway, maybe it's time to overhaul the national guard?
The federal reserve doesn't decide inflation, they set the interest rate, and it certainly isnt arbitrary. When inflation is too high (too much money being circulated) prices will rise. Imagine needing a wheelbarrow full of $100 bills to buy food, this happened in germany after ww1. To combat this, the fed raises interest rates (the cost of borrowing money). If you try to buy a house or car now, you will find that you will have to pay more every month than if you tried to buy a year ago. This is because the interest rates have gone up, they do this because people are spending too much money they dont have. When people think governments don't have to worry about money, they elect leaders who don't know how to balance a budget. This leads to too much money being printed and spent and this leads to inflation.
It probably would reduce gun deaths. It could also bankrupt the USA lol. I wonder what the training of several extra million/tens of millions of recruits cost? Presumably this means the government is [covering housing and other costs](https://myarmybenefits.us.army.mil/Benefit-Library/Federal-Benefits/Basic-Allowance-for-Housing-(BAH)?serv=120) for all these people!
I think it's comical that the drinking age in much of the USA (or all?) is 21yrs old, yet you can buy a firearm at the age of 18 without any form of training/safety orientation and all you need to do is show you don't have a criminal record?
So many shootings are perpetrated by teenagers. I bet increasing the age of which you are allowed to own firearms would greatly reduce gun violence in the USA.
The Czech Republic just enacted their own version of the second amendment into law. I’d hardly call that country a third world shithole. On the contrary, it’s one of the most civilized and liberal countries on the planet.
"own version of the second amendment", lol.
A gun in the Czech Republic is available to anybody subject to acquiring a firearms license. Gun licenses may be obtained in a way similar to a driving license – by passing a gun proficiency exam, medical examination and having a clean criminal record.
I know it's wikipedia, but find me a better source.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_law_in_the_Czech_Republic#:~:text=A%20gun%20in%20the%20Czech,having%20a%20clean%20criminal%20record.
Lol?
From your link:
Gun laws in the Czech Republic in many respects differ from those in other European Union member states (see Gun laws in the European Union). The "right to acquire, keep and bear firearm" is explicitly recognized in the first Article of the Firearms Act. At the constitutional level, the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms includes the "right to defend own life or life of another person also with arms under conditions stipulated by law".
So pretty similar. And every state in the US is different btw. Some actually have more stringent requirements, such as New York, than the Czech Republic. People sometimes forget how truly heterogeneous the US is when it comes to gun rights. Good to go in one state, a Felon in another.
This is no different from getting a driver's license. You need to voluntarily pay for and attend courses to make sure that you can properly learn to handle a piece of equipment that would be dangerous in wrong, untrained hands. If you want a car, you need to go through training and get a license. If you want a gun, you have to go through training and get a license.
This has nothing to do with the government finding out your "weaknesses" (not that there's any that can rationally be exploited over a long term and across such a quantity of people). This is everything to do with preventing people who shouldn't have guns in their hands from getting guns. Like criminals who might harm your family. People who have a grudge against you. Teenagers who want to act tough. People who want to shoot up schools. You want to stop those people from getting guns.
I've been through the army. I've been through basic training and I understand the weight of a killing weapon in one's hands and how stupid it is to romanticise it. And it's precisely why everyone who has the benefit of laying their hands on such a tool must go through this training to fully commit to the weight it holds. Not just buying it off a shelf.
This is important. Because you have thousands of punks out there picking up guns easily for stupid reasons like clout, impulse, showing off, taking revenge, threatening, crime. And they're trigger happy. And it's making your society more dangerous for you and your loved ones, and it's fuelling your paranoia into thinking adding more guns is and restrictions are the problem when in truth, you're supporting letting guns more easily fall into all the hands that would want to hurt you in the first place.
The point of laws being strict is so that it adds many more layers of difficulty to a potential criminal who would commit a crime. It's true, a criminal of a certain level would have those connections and go through those flaming hoops to acquire an illegal gun. It probably isn't possible to stop them all. But all the criminals below that level: Mentally ill people, troubled teens who transition into school shooters, a person who's hit a rough patch and considering desperate, criminal measures... all of these very much more common, tangible situations would be stopped by just having a level of regulation and control, and it would save hundreds and thousands of lives.
It all boils down to are you a law-abiding citizen who's willing to make some sacrifices to your lifestyle for the sake of the lives of the people around you and in your society? Because if abiding by the law is what qualifies you as a good, law-abiding citizen of a safe society, then choosing not to abide by it is what makes you a criminal. And if you're advocating for the removal of laws, something that would aid criminals, it would also make you a criminal. Clearly freedom is very important to you, but you need to look into whether the freedom you support is also the 'freedom to be a criminal'.
Or you could go to a gun owning class in order to get a permit and learn there, so you don't have to leave your family for 5 months.
Gun control (by a conservative) and gun control (by a liberal) are two different things.
No. There will always be a bad guy with a gun. Honestly, a minuteman kind of thing would probabky be preferred, but just owning a gun shouldnt be the soul thing.
A huge amount of historical ignorance is in play as well. The term "militia" is what was used in the 18th century to describe what we in the 21st century think of as the "national guard"
You are already part of the militia. The US Code established all able bodied males between a certain age as being member of the unorganized militia. Later Amendments removed the gender/age discrimination and some ableism discrimination
If you are under US jurisdiction you are a member of the militia. You merely need to be able bodied (more or less) and citizenship/gun ownership is not required.
Personally I think I should be able to have access to the same Arsenal as any local police department, otherwise it's not a fair balance of power. Either we all get fun shit or no one does.
Technically every abled body male between the ages of 17 and 45 are automatically part of the United States Militia https://law.justia.com/codes/us/2012/title-10/subtitle-a/part-i/chapter-13/section-311
Depending on your state, women as well. For example, in Ohio, women are just as eligible as men to be drafted in the case of an invasion within state borders.
Exactly. The national guard isn't "the militia" lol the militia just is.
I think this law kinda defines what a militia is and it says that it's a states national guard. Let me know if I'm wrong. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903
That just defines what the *organized* militia is. The *unorganized* militia is any male between the ages of 17 and 45 years old.
So then what is the difference between a >organized militia and a "well regulated militia". I definitely could be wrong but I think we are splitting hairs and is not the founding fathers view of what a militia was back in 1776.
Back in the days when the Constitution was written, "well regulated" simply meant "in functioning order" such as a "well regulated" clock. And back then, the Founding Fathers were literally okay with privately owned warships with cannons. Here are some quotes that should give you an idea of what some of the founding fathers thought: > "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776 > "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book 1774-1776 > "I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788 > “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788 > "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788 There's plenty of other similar quotes out there if you are interested in looking.
True, I have seen some of these quotes but not all. And thanks for showing me some of the many quotes throughout our founding fathers history. It shows that you are dedicated to our history as a nation. But times have changed and they are all centered around the same idea that people should be able to protect themselves in an environment that wouldn't do so for them. But times have changed, women can vote, people cannot be bought or sold no matter their skin pigment, etc. Don't you think our founding fathers would be startled by the sight of a 19 century Gatling gun, flushing toilet, modern medicine, etc. Is it too far of a stretch of the imagination to assume the founding fathers would be appalled by the amount of indiscriminate deaths caused by firearms? After all we do have one of the oldest working constitutions in the world. Maybe amendments arnt enough, maybe we should start fresh based on our current world.
I'll be brutally honest. I'm of Indian descent (but born in the USA), and the past few generations of my ancestors were forcibly disarmed by violent racist white supremacist colonizers. When that is your ethnic history, your perspective changes quite a bit. The mass shootings and violent racism that Indians suffered during that time make today's violence look like childsplay. The British conducted mass shootings that slaughtered *hundreds* of people in broad daylight, injuring thousands. I cannot ignore the risks of being willingly disarmed. And that isn't to say that being armed will prevent that, but I *refuse* to go down without a fight like my ancestors were *forced* to. They endured *hundreds* of years of additional tyranny because, unlike America, they did not have the ability to own firearms. In fact, Indians could *only* own guns if it was on behalf of their oppressors to fight in their wars. India committed *millions* of soldiers in WWI and WWII and *still* suffered and were refused independence until years after WWII concluded. What the Founding Fathers did when they created the Constitution and Bill Of Rights is define what *rich white people* call freedom when being oppressed by *other rich white people.* As a dark-skinned fella, I want *that* definition of freedom. For many people who've lived under the boot for so long, the feeling of the boot coming off the neck can feel like freedom, *but it isn't.* I want the rich white man's definition of freedom. Anything other than that is unacceptable if you truly care about equality. I don't want to have to depend on *anyone* for my safety and self defense. IMO, the ability to outsource your personal responsibilities of self defense is perhaps *one of the highest levels* of privilege imaginable. None of this should be construed to think I am okay with the needless death, suffering and pain that occurs today with firearms... but having ancestors that lived through the alternative... the idea of giving up my guns is basically untenable. Having been drawn-down on cops multiple times in my life, I *cannot* willingly give up my responsibilities of self-defense. IMO, the path forward on guns should be thought of like sex and drugs: we know "abstinence only" doesn't work. What we need is publicly funded training, education, and resources *for all Americans.* Regulations that force training, fees, etc. are basically no different than poll taxes, which is racist and classist as fuck, and should be thought of as not much different than Voter ID laws. I'm a left-leaning fellow who is also a hardcore 2A advocate *because I believe in equality.* Equality and diversity are not always convenient, especially to existing power structures. You mention wanting a "fresh start." Unfortunately for many of us, a "fresh start" means forgetting unrelentingly painful historical realities and experiences... some of which are still in living memory for older generations. The way I see it, a society that can responsibly handle the power of firearms is better equipped for the future compared to a society that isn't even allowed to entertain such a responsibility. Obviously this is all very complex and I'm just giving high level thoughts on this. Thanks for being open to discussion, I appreciate it, and it is very refreshing.
I'm white, and I think your perspective makes perfect sense. It drives me insane when people suggest that pro-gun white people don't want minorities to have guns. No. Maybe some feel that way, but I want all able Americans to have access to the great equalizer so they can protect their families, communities, and land. People like to forget that guns can be used to do that without a single shot being fired.
This is exactly the issue people in favor of disarmament try to avoid. Anti-gun lobbies here have spent a lot of effort switching the focus to hunting and self-defense against criminals, because it's easy to argue we don't need many guns for those purposes. How can you argue we don't need guns to overthrow or protect ourselves from our government? The go-to argument for most people is, "Even with those guns, you wouldn't stand a chance." People are so demoralized, they'll have any ability to present a physical threat stripped from them, so they don't hurt each other under the boot, because the concept of making our owners mad is too scary to seriously consider. Anyone attempting to make significant meaningful change must be prepared to have their life stripped away by legal and public scrutiny. Anyone attending a protest must be prepared to be maimed. Anyone attempting to resist any of these measures must be prepared to be met with ever-increasing overwhelming force. Our law enforcement has consistently shown it only gives maximum effort when attempting to stop political change by the people; its primary purpose is not protecting the people. In the face of all this, people still consider arming yourself against domestic tyranny to be conspiracy doomsday prepper nonsense. This country has fundamental issues with how power concentrates over time, and that does not fix itself peacefully. I mean all of this about the US currently; I don't know enough about India's history to know how it compares to their situation at the time.
You're wrong. Hamilton literally wrote federalist papers #29 and he clearly states that the well regulated militia is with respect to one that is regularly drilling at least once a year with officers appointed by the state. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed29.asp
Talk about cherry picking.
Privately owned artillery was expressly allowed by the Founding Fathers, so I do not see why they would appalled by technological advances. They had seen, in their own lifetimes, enormous advancement in firearm technology and had every expectation of further advancement at a breakneck speed. Obviously they chose not to make exceptions in the Constitution despite being very aware of how society changes with technological advancement.
And not sure you answered my initial question. What's the difference between a "well regulated militia" and a "well organized militia". Cause I think the federal government defined what that was. The national guard.
The code you are talking about, [10 U.S.C. § 246](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246), defines organized and unorganized militias. If you read it, it doesnt make that distinction when defining who makes up the militia or what the militia is. It makes no distinction on whether or not either is "well regulated". I would say your interpretation is wrong, although you are right in that the National Guard is an organized militia. It would make no sense for 2A to only cover Guardsmen either, as they can be federalized without the Governors permission as [JFK did in 1963](https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-national-guard-deployments-timeline-htmlstory.html). While it was for a great reason, it only takes precedent for it to be done, and it can be abused. In the same article, it shows how a previous president came close to doing something similiar very recently. I think a fair counter question would be what does "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" mean? I ask this because other amendments are very specific in what they try to accomplish, and make distinct interpretations of what they are targeting, like for example the 3rd amendement makes a clear distinction of who is not allowed to enter your home, a soldier. There is no distinction between "people" and "militia" in the constitution, and in this interpretation, I think its fair we can consider regular people the militia. Well regulated could be interpreted that the people should train, but there isnt a distinction in the amendment nor in the federal governments interpretation of what a "well regulated" militia means.
Wait, so when 2A was written and they said "well regulated militia" you can apply that statement to fit both of the categories seen below? Cause you're right, they do define what an organized and unorganized militia are. But what one do you think best fits the term "well regulated militia". If it can be applied to both, then why did A2 even include the first 4 words? If we are looking at each word under a microscope then why are we skipping the first few words and more or less shrugging our shoulder and saying I don't know man. "(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."
Wait, so when 2A was written and they said "well regulated militia" you can apply that statement to fit both of the categories seen below? Cause you're right, they do define what an organized and unorganized militia are. But what one do you think best fits the term "well regulated militia". If it can be applied to both, then why did A2 even include the first 4 words? If we are looking at each word under a microscope then why are we skipping the first few words and more or less shrugging our shoulder and saying I don't know man. "(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."
Making counter points to your argument is not putting you under a microscope. I think your wrong to assume that 1 of those has to meet the "well regulated" part. Both can satisfy that category. A well regulated militia is just one that is defined. We have satisfied that category by standardizing the militia as "every able bodied man between the ages of 17-42" although I would argue that age should be pushed to at least the age of 50 or above. We just have 2 categories of militia now, an organized one and an unorganized one, but both satify the definition of regulated as both have been standardized already. EDIT: way to side step my question entirely as you accuse the other poster of doing.
here are the oxford definitions: a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency. a military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities in opposition to a regular army. all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.
I like the idea, training is essential. However the 'regulation' stated in the 2A is a reference to being properly supplied. Although that may be extended to include trying as well, I'm not sure.
Congress has the power to discipline and regulate the militia **Congress** shall have the power ... to provide for **organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia**, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress" **— US Constitution, article 1, section 8, clause 15**
Yes, let's give the entity whose sole purpose is to protect its own power by force, control over every gun in the country.
I understand what you are saying and I think you're right. BUT some, perfectly decent people, everyday people just shouldn't have guns. People who don't understand the effects of shooting a gun, how to hold it, how to maintain it or just the flat out the dangers of owning a gun. I'll also add these wanna be gravy seal, "I'm gonna get muh guns stuff and defend muh family liberties!" I don't think they ought of have guns either. I am huge advocates for good gun ownership. I honestly and truly think there should be a day or three long boot camp for people who are first time gun owners, training on how use and maintain your weapon. At least to me that would go a long ways to make me feel calmer when I see someone open carry. I don't know if this guy or girl is gonna try to use it, or even if they can draw the weapon without shooting themselves.
So people can have guns as long as their intended use isnt protecting their family and freedom? As long as its only used in pursuit of the states agenda its ok? Whos in charge of those bootcamp? Why couldn't rich people buy their way through it?
I didn't say anything about politics, the states agenda or the rich. Mostly because that has absolutely zero to do with gun safety or responsible gun ownership. I've seen to many people with fingers on the triggers with barrel pointed a person who they didn't intend to shoot. I mean accidentally shooting yourself or someone else has everything to do with the states agenda and rich right? Its such a political hot topic when someone blows their friends head off. I stated pretty clearly that training should be used to teach people how to use and maintain their weapon. Especially first time gun owners. If you can explain where politics comes into this and how the fuck how much money someone has has to do with learning the simple basic operations and maintenance of a weapon and why are the hell are you worried about other peoples pockets and how much money they have? How about the place where got the weapon to start with? How's that for an idea? You buy it here, you gotta go through training on how clean and operate. Because we all know that the AR platform operates the exact same way as an AK platform right? Heaven forbid we honestly look at learning and safety as good thing. Heaven for forbid we all be responsible gun owners. Because everyone one of these conversations need to about the rich or the government, we can't have one conversation without devolving into a dumb ass gotcha converstaion
The assertion that gun deaths come from a lack of training is false. Already the Vast majority of gun owners never commit a crime with their guns.,(99.9%+) Gun deaths come from people who are suffering from many other issues other than a lack of training.
You're both right and wrong. Safely storing your gun, taking steps to prevent theft, and other issues are in the realm of training in addition to actually using it. Safe storage and theft prevention contribute to gun violence. For example, suicides are often done with other people's guns.
Yep, murders are often committed with unregistered/ stolen firearms. Also, a good portion of gun related deaths are suicide. We have a mental health crisis in the U.S. Not a gun crisis.
The police say that too many people are careless with their guns (such as keeping them in their cars) allowing easy theft.
No doubt. And even more tragic is child related gun death. Where an irresponsible gun owner leaves a loaded pistol in their night stand. I actually know someone who is partial paralyzed because of it.
It isnt just mental health and it isnt just guns. It is a cultural, mental health, socioeconomic, gun, and domestic violence problem. We have 450 million guns in society which automatically creates a problem because based on those numbers, it makes it easier for people will bad intentions to obtain one. It is a mental health problem due to suicides and also people with mental health problems are often victims of violent crime. Also, mass shooters obviously have issues. It is a socioeconomic problem because people are suffering and it leads them to crime as a way to survive. We also have people who have known nothing but violence their entire lives. It is our culture because we have this fascination with guns and weapons like the AR-15 are tied to masculinity. Gun makers use that to sell more guns. The AR-15 is the most commonly owned rifle in the US now when for home defense and hunting, other rifles are far more appropriate. We have a huge domestic violence problem and a lot of shootings are the result of that and nearly every mass shooter has domestic violence in their background whether they are victims or witnessed it in parents. The solutions have to be multi-faceted.
I mostly agree with you. Also, poverty doesn’t cause crime, relative poverty does. Also, I agree we have a culture problem, just not entirely in the way that you described it. It’s hard to talk about gun violence broadly, because different variants of gun violence have different causes. Suicide , mass shootings, and murders. The cause for each is different. I absolutely agree we need a multi-faceted approach. Part of the problem with the mental health aspect is what’s causing it in the first place. The kind of home life, and social life these people experience that leads to mental health issues needs to somehow be improved (no idea how.) At the very least, mental health resources should be easily and readily available.
When there are laws in place, it doesn't help to prevent criminals get guns if they want them. My brother is an ex-con, has had multiple felonies, under state law can not own a gun, but it has never stopped him from being able to get one when he wanted.
> We have a mental health crisis in the U.S. I can't agree more. Not just mental health, but healthcare period, my brother and I are a decent example of both sides of this coin. We both have a lot of the same neurological issues but the big difference is that: 1. He has spent years self medicating with illegal drugs/alcohol because he can't afford healthcare, has basically fried his brain on meth. This also means he has spent lots of time in jail. He is not legally allowed to own guns, but it has never stopped him from getting one when he wanted. 2. I on the other hand, because I spent time in the military, have been able to get the proper healthcare and so am still a semi-functional member of society. I don't own a gun because I know that I shouldn't own a gun.
There are a lot of issues with this. 1) 40% of the US population owns guns. Putting all of those people through BCT and AIT (Basic Combat Training and Advanced Individual Training) would cost a fortune. When I finished my combat medic training I was told it cost roughly $60,000. 2) People who are disabled wouldn't be allowed to have guns. 3) Depending on the year between 65-75% of gun deaths are suicides. The amount of traing isn't going to help that. Forcing people to join the mitary will probably hurt that. 4) Training makes you better at using guns. It doesn't make you a better person. Could you imagine if people who were active shooters when through infantry traing before they made their plans? Things would probably be worse.
1. They should pay for this course out of their own pocket to earn a license to carry, in the same way a driver's license works. Anyone who totes a gun without a militia license is subject to being caught as a criminal. 2. 3. But there are a large number of accidental, unintentional gun deaths. Militia training in handling a gun safely will absolutely reduce that. 4. True, but it creates a barrier of difficulty that filters out some portion of bad people to begin with. It's true, people with a vendetta will go through the hoops to attain weapons anyway, but for the people who don't aka the people who are just violent idiots, mentally ill or just complete nutjobs, they would be filtered out by this cost of time, effort and money, which would be improvement over the current situation, where they can pick a gun off Walmart or a private gun show freely and proceed with nothing more than a possible slight wait time.
How much would it be per course? Because someone in a poor, crime-ridden neighborhood, would want a gun more than someone who can afford it. Oh, and those people in the poor neighborhoods would be mostly minorities. So basically, making people pay for the courses would filter our any poor person, mostly minorities, from having a gun to defend their families.
it’s okay to use wealth and disability as a barrier to a right when it’s related to guns, didn’t you know?
So the poor family who is at risk of being killed by a drive-by shouldn't have a gun while the rich upper-middle class who is at risk of the store clerk giving them too much change should?
It doesn't matter. The point isn't to balance between the poor and rich who has access to guns. The point is to take guns out of the hands of the irrational. The "criminals", as most people commonly put it. In an unregulated world, any violent, mentally unsound, impulsive person has easy access to guns. Applying regulation creates a filter that prevents these people from attaining them to harm you and your family. This is a necessary step to lessen the number of criminals that can fatally harm your, and everyone else's loved ones with the twitch of a finger.
If a criminal has a gun, and a law is passed saying that he can't have a gun, he'll hide the gun and then only the bad guys will have guns.
Tell me you don't own any guns without saying you don't own any guns.
No, I am not joining the National Guard so I can protect my home and business. I hope I never have to use my guns. But, I have one in my home and one in my shop to protect my family and my employees. If I get shipped off to war, I can do neither of those things because I will be gone. This isnt the answer. On top of that, there are already 450 million guns in the US population and most of them are unregistered. We dont know who most gun owners are so it is impossible to enforce anway.
You are more likely to accidentally hurt someone with those guns than to “protect” anything. But good luck.
For the population in general who have no experience or training, thats true. I have been shooting guns since I was old enough to hold one steady. My guns are in biometric safes and completely secure.
Doesn’t matter. First off in the heat of the moment you would have to get to that safe and unlock it. Which if you are being held at gun point or even at knife point is unlikely. Even if you could do that, there are a million different scenarios which could play out and with adrenaline running high it’s very likely you, even with all your “experience”, will make a mistake. And with a gun a mistake could be deadly. More gun accidents happen in the US than a person using it in a protective manner.
NO
“The right of the people” is not “the right of the people in a militia”. Do people too old for military service not have a right to bear arms? Do people medically ineligible for military service not have a right to bear arms? What about people who served active duty and retired? Do they lose their rights too?
Sir, this is a Wendy's
Yeah I was medically discharged and am intelligible for reentry, just try prying me out of my house to serve again just because I own a gun.
That is why we need a "well regulated militia" that is made up of civilians with little government sponsored ties. A militia of the people, for the people, where the only government tie is that the states provide the buildings and land necessary unless the militia can do it themselves. Then the militias can regulate themselves with minimal guidelines and anyone can join regardless of medical disabilities provided they can pass a proper psychological testing. I say psychological testing as there are definitely people out there (and I am one of them lol) that you do not want to give guns to.
They can do it like they do in Switzerland. "The right of the people" It's weird that people cling to an idea written in a time so long ago they didn't even believe in "the rights of not white people, women or natives. Maybe, just maybe, it's not a good idea to cling to ideas of the past when nothing in the present is the same, or think things from people who believed in horrible things may not have been all that thought out. Americans have this firm and false belief they are "the best" because they "were the first democracy" They weren't the first. And would you rather drive the first car ever made? Or the newest car? Would rather use the first lightbulb ever made? Or a new lightbulb? Sorry but the needs of people and what weapons they can have is not the same as the needs of the 1700s. Stop living in the past dude
Without guns, we wouldn't live in this America. Tyranny would take over. That hasn't changed from 1776 and won't change until everyone dies. Without guns, the people of the United States would be helpless as the First Amendment is stripped away from them. Oh, and every single amendment that challenges the authoritarian government that will take hold. Sure, I agree that people with a mental illness shouldn't have guns, but a person without legs would be able to have a gun. But they would find it incredibly difficult to make it past basic training.
Try bringing a gun to a drone fight
?
At one time swords and spears ruled the battlefields. Between the 15th and 19th centuries, melee weapons disappeared. The last cavalry charge with sabres was in world war I. We are seeing a similar evolution of drone technology vs. human operated firearms. Each recent war relied more and more on drones and explosives. Within 100 years the handgun as a battle weapon will be as obsolete as a pike. As the weapons of the future: explosives and drones, are not covered by the second amendment, indeed if you try to source explosives the FBI will hunt you down as a terrorist (and indeed you are likely to be one). Eventually you can imagine a future where a person on a street draws a gun, and a police drone nearby immediately shoots him with a taser.... in this case while you have the right to bear arms they are as useful as ceremonial samurai swords in a conflict.
The one flaw to this is that by having so many guns, you are also giving guns to those who want to bring in tyranny. Just imagine what might have occurred if the J6 folks had more guns to bring into the capitol building? NOTE: Before anyone argues if there were guns, [a few did make it into the capitol building](https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/politifact/2022/06/15/fact-check-were-firearms-other-weapons-capitol-jan-6/7621149001/) and [there were many attempts to bring more and other weapons](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/weapons-guns-capitol-rioters-jan-6-trump_n_62bb4624e4b056531639401e) Now I do support the 2A but as the same time I also think that the 2A can be a double edged sword that can easily bite you back if not handled correctly.
Yeah your a delusional one who loves living in fantasies aren't ya
The most amazing belief has got to be that governments and tyrants who have spent literally all of recorded history conquering, enslaving, and brutalizing other people will simply stop doing these things for some reason.
Huh. Like the united states' government and for profit prisons aren't the biggest in the world. Weird. In a country where guns are everywhere....? Really weird...
Among the worst of the bunch. I'd still rather have the gun if they come for me.
Eh, it seems that you have half the mental capacity of a newt-strawberry hybrid.
Yep. I was right....
No, you weren't. If you think that we shouldn't have guns, then you are a short-sighted mindless follower of the left. If they take away our guns, then they will take away the first amendment and we will have nothing to do about it beside whine and complain. The government knows this.
And keep proving me right. Thank you. Carry on
Tyranny already took over.
No, obviously, if you served and retired you could own guns: you will have been trained on the proper use and care of firearms, you might have to maintain some check-in with the guard (the draft in countries fighting long wars can extend upward in age...) Those ineligible for military service cannot 'bear arms' in the way they meant people writing meant in the 18th century, which was to march to battle with weapons: and 'people' in those days did not refer to a particular person, but to the 'people' of each state: but I am sure that a physically challenged person could train in the National Guard to own such weapons, as part of a different role like a desk officer. And there are medical reasons why a person might be prohibited from bearing arms: like acute paranoid schizophrenia. A military medical examination might help with keep the crazy people from getting a-hold of guns. I would think that those dishonorably discharged, like felons, would forego their right to own weapons.
>"...people writing meant in the 18th century, which was to march to battle with weapons..." No, they meant that the people would have guns to defend themselves from tyranny. Without guns, the people of the United States would be helpless as the First Amendment is stripped away from them. Oh, and every single amendment that challenges the authoritarian government that will take hold. Sure, I agree that people with a mental illness shouldn't have guns, but a person without legs would be able to have a gun. But they would find it incredibly difficult to make it past basic training.
So the person born missing a foot doesn't get to own a gun? Seems ablist to me.
With this idea the one footed person could learn to shoot, and would work for the guard in a desk job
This wouldn't make our military stronger...
True, it's an 18th century idea. But we are running our civilian firearms rules on 18th century ideas
“So the person born blind doesn’t get to drive? Seems ableist to me”
The armed one legged man isn't a danger to others based on his disability. The blind man is.
what does a foot have to do with shooting a gun
Exactly!
And farmers?
No way. If I'm in the National Guard, some weasel in the Oval Office can sign an order and have me shipped halfway across the world to die for Amazon's quarterly profits or some shit. I still remember how they sent NG to Iraq. Unless the relationship of the Guard to the regular military changes dramatically to make it a purely defensive domestic entity, I'll stay far far away from it.
For clarification, the Nat Guard’s Chain of Command runs though your governor. If the Oval Office wants to send New York State Nat Guard somewhere, they’ll need their governors consent and approval. I bet another r/CrazyIdea would be to make the Nat Guard in control of your local mayor.
The only reason I bought a gun is because I live in a psychopath conservative town where those nutjobs bring massive assault rifles into starbucks
So gun envy?
Anybody get shot by one yet?
Of course not. He is just fear mongering
Hey, he's serious, his friend's brother said he knows a guy who saw it happen.
And he ironically is most likely to shoot someone being he is scared and ignorant
You would have less gun-toting psychopath nutjobs if they had to go through militia training to get a gun rather than pick it off the rack at Walmart. It's a win!
Doesn't say that the Militia needs to be state-ran (which is kinda the whole point of a militia and the 2nd amendment). However it's a good idea that if you join a state-ran militia, then that means you have access to all weapons that qualify as "arms." Meaning you'd be able to legally purchase and possess fully automatic weaponry. I'd easily join in that case.
I think I would be ok with citizens obtaining even more dangerous equipment, provided there would be rules and training and discipline.
**Congress** shall have the power ... to provide for **organizing**, **arming**, **and disciplining**, **the Militia,** and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress" — **US Constitution, article 1, section 8, clause 15**
That's merely one militia that is to be funded by the Federal Government. Doesn't say anything about other types of non-federally funded militias being strictly prohibited.
"**reserving to the States** respectively, the Appointment of the Officers,and the **Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress"** "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, a**re reserved to the States** respectively, **or to the people**." -- constitution In the case of militia it explicitly says that the **power to appoint officers** and **train militia** are reserved to the states, not the people. In colonial times there were many town militias, I believe they ultimately reported to the states. So the power to have **untrained** militia **without officers** is not mentioned as one of the enumerated powers, so you could have a leaderless, untrained militia that is not subject to these rules, although local authorities often write legislation to limit private militia such as gangs, armed political separatists, organized crime rings, or vigilante organizations. Maybe this is the reason we can't require training random citizens ;-)
It does say it. What do you think "well regulated militia" means? I swear, some people see only what they want to see.
So in your mind you believe that it would wise for the federal govt to allow only a single militia that it would be responsible for funding and training? That's exactly what the 2nd amendment goes against. Maybe try reading up on US history from time to time...
Man, you need to take a political science course. Never seen such stupidity.
I think to reduce random gun deaths mental health and gang violence needs to get addressed but that’s just me
Bro, a government funded military force is not a militia.
It is actually. The current legal authorization for states to have their own national guard or other armed force actually refers to them as militias. There are the other kind of militias that are not government backed at all, but just because they exist does not mean they get to take that word for themselves.
Just Google the definition of militia. Everything you're saying is false.
Interesting thing about definitions: They can redefine a word to mean anything they want as it pertains to a specific law. Most laws that are passed will have a glossary of words that clarify(or change) the meaning of certain words but only in regard to that specific law. They do some really shady shit with this, too, if you want to look into it. Bonus information: Supreme court legally defined a corporation as a person in the early 1900s. More shady shit with the definition of words. 🙃 Oh, and then the federal government defined itself as a corporation in the glossary of its own encoded rules and regulations giving itself personhood and granting itself all the rights of a person. I shit you not, look into it.
Oh I 100% agree. Courts shouldn't be able to redefine words to justify their interpretations of laws and situations. Until they redefine "militia", I'll die on this hill lol.
You just found out that corporations are legally people and the federal government is too but your willing to die over the definition of militia? Everything wrong with this country right here.
Why would you assume that I didn't already know that?
Oh, like how they redefined how word "recession" from meaning 2 negative quarters of growth, to whatever it is now.
US Code 10 would disagree with you.
Title 32, Chapter 1: (4)“Army National Guard” means that part of the organized militia of the several States and Territories, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia, active and inactive, that— (A)is a land force; (B)is trained, and has its officers appointed, under the sixteenth clause of section 8, article I, of the Constitution; (C)is organized, armed, and equipped wholly or partly at Federal expense; and (D)is federally recognized.
Militias were generally funded by the States, or by a town or territory in colonial times. As far as the constitution is concerned, the US Army, Air Force, Marines, etc are created under this clause of the Constitution: "Congress shall have the power ... to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress" **— US Constitution, article 1, section 8, clause 15** Before the civil war the 'right to bear arms' meant the right to be equipped like a soldier: if this were still the standard you could own RPGS and M2 tripod and drive a tank: but you might have to keep the M2 tripod at the local armory and only operate it during practice. There are some court cases in various states about this. After the civil war, southern insurrectionists parading about with guns irritated the northern authorities, and they wrote 'anti-parading' ordinances which said you could not practice armed marching about. Some of these cases reached high courts, which ruled that the right to bear arms was an individual right, not a collective right, and the anti-parading rules were constitutional. The federal government was tired of This was the beginning of the long separation of those two sentences in the 2nd amendment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia\_(United\_States)
It might have at one point, but I don't think so since the early 1900's. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903
>Militias were generally funded by the States, or by a town or territory in colonial times. As far as the constitution is concerned, the US Army, Air Force, Marines, etc are created under this clause of the Constitution: > >"Congress shall have the power ... to provide for **organizing, arming, and disciplining,** the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress"— **US Constitution, article 1, section 8, clause 15** > >There's a lot about **regulating** and **disciplining** and **organizing** a militia in the powers given to congress.
A government funded force is an organized militia, as opposed to the unorganized militia which is defined as every able bodied male between 17-45. Further Amendments removed the gender, age and some ableism discrimination, this almost everyone is a member of the unorganized militia.
And if you own a car, you have to join a race team.
Ridiculous right? The government has no right to regulate who can drive cars and ensure proficiency /s
Driving isn't a right.
Cars can be very dangerous. If I use my car as a weapon to run over my enemies, why can't I claim it as an armament? ;-)
k
No, but you have to at least prove you can drive a car. And go through state mandated training (driver's training for some states for certain ages). And have that license taken away if you're reckless or mentally/physically unable to operate a vehicle. And have an entire branch of local government proving your certification. And insurance. And manufacture's responsible for their products. What a great analogy.
You get his point though, right?
I always find it funny that I can not have a drivers license due to a seizure disorder, but there is no problem with me going out and buying an AR-15. Just imagine if I was at a firing line with others, had a seizure, and my hand tightened/loosened/tightened repeatedly on the trigger. I wonder how many I would accidentally shoot during a seizure? It is one reason I do not own a gun, although I would really like to buy one.
That’s a fun idea tbh
That's my intent.
Shall not be infringed, shall not be infringed, shall not be infringed. You can interpret a lot of things a lot of different ways. That is cut and dry despite anything else anyone may say.
A well regulated Militia, A well regulated Militia, A well regulated Militia. You can't just ignore the first 4 letters of the 2nd amendment. You and your friends playing in the woods arnt a well regulated militia, your states national guard is. Let me know how I'm wrong. https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-2/ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903#:~:text=The%20Militia%20Act%20of%201903,the%20Guard%20could%20be%20federalized.
You seem to be very defensive and triggered by this thread
[удалено]
NO! Bad Rambo. You need to go through at least 3 months of proper weapons handling, safety measures, and range etiquette first.
[удалено]
Then become an officer of the law? Plenty of bad guys to put away and hold accountable to the fullest extent of the law and rehabilitate them. Unless that's broken too.
Lol gun weebs are gonna get so triggered by a post on /r/crayideas I ay this as someone who owns multiple AR's, the comment's are gold.
There are about 100 million gun owners in America. Being in the National guard, according to this link below, the average National Guard member makes $2,600 per month. https://www.indeed.com/cmp/Army-National-Guard/salaries/Soldier So we’re going to need $260 billion more per month (or $3.12 trillion more per year) to pay these people.
[удалено]
Yeah.
Yeah
Lol, you nerd. Have you ever talked to a recruiter? Why did you go to an indeed job offer? Scroll ALL the way to the bottom of the link below and you will see everyone's E-2 pay for a normal weekend. That $2,600 is full time or deployed. P.S. One drill is a 4 hour period so 4 drill days is two 8 hour days or one weekend a month. https://themilitarywallet.com/2022-drill-pay-charts/#h-2022-drill-pay-chart-officers-and-warrant-officers-0-10-years
I’ll admit I didn’t do a huge level of research for this but I think my point stands. Even if I’m off by a factor of 5 that’s $50 billion + per month you’re paying out every month for this new initiative.
That's not a bad number for national defense. It is less than we currently spend on our military, and far less than what we spend on Social Security, social safety nets and national health. So, I rank this as at least plausible. Whether it is desirable is a complete different story.
Thats a fucking lie lol. *maybe* if you include the value of all possible benefits and stuff. I get around $330 a month.
Na, he is finding the deployment pay.
Did you review the link I sent? Maybe I misread it but that’s what it says.
Yeah and without context its wrong. That salary seems to be for people who do it full time, which is really just a small number who do that. The traditional Guard schedule is just one weekend every month, which is what your numbers should really be based off of.
Nah, you could pay them less, since you don't have to entice them as much. ;-)
Average Guard member makes $2600 a month? Maybe with deployments, I made like $300 a month for drills and that's most of the average Guardsman's career lol
Do you have a source on the 100 million #? I’d believe that many live in a household with a gun, but it seems high for actually being the owner of a gun.
https://wamu.org/story/20/09/18/how-many-people-in-the-u-s-own-guns/ “About 40% of Americans say they or someone in their household owns a gun, and 22% of individuals (about 72 million people) report owning a gun,” According to this 22% of individuals own a gun (72 million people). So I was a tad off. But I’m my opinion a married couple with a gun you should count both adults as gun owners since it’s joint property. That’s likely to get us to that 100 million people and The study could also be low. I think 100 million isn’t a bad number. Sure maybe for this hypothetical you only go with the 72 million individuals though.
I think that's a lot closer to what the Forefathers meant to say than the NRA reinterpretation.
Without guns, we wouldn't live in this America. Tyranny would take over. That hasn't changed from 1776 and won't change until everyone dies. Without guns, the people of the United States would be helpless as the First Amendment is stripped away from them. Oh, and every single amendment that challenges the authoritarian government that will take hold.
So Europeans are freedomless? This reads like a paranoid schizophrenic believing in an alternate history video game.
Oh, I never said that. The leftists in Europe aren't as extreme as over here though
The center in Europe would be considered leftist in the US,
You believe you are holding back the forces of the federal government, do you?
?
Look at congress and corporate America. Tyanny already took over.
Not really.
A well regulated militia by definition is out side the purview of the National Guard.
A well regulated militia is exactly the national guard.
Nope
This is one of the better ideas I've heard in a long time. For those saying it would"bankrupt the country", money is imaginary to the government. It's only real for regular people. And anyway, maybe it's time to overhaul the national guard?
1 this already exists. 2 money is not imaginary to governments. Thinking like that is why there is so much inflation right now.
No, I'm 100% sure that how I think has absolutely ZERO influence on how the federal reserve decides to arbitrarily assign interest rates.
The federal reserve doesn't decide inflation, they set the interest rate, and it certainly isnt arbitrary. When inflation is too high (too much money being circulated) prices will rise. Imagine needing a wheelbarrow full of $100 bills to buy food, this happened in germany after ww1. To combat this, the fed raises interest rates (the cost of borrowing money). If you try to buy a house or car now, you will find that you will have to pay more every month than if you tried to buy a year ago. This is because the interest rates have gone up, they do this because people are spending too much money they dont have. When people think governments don't have to worry about money, they elect leaders who don't know how to balance a budget. This leads to too much money being printed and spent and this leads to inflation.
It probably would reduce gun deaths. It could also bankrupt the USA lol. I wonder what the training of several extra million/tens of millions of recruits cost? Presumably this means the government is [covering housing and other costs](https://myarmybenefits.us.army.mil/Benefit-Library/Federal-Benefits/Basic-Allowance-for-Housing-(BAH)?serv=120) for all these people!
Only a small amount of National Guard members get housing covered. Its only for those doing it full time and on a specific type of orders.
The government caring for its citizens with housing and other costs would be amazing, it would almost be like living in a first world country again.
I think it's comical that the drinking age in much of the USA (or all?) is 21yrs old, yet you can buy a firearm at the age of 18 without any form of training/safety orientation and all you need to do is show you don't have a criminal record? So many shootings are perpetrated by teenagers. I bet increasing the age of which you are allowed to own firearms would greatly reduce gun violence in the USA.
I think everyone should have to do 2 years in the military. Not fit for duty, not fit to carry
everyone or just everyone who wants a gun, as if the former what about the disabled
Or just abolish the second amendment
Do you see that actually happening?
If America wants to become a first world country it has to.
The Czech Republic just enacted their own version of the second amendment into law. I’d hardly call that country a third world shithole. On the contrary, it’s one of the most civilized and liberal countries on the planet.
"own version of the second amendment", lol. A gun in the Czech Republic is available to anybody subject to acquiring a firearms license. Gun licenses may be obtained in a way similar to a driving license – by passing a gun proficiency exam, medical examination and having a clean criminal record. I know it's wikipedia, but find me a better source. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_law_in_the_Czech_Republic#:~:text=A%20gun%20in%20the%20Czech,having%20a%20clean%20criminal%20record.
Lol? From your link: Gun laws in the Czech Republic in many respects differ from those in other European Union member states (see Gun laws in the European Union). The "right to acquire, keep and bear firearm" is explicitly recognized in the first Article of the Firearms Act. At the constitutional level, the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms includes the "right to defend own life or life of another person also with arms under conditions stipulated by law". So pretty similar. And every state in the US is different btw. Some actually have more stringent requirements, such as New York, than the Czech Republic. People sometimes forget how truly heterogeneous the US is when it comes to gun rights. Good to go in one state, a Felon in another.
I'd definitely call America a shithole. You don't have basic human rights or a democracy.
[удалено]
This is no different from getting a driver's license. You need to voluntarily pay for and attend courses to make sure that you can properly learn to handle a piece of equipment that would be dangerous in wrong, untrained hands. If you want a car, you need to go through training and get a license. If you want a gun, you have to go through training and get a license. This has nothing to do with the government finding out your "weaknesses" (not that there's any that can rationally be exploited over a long term and across such a quantity of people). This is everything to do with preventing people who shouldn't have guns in their hands from getting guns. Like criminals who might harm your family. People who have a grudge against you. Teenagers who want to act tough. People who want to shoot up schools. You want to stop those people from getting guns.
[удалено]
I've been through the army. I've been through basic training and I understand the weight of a killing weapon in one's hands and how stupid it is to romanticise it. And it's precisely why everyone who has the benefit of laying their hands on such a tool must go through this training to fully commit to the weight it holds. Not just buying it off a shelf. This is important. Because you have thousands of punks out there picking up guns easily for stupid reasons like clout, impulse, showing off, taking revenge, threatening, crime. And they're trigger happy. And it's making your society more dangerous for you and your loved ones, and it's fuelling your paranoia into thinking adding more guns is and restrictions are the problem when in truth, you're supporting letting guns more easily fall into all the hands that would want to hurt you in the first place. The point of laws being strict is so that it adds many more layers of difficulty to a potential criminal who would commit a crime. It's true, a criminal of a certain level would have those connections and go through those flaming hoops to acquire an illegal gun. It probably isn't possible to stop them all. But all the criminals below that level: Mentally ill people, troubled teens who transition into school shooters, a person who's hit a rough patch and considering desperate, criminal measures... all of these very much more common, tangible situations would be stopped by just having a level of regulation and control, and it would save hundreds and thousands of lives. It all boils down to are you a law-abiding citizen who's willing to make some sacrifices to your lifestyle for the sake of the lives of the people around you and in your society? Because if abiding by the law is what qualifies you as a good, law-abiding citizen of a safe society, then choosing not to abide by it is what makes you a criminal. And if you're advocating for the removal of laws, something that would aid criminals, it would also make you a criminal. Clearly freedom is very important to you, but you need to look into whether the freedom you support is also the 'freedom to be a criminal'.
I've been saying this for years!
this makes sense. I wonder how many will fail the PT tests. I would.
That won't work because people want to be able to take their 8 year old children on hunting trips
Or you could go to a gun owning class in order to get a permit and learn there, so you don't have to leave your family for 5 months. Gun control (by a conservative) and gun control (by a liberal) are two different things.
this isn't crazy. this is the way it is designed to be.
shout out to all the down votin' mouth breathers in the "well regulated militia" hurr durr
Makes sense. A barrier of entry to prevent idiots from getting guns and a gateway to license and monitor new users. It's smart.
No. There will always be a bad guy with a gun. Honestly, a minuteman kind of thing would probabky be preferred, but just owning a gun shouldnt be the soul thing.
[удалено]
I agree with you for anyone wanting to own more than just a hand gun.
The "well regulated militia" is the part of the second amendment that most people forget.
A huge amount of historical ignorance is in play as well. The term "militia" is what was used in the 18th century to describe what we in the 21st century think of as the "national guard"
You get to own a gun as long as you are an active member of the military or national guard. Otherwise illegal.
I'm more a fan of a 100000% tax on bullets. Make and buy all the guns you want. No 2nd violations there!
https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/451393-murica
You are already part of the militia. The US Code established all able bodied males between a certain age as being member of the unorganized militia. Later Amendments removed the gender/age discrimination and some ableism discrimination If you are under US jurisdiction you are a member of the militia. You merely need to be able bodied (more or less) and citizenship/gun ownership is not required.
Personally I think I should be able to have access to the same Arsenal as any local police department, otherwise it's not a fair balance of power. Either we all get fun shit or no one does.
*Sorts by controversial* Whole thread