Well Regulated Militia

[domer76]

My only point was that the current debate over gun control has nothing to do with original intent or constitutional interpretation of the 2nd Amendment but the political desires within each state and Congress.

No doubt we've lost the meaning of the original intent.

[domer76]

In this case, my understanding is that the right to bear arms is a natural one, which means it is not created by law but exists with or without 2A or the Constitution. That's why people armed themselves for various reasons before the Revolutionary War and long before that, including Native Americans. On the other hand, the formation of regulated militias is not a natural right.

Protection is another matter. If the intent was to ensure that government would never infringe on that right, then they should have come up with simply that. The insistence on the formation of regulated militias should have been placed in a separate section of the Constitution, and then point to Art. 1 Sec. 8.

Natural rights = fiction

[ralfy]

There are an estimated 4 million or more preppers in the US and a lot of people who have things saved for emergencies; but then, they're not pessimists like you apparently are.

It's not hard to prepare for emergencies. The hard part involves long-term emergencies. For that, one has to become a pessimist, although I prefer the term "realist." In contrast is the starry-eyed romantic who actually imagines that he's some Hollywood Patriot who will use his lean, athletic body to run around, setting up booby traps and taking down one bad guy after another with his magnificent long rifle (complete with unlimited ammo), and then pause momentarily to smile at the camera, promising a bright, beautiful future thanks to the power of the mighty rifle.

[USFREEDOM911]

The U.S. economy is essentially controlled by the rich, with money supply by Wall Street via the Fed, the defense industry through a military industrial complex funded also by the rich, prison, surveillance, and prison systems, and more. Even the petrodollar that people use to buy guns and ammo are funded by the same, together with the JIT systems and supply chains that stretch thousands of miles. All funded by Wall Street and supported by their Washington subordinates.

Any shock to that system and the 7-10 days' worth of food, medicine, and more in various towns and cities may diminish readily, after which it shouldn't be difficult imagining neighbor attacking neighbor, especially in a country rife with narcissism, self-entitlement, and exceptionalism.

This doesn't explain how "it seems that even the armed are also easy to control"; because you're just making assumptions and trying to pass them off as fact.

[USFREEDOM911]

It's not hard to prepare for emergencies. The hard part involves long-term emergencies. For that, one has to become a pessimist, although I prefer the term "realist." In contrast is the starry-eyed romantic who actually imagines that he's some Hollywood Patriot who will use his lean, athletic body to run around, setting up booby traps and taking down one bad guy after another with his magnificent long rifle (complete with unlimited ammo), and then pause momentarily to smile at the camera, promising a bright, beautiful future thanks to the power of the mighty rifle.

You seem to be relying on the premise that the Police and Military will be totally on the side of the Government, instead of siding with the American citizens.d

You also appear to be believe that Americans will support each other.

Is this because you would be a collaborator with those that are attempting to control the citizens.

[ralfy]

That might be true historically, but it obviously has nothing to do with current gun control laws which allow each state and the federal government to regulate gun ownership and operation with no regard to any military use.

That's my point. The purpose of 2A is to enforce mandatory military service. With that, what's left of 2A in terms of implementation is the Selective Service System. If you want to see current implementation of 2A, then the closest to that would be mandatory service in Switzerland.

[ralfy]

And the millions of gun owners who do not fantasize about being the next Rambo or Patriot will continue to use their guns for protection, target practice, hunting, collecting....

Obviously, but that has nothing to do with this topic.

[USFREEDOM911]

That's my point. The purpose of 2A is to enforce mandatory military service. With that, what's left of 2A in terms of implementation is the Selective Service System. If you want to see current implementation of 2A, then the closest to that would be mandatory service in Switzerland.

BS; because the "mandatory military service" didn't come in affect, until way after the Constitution was ratified,

[domer76]

Please point out where I referred to the right as "God-given."

The right to bear arms is inalienable or a fundamental right because a person will naturally defend himself and his loved ones. This takes place even if there is no government or laws in place.

Your claim that all rights are alienable is absurd. It's as if you need the government to give you the right to defend yourself, to speak freely, etc., and if there is government, then you need someone to give you the permission to do so.

Post #161: "2A is a weird bird because it "commands" people to follow a right that's already God-given, i.e., natural."

A person may well naturally defend himself, but that is independent of the right to bear arms. One does not need a gun to exercise the "right" to self defense. The right to possess arms is VERY alienable.

You may well think you have the right to speak as you wish or carry a weapon or any of your undefined and abstract "natural" rights. Go ahead and do that. There are limitations on EVERY ONE of those activities. You don't need permission. pally, but there are consequences.

It's amazing to me that the simplest of concepts escape some. The ONLY reason you possess the right to bear arms is because it is codified in our BofR via the legislative and ratification process. Had the votes been different by 1791 and there were only 9 Amendments ratified sans the Second, your "right" would not exist.

[domer76]

Obviously not.

[ralfy]

Go tell that to the Navy Seals and the Army's rangers and you still haven't explained why the Afghanis were able to thwart the Russian troops.

My understanding is that what allowed the U.S. and NATO to keep the Al Qaeda in check involved the Northern Alliance (which consists primarily of drug lords) and aerial bombings, especially with daisy cutters. This also explains why poppy production is now thriving in the region, which is helpful at least for the U.S. has it has had a history of funding covert activities using drug money coupled with arms sales.

As for your last point, there is a connection between the two, as the mujahedeen which fought against the Russians were funded by the CIA, recruited by Saudi Arabia, and trained in Pakistani camps. From their ranks rose the Taliban and the Al Qaeda.

In addition, it wasn't so much Afghans as foreign mercenaries who outnumbered Russian and Afghan military troops. Afghan civilian deaths were around 2 million.

[ralfy]

And you're completely ignoring the idea that it was the Kentucky fighters that turned the war, several times.

I don't think the Revolutionary War was won simply because of Kentucky fighters.

[ralfy]

So the Russians had no fear of being "picked off" by riflemen!!

I'm sure there were snipers, but I don't think they were the decisive factor.

[ralfy]

Post #161: "2A is a weird bird because it "commands" people to follow a right that's already God-given, i.e., natural."

A person may well naturally defend himself, but that is independent of the right to bear arms. One does not need a gun to exercise the "right" to self defense. The right to possess arms is VERY alienable.

You may well think you have the right to speak as you wish or carry a weapon or any of your undefined and abstract "natural" rights. Go ahead and do that. There are limitations on EVERY ONE of those activities. You don't need permission. pally, but there are consequences.

It's amazing to me that the simplest of concepts escape some. The ONLY reason you possess the right to bear arms is because it is codified in our BofR via the legislative and ratification process. Had the votes been different by 1791 and there were only 9 Amendments ratified sans the Second, your "right" would not exist.

I use the term only because that's what the framers believed. My point is that they are natural because they are inalienable. That means the fundamental right even applies to those who don't believe in God.

The right to bear arms is not independent of the right to defend oneself because one can defend oneself using arms, and arms can refer to various weapons and not just firearms.

That's why long before 2A, colonists were defending themselves using whatever they could access or afford. The same applied to Native Americans. They did not wait for any authorities to give them permission to do so. Whatever you think can't be done has been done from the start. You are probably an exception, still waiting for the authorities to give you permission to do what you've been doing naturally.

Your problem is that you are confusing infringement with abridgement. That is, the government cannot infringement on your right to bear arms but it can abridge that right, and that takes place only through a majority vote, whether directly or through representation.

That probably explains why your confusion concerning limitations. When what you saw is limited by law, then that doesn't mean that you can't say anything until you are told to do so or that you can't say anything at all. In light of this topic, that means by default you defend yourself and loved ones when you are threatened with bodily harm. You don't wait and ask the government for permission to defend yourself.

One more thing: 2A is not about the right to bear arms. I think I made that very clear at the start.

[ralfy]

BS; because the "mandatory military service" didn't come in affect, until way after the Constitution was ratified,

Actually, not that "way after." See Art. 1 Sec. 8 and the first Militia Act.