NRA Was There to Help Blacks Defend Themselves From KKK Democrats

[sirs]

A "well ordered militia" as described in the Constitution cannot by definition be composed of people who are oblivious that they are members of said militia.

Sure they can.  It's made crystal clear in both the definitions of militia, and how the Constitution references the militia.  It CAN NOT be an arm of the Government, so that nixes the notion of the national guard, and any other military wing of the government.  As the Constitution clearly states, its ALL able bodies 17+years in age.  There was no stipulation it had to be "organized" and thus led by ..... someone(s).  The Constitution merely referenced who makes up the "militia".  You have the organized class, run by the Government, and the unorganized class, as in everyone else NOT run by the government

If such militia is to be armed, then either arms should be supplied or at least  required of a group aware that they are part of a"well-organized militia".

If you're now advocating that the 2nd amendment's freedom to bear arms should be supplanted with a law that you WILL bear arms,.....well that's another debate entirely

As you describe it, halfwits and the unincarcerated insane are also members of this fictitious militia.

We have laws against felons and those unsafe to carry should own them.  But yea, prior to any felonies, or medical diagnosis that includes some form of insanity or mental instability, yea, they'd be part of the unorganized militia as well

The Second Amendment was not written to allow everyone to have a gun.

YES, IT WAS....IF THEY CHOOSE SO, and purchase one.  It is their right, if they wish to exercise it.  No different than free speech is applied to everyone

Court has ruled on this

[Plane]

A "well ordered militia" as described in the Constitution cannot by definition be composed of people who are oblivious that they are members of said militia. If such militia is to be armed, then either arms should be supplied or at least  required of a group aware that they are part of a"well-organized militia".

As you describe it, halfwits and the unincarcerated insane are also members of this fictitious militia. The Second Amendment was not written to allow everyone to have a gun. And even if this were the case, in the 1700's, people needed to defend themselves from wild animals, Indians and other dangers. It is pretty clear that the idea was that the Founders knew that they would never be able to disarm the populace, as the British tried to do this during the Revolution and it caused a lot of trouble. So they made up this phony militia crap to make their inability sound somehow noble and intentional when it was simply expedient.

There is no such thing as an "unorganized militia" except in the enfeebled minds of ratbag gun nuts. Because of them, we have hundreds of people killed by guns each year that would not get killed in Canada or Europe or places with sane gun ownership restrictions.

The second admendment was written for the purpose of ensureing that the government could not disarm the population.
Tecnology has progressed to the point that the government can outshoot the people pretty badly , this situation will serve us badly if we ever elect a truely bad government .

[sirs]

Remind me again.....weren't some of the biggest folks that supported strict gun control messers Hitler & Stalin??  Disarming the populace (in the name of safety) makes an oppressive regime all the more possible.  no?

[Xavier_Onassis]

So your philosophy of good government is to do the opposite of what Hitler and Stalin did?

That sounds simplistic and stupid to me.

Japan, Australia and even Canada have sufficient restrictions on guns that the gun death rate is minuscule compared to the US.
And there is no "unorganized militia",and the NRA did nothing to promote civil rights, either.

[sirs]

So your philosophy of good government is to do the opposite of what Hitler and Stalin did?

That's a start.  And one of the 1st starts is to not start down that road of disarming the populace.  What other countries do is their business.  The U.S. Constitution outlines our business. 

[Xavier_Onassis]

It certainly is nice that we lead the world in insane mass shootings like Columbine, Gaby Gifford and such. It adds excitement to our lives, no t knowing when some idiotic gun nut might decide to blast away just for fun.

[sirs]

You take the good with the bad.  With increased freedom, comes increased risk.  Good thing that MORE insane shootings, muggings, rapes, robberies, etc., are prevented with a gun vs used by a gun.  Good thing also that the Supreme Court sided with the Constitution and the populace vs the oppressors

[Plane]

So your philosophy of good government is to do the opposite of what Hitler and Stalin did?

That sounds simplistic and stupid to me.

Japan, Australia and even Canada have sufficient restrictions on guns that the gun death rate is minuscule compared to the US.
And there is no "unorganized militia",and the NRA did nothing to promote civil rights, either.

   The gun death rate of Canada and Austrailia was pretty small compared to ours before  their restrictions became so tight.

That is not an apple to compare to our apple, I know somewhat less about Japan , but I suspect that it , is an orange too.

    In citys and states of the US that have stricter gun  restrictions , there is a high rate of crime .
     In districts that have relaxed these tight controlls , there was absolutely no rise in crimes relating.

     This seems natural to me , our culture does produce a lot of criminals , and practicly every one of them is going to be armed at least part of the time. The law is only about how much the rest of us are armed.

[sirs]

    In citys and states of the US that have stricter gun  restrictions , there is a high rate of crime .
     In districts that have relaxed these tight controlls , there was absolutely no rise in crimes relating.

     This seems natural to me , our culture does produce a lot of criminals , and practicly every one of them is going to be armed at least part of the time. The law is only about how much the rest of us are armed.[/b]

BINGO!!

[Xavier_Onassis]

LOTS of criminals are unarmed. Those who steal the most are rarely armed. Bernie madoff may or may not have owned a pistol, but he did not use it in his theft of billions of dollars.

As I have said, there are far too many guns in this country, and all we can do is realize that we, as Americans,are far more likely to be shot than other people from more rational societies.

When anyone buys a gun, that increases the number of guns that can be used in a crime. It is pretty clear that regardless of sirs devotion to his arsenal, when he kicks the bucket, he will not be taking even one firearm with him. We could say that God does not allow guns in Heaven and the Devil does not allow them in Hell, either. But then, everyone is already dead and cannot be killed in either place. The guns that each person puts into circulation will stay in circulation until they are destroyed, lost or confiscated.

[Plane]

When anyone buys a gun, that increases the number of guns that can be used in a crime.

No.

The number of guns in circulation is irrelivant to the number of murderers willing to use them after it passes the ratio of one each, which it is greatly above since way back.

What changes is the number who are defenseless when attacked, untill there is a gun apeace for them , which we are on the way to acheiving.

Thus the number of guns in circulation has increased a lot , at the same time that murders have fallen, if your theroy was supportable this could not happen.

[sirs]

LOTS of criminals are unarmed.

LOTS are

Those who steal the most are rarely armed.

Based on.....what evidence exactly?  Are you trying to make this about "the higher the score, the less likelyhood of it being an armed score".  Considering that MOST robberies are of the nickle & dime variety compared to the Madoffs of the country, that would seem to imply a higher likelyhood of the robber being armed.  Not to mention you're ignoring violent crimes, such as assault, rape, & murder, all likely to have an armed perp.

As I have said, there are far too many guns in this country, and all we can do is realize that we, as Americans,are far more likely to be shot than other people from more rational societies.

Your opinion and deflective effort to compare apples to oranges as to this country vs some other country, is duly noted.  In THIS country, based on FBI statistics, more people's lives are saved with a gun vs those who are taken with one.  That's an FBI FACT. 

The Supreme court has also ruled that the 2nd amendment is an individual right.  That's a FACT as well.

What's that ole' saying?.....facts to a toe tag liberal --> kryptonite to superman

[Xavier_Onassis]

Go play with "American Exceptionalism" with your militia, sirs. And watch out in public places, gun toting morons are just as likely to shoot you as me.

[sirs]

Facts & Reality of course refuting that claim, since the only real "gun toting morons" are criminals who are either already illegally carrying or having not been dignosed with whatever mental disorder would lead them to just start shooting, per your parameters

I also noticed no back up to the claim that Those who steal the most are rarely armed.  Again, not surprising

[Xavier_Onassis]

Did Bernie Madoff use weapons to steal all that money? He stole hundreds of times more than any bank heist ever planned. And he was not the only criminal to do this. Everyone knows this. If every investor and every investigator had been armed to the teeth, it would not have prevented his many thefts over decades.

Again, some mass shooters have had permits, others have not had them. And guns are so readily available that they are amazingly easy to obtain.