Gun Control

[Cavebear]

This is what they thought a militia was: https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsp&fileName=019/llsp019.db&recNum=888

That was 1832, not 1789.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

That was 1832, not 1789.

Yep, and nothing changed in the interval. I don't have ready access to the earlier records, but there are numerous studies of the militia system available, most notable those produced by students at the Army's War College. I looked at them in comparison to Jefferson's Gunboat Navy when I was at Purdue.

The militia was supposed to protect Washington in 1814, and they fell flat on their collective asses.

[Cavebear]

Yep, and nothing changed in the interval. I don't have ready access to the earlier records, but there are numerous studies of the militia system available, most notable those produced by students at the Army's War College. I looked at them in comparison to Jefferson's Gunboat Navy when I was at Purdue.

The militia was supposed to protect Washington in 1814, and they fell flat on their collective asses.

But you are arguing effectiveness of the organized military, not "what a miltia was" at the time.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

But you are arguing effectiveness of the organized military, not "what a miltia was" at the time.

And you know what it was at the time? You studied the make-up, drilling requirement, muster call-outs, etc.?

Look, to see what the militia was then in an entertaining way, watch "Drums Along the Mohawk."

Watch Drums Along The Mohawk 
gomovies.fm/watch/7vN7XLxR-drums-along-the-mohawk.html

[Cavebear]

And you know what it was at the time? You studied the make-up, drilling requirement, muster call-outs, etc.?

Look, to see what the militia was then in an entertaining way, watch "Drums Along the Mohawk."

Watch Drums Along The Mohawk 
gomovies.fm/watch/7vN7XLxR-drums-along-the-mohawk.html

I read the book. 

In a militia, you drilled and went home.  With your squiirrel gun or without the one supplied to you and you weren't part of a "standing army".

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I read the book. 

In a militia, you drilled and went home.  With your squiirrel gun or without the one supplied to you and you weren't part of a "standing army".

When did I say otherwise?

[SGOS]

I fumble with the "Well regulated militia" phrase of the constitution all the time.  Besides being a haphazard redundant concept of the Armed Forces, it seems archaic.  I think it sounds like that because it is.  The Montana Militia and the Michigan Militia are Modern day militias that come to mind, which experienced a temporary upsurge in notoriety 20 years ago because of their intimidating and belligerent nature.  They were anything but well regulated.  They often had anti government motivations, and had very little similarity to standing armies.  Videos I've seen of them training are pretty much what you can observe in a paint ball park, but I wouldn't want these guys defending Washington DC.  And them thinking they might be called upon one day to rise to the nation's defense is pure fantasy.  The militias will more likely be the training grounds for the eventual roving outlaws that will steal your food and valuables during the post apocalyptic dystopia.  But as the first line of our nation's defense, they should be put in a box or sent to a day care facility.

The "Well regulated militia" section of the Constitution is outdated junk verbiage that contributes nothing to the national good.  It's kind of like the Bible.  If you stretch your imagination to the breaking point, you can probably read almost anything you want in it.  It doesn't really require an amendment.  You could just take a scissors and cut it out of the Constitution, and tape the thing back together again.  100 years from now, no one would even notice.

And with or without that garbage in the constitution, people would still be running around collecting guns or not collecting guns according to their whims, since the constitution would not even specify whether or not you could own guns.

[Cavebear]

I fumble with the "Well regulated militia" phrase of the constitution all the time.  Besides being a haphazard redundant concept of the Armed Forces, it seems archaic.  I think it sounds like that because it is.  The Montana Militia and the Michigan Militia are Modern day militias that come to mind, which experienced a temporary upsurge in notoriety 20 years ago because of their intimidating and belligerent nature.  They were anything but well regulated.  They often had anti government motivations, and had very little similarity to standing armies.  Videos I've seen of them training are pretty much what you can observe in a paint ball park, but I wouldn't want these guys defending Washington DC.  And them thinking they might be called upon one day to rise to the nation's defense is pure fantasy.  The militias will more likely be the training grounds for the eventual roving outlaws that will steal your food and valuables during the post apocalyptic dystopia.  But as the first line of our nation's defense, they should be put in a box or sent to a day care facility.

The "Well regulated militia" section of the Constitution is outdated junk verbiage that contributes nothing to the national good.  It's kind of like the Bible.  If you stretch your imagination to the breaking point, you can probably read almost anything you want in it.  It doesn't really require an amendment.  You could just take a scissors and cut it out of the Constitution, and tape the thing back together again.  100 years from now, no one would even notice.

And with or without that garbage in the constitution, people would still be running around collecting guns or not collecting guns according to their whims, since the constitution would not even specify whether or not you could own guns.

There comes a time when archaic language needs to be changed to reflect the modern world.  Slavery was abolished, women got the rights they deserved to vote and own property.  Surely the antiquated "militia" can be reimagined to understand "gun rights" as hunting and no more than that.  And future changes too.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"Well-regulated" just meant they were thoroughly drilled in the "regulations" (i.e., requirements) for the job. The King's Regulations governed the British Army and we just "borrowed" them for our guys.

[Cavebear]

"Well-regulated" just meant they were thoroughly drilled in the "regulations" (i.e., requirements) for the job. The King's Regulations governed the British Army and we just "borrowed" them for our guys.

You believe that?  Really?  "Regulated" meant, then as now, "controlled".

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You believe that?  Really?  "Regulated" meant, then as now, "controlled".

I believe it because I've studied the matter. Troops have to be "controlled", i.e. disciplined, on the battlefield. They spent hours practicing the manual of arms (which isn't a manual) and drilling in formations so they could do it under fire and remain a coherent fighting unit. The militia didn't spend that much time, some of them met only once a month (and many didn't show up for that muster) and their performance showed it.

I know what I'm talking about, even if you don't like it. My Masters was in Military History. My lead prof was a former professor at Sandhurst. One of his students was John Keegan.

[trdsf]

SCOTUS changed the amendment, they can change it again.

And giving up is not how problems get solved.

Who said I was giving up?  Come on, you know this isn't black and white.  I do not think that all guns should be banned from all people all the time, and I did not say I did, so don't pull this straw man nonsense with me.

Even as a non-gun owner, I recognize that there are legitimate sporting and personal protection reasons for individuals to own guns.  I myself have enjoyed target shooting on occasion -- in part because I could out-shoot the NRA member in our gaming group.  Drove him right up a wall that the hippie socialist peace freak was at least as good a shot as him.  ;)

I just want gun owners to receive basic training in safe operation, and demonstrate that knowledge in order to receive a license and not have a background that includes violent crimes, same as I want the drivers I share the road with to be properly licensed and not have a history of DUI.

And in much the same way I don't want to share the road with a tank, I don't want to share my neighborhood with someone with automatic weapons.  There's no legitimate sporting use for them, and no legitimate personal protection use outside of a war zone.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"A total gun ban is not Constitutionally possible anyway.  It would require amendment, and is simply not even a remotely plausible goal on any time frame less than many, many decades -- and isn't really plausible even then."

That's giving up to me. First off, as I noted, we don't need an amendment to change the amendment, as SCOTUS has proven. Second, the harder we try the sooner we're going to get this under control. I don't want a total ban either, but as long as the gun nuts are entrenched it may be the only option.

[SGOS]

I don't want a total ban either, but as long as the gun nuts are entrenched it may be the only option.

I'm guessing this is Pelosi's tactic.  She knows there will never be a total ban and must see some legitimate reasons for owning a gun.  I don't know this for sure, of course, and I don't care.  I never heard the comment in question, and don't know if she specified what was at the end of her "slippery slope," but even if she meant a total ban, that wouldn't be any more radical than the NRA position.  There is middle ground between the two positions, and to me, that middle ground is a huge area.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I'm guessing this is Pelosi's tactic.  She knows there will never be a total ban and must see some legitimate reasons for owning a gun.  I don't know this for sure, of course, and I don't care.  I never heard the comment in question, and don't know if she specified what was at the end of her "slippery slope," but even if she meant a total ban, that wouldn't be any more radical than the NRA position.  There is middle ground between the two positions, and to me, that middle ground is a huge area.

Yep, and most Americans don't want the madness to continue but don't want a total ban. Pelosi starts with some wiggle room.