New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

300,000,000+ guns floating around in our society

Arkady

President
As is the the AR or AK pattern rifles today. :cool:
Today we don't have militias in the sense that they existed in 1789. Back then, there was a great fear of a standing army, so the plan was to do without one, with the idea that well-regulated militias could serve the purpose of providing a first line of defense for the nation, at least until a regular army could be formed. These days, as you know, defense of the state is handled by a vast and absurdly well-funded standing army.

In theory, we could go back to something more like what we used to have. Switzerland has something not terribly different. They have almost no regular military to speak of -- just a shell of a professional force that could be built on in time of war, currently costing just 0.7% of GDP. But they have required training for a large share of the young male population, who also are armed in a regular way. That would make it possible to scale up in a hurry if needed.

To move in that direction, we'd have to stop thinking of the "militia" as whatever rabble of individual people happen to own whatever guns they happen to own. Instead, we'd need them to be tracked, regularly mustered, and subjected to serious training, similar to our National Guard. We'd also want to bring some uniformity to the arms, the way the Swiss do. If the idea of a "well-regulated" militia is a militia that could be efficiently integrated into an army in time of crisis, you'd want people familiar with the arms used by the regular military -- people who are trained to follow orders, physically conditioned to be able to do so, etc.

However, given our vastly bloated military, we don't really need that, right now, the way we needed it in the time of our founding, or the way that modern nations with svelte militaries need it.
 

freyasman

Senator
Today we don't have militias in the sense that they existed in 1789. Back then, there was a great fear of a standing army, so the plan was to do without one, with the idea that well-regulated militias could serve the purpose of providing a first line of defense for the nation, at least until a regular army could be formed. These days, as you know, defense of the state is handled by a vast and absurdly well-funded standing army.

In theory, we could go back to something more like what we used to have. Switzerland has something not terribly different. They have almost no regular military to speak of -- just a shell of a professional force that could be built on in time of war, currently costing just 0.7% of GDP. But they have required training for a large share of the young male population, who also are armed in a regular way. That would make it possible to scale up in a hurry if needed.

To move in that direction, we'd have to stop thinking of the "militia" as whatever rabble of individual people happen to own whatever guns they happen to own. Instead, we'd need them to be tracked, regularly mustered, and subjected to serious training, similar to our National Guard. We'd also want to bring some uniformity to the arms, the way the Swiss do. If the idea of a "well-regulated" militia is a militia that could be efficiently integrated into an army in time of crisis, you'd want people familiar with the arms used by the regular military -- people who are trained to follow orders, physically conditioned to be able to do so, etc.

However, given our vastly bloated military, we don't really need that, right now, the way we needed it in the time of our founding, or the way that modern nations with svelte militaries need it.
Actually defense of the state is mostly handled by our geography, and by our world-wide reputation for savagery as a people. Defense of our interests, business interests mainly, are handled by our standing military.
In those days, uniformity of weapons was more of a happenstance; there were only so many different types of firearms available in this part of the world, and gunpowder was basically gunpowder, and musket balls were made by the user, mostly.
 

Constitutional Sheepdog

][][][%er!!!!!!!
The musket. That was the weapon of choice of the militia man in their time.
Weak ass position you have put yourself in. They knew firearms would change
Or are you saying the only constitutional laws created are those made with Quail and parchment? that no one has a right to privacy other than mail ridden on horseback?
Here's an example of new weapons. Lewis and Clark had a 50 cal. air rifle that required no flint shot 21 silent deadly balls.
 
Last edited:

Constitutional Sheepdog

][][][%er!!!!!!!
Today we don't have militias in the sense that they existed in 1789. Back then, there was a great fear of a standing army, so the plan was to do without one, with the idea that well-regulated militias could serve the purpose of providing a first line of defense for the nation, at least until a regular army could be formed. These days, as you know, defense of the state is handled by a vast and absurdly well-funded standing army.

In theory, we could go back to something more like what we used to have. Switzerland has something not terribly different. They have almost no regular military to speak of -- just a shell of a professional force that could be built on in time of war, currently costing just 0.7% of GDP. But they have required training for a large share of the young male population, who also are armed in a regular way. That would make it possible to scale up in a hurry if needed.

To move in that direction, we'd have to stop thinking of the "militia" as whatever rabble of individual people happen to own whatever guns they happen to own. Instead, we'd need them to be tracked, regularly mustered, and subjected to serious training, similar to our National Guard. We'd also want to bring some uniformity to the arms, the way the Swiss do. If the idea of a "well-regulated" militia is a militia that could be efficiently integrated into an army in time of crisis, you'd want people familiar with the arms used by the regular military -- people who are trained to follow orders, physically conditioned to be able to do so, etc.

However, given our vastly bloated military, we don't really need that, right now, the way we needed it in the time of our founding, or the way that modern nations with svelte militaries need it.
I told you, you have positioned yourself in a bad argument
The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

The classes of the militia are--

the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

- See more at: http://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-10-armed-forces/10-usc-sect-311.html#sthash.CG8uqhiA.dpuf
 
C

Capitalist

Guest
Modern-style assault weapons and machine guns didn't exist at the time.
So what? The internet didn't exist at that time. And here we are applying the 1st Amendment to it!

You think the founders could have imagined the internet?

Yes, there were incredibly primitive precursors to rapid-fire weapons at the time. But, that is like saying there were already bombs in 1789, and therefore nuclear arms --which are just bombs, after all-- are protected by the second amendment. Or that the founding fathers knew about the use of smoke to choke enemies, which is a form of chemical gas attack, and so private ownership of sarin gas warheads is protected by the Second Amendment. Or the founders knew about primitive efforts to spread disease in enemy camps (e.g., dumping bodies in wells, or catapaulting plague victims into besieged cities), and therefore they intended that we all have the right to own weaponized anthrax and smallpox.
This bullshit narrative of yours has got to stop. They had semi-automatic rifles. They had machine guns. They had canons. And they imagined progress.

Ben Franklin was a Founder who was a world class scientist on the order of Stephen Hawking today. He was the guy who came up with positive and negative electric charge. Jefferson was of the same caliber as Marx but in the opposite direction. These people, more than even Ray Kurzweil, could see the possibilities of the future. Stop making them out to be bloody idiots.

But as smart and advanced as they were they didn't HAVE to imagine an AR-15. They already had guns that fired MANY shots with one pull of the trigger. Your comparisons are as full of shit as your shitistics! Nothing other than machining tolerances is required to go from a Belton flintlock to an AR-15. To create a nuclear weapon we had to discover another force of nature (there are only 4!). Nothing new or magical came about with the invention of the automatic rifle action. It was just another run of the mill mechanical device--like going from a two slice toaster to a four slice toaster. Oh my! Technology! A student with an old fashioned metal lathe could machine an automatic action! Can that same student build a nuke? Get over it!

You'll get no meaningful discussion until you concede that the founders had semi-auto and automatic weapons and canons in their day, used by private citizens and THAT is your starting point with respect to the 2nd Amendment.
 

freyasman

Senator
So what? The internet didn't exist at that time. And here we are applying the 1st Amendment to it!

You think the founders could have imagined the internet?

This bullshit narrative of yours has got to stop. They had semi-automatic rifles. They had machine guns. They had canons. And they imagined progress.

Ben Franklin was a Founder who was a world class scientist on the order of Stephen Hawking today. He was the guy who came up with positive and negative electric charge. Jefferson was of the same caliber as Marx but in the opposite direction. These people, more than even Ray Kurzweil, could see the possibilities of the future. Stop making them out to be bloody idiots.

But as smart and advanced as they were they didn't HAVE to imagine an AR-15. They already had guns that fired MANY shots with one pull of the trigger. Your comparisons are as full of shit as your shitistics! Nothing other than machining tolerances is required to go from a Belton flintlock to an AR-15. To create a nuclear weapon we had to discover another force of nature (there are only 4!). Nothing new or magical came about with the invention of the automatic rifle action. It was just another run of the mill mechanical device--like going from a two slice toaster to a four slice toaster. Oh my! Technology! A student with an old fashioned metal lathe could machine an automatic action! Can that same student build a nuke? Get over it!

You'll get no meaningful discussion until you concede that the founders had semi-auto and automatic weapons and canons in their day, used by private citizens and THAT is your starting point with respect to the 2nd Amendment.
You're wasting your time.... when he pulled the nuke/WMD card, that was him admitting defeat. He will never actually concede, he'll just keep pulling ridiculous bullshit out of his ass, and telling everyone they don't understand his arguments and need to re-read. :rolleyes:
I've been down this road more than once with him and it is a complete waste of time, that's why I don't bother to argue with him about it much anymore. I know he's wrong, he knows he's wrong, everybody with more than 2 brain cells to rub together knows it too.... but he's never going to admit it, so what's the point?
 
C

Capitalist

Guest
You're wasting your time.... when he pulled the nuke/WMD card, that was him admitting defeat. He will never actually concede, he'll just keep pulling ridiculous bullshit out of his ass, and telling everyone they don't understand his arguments and need to re-read. :rolleyes:
I've been down this road more than once with him and it is a complete waste of time, that's why I don't bother to argue with him about it much anymore. I know he's wrong, he knows he's wrong, everybody with more than 2 brain cells to rub together knows it too.... but he's never going to admit it, so what's the point?
Meh. You're right. I'm done.
 

Jen

Senator


the most heavily armed states (per capita) are a half dozen "hunting states", where people might own separate weapons for (a) deer season (b) duck season (c) rabbit/crow control. These are states with low murder rates.

the states with the highest murder rates (California, Ohio, NJ, NY) have the lowest gun ownership rates.

which means one of two things:

1 - there is no relationship between gun ownership rates and murder rates

or (2) - the gun statistics are completely imaginary, since we don't have a gun registration system. these statistics were created by people on the left and right with political agendas.
That % needs to go up in some of those middle states.
I like it here in OK when I see a white man (or a black man who looks like retired law enforcement) packing in Walmart.
 

Dawg

President
Supporting Member
You're wasting your time.... when he pulled the nuke/WMD card, that was him admitting defeat. He will never actually concede, he'll just keep pulling ridiculous bullshit out of his ass, and telling everyone they don't understand his arguments and need to re-read. :rolleyes:
I've been down this road more than once with him and it is a complete waste of time, that's why I don't bother to argue with him about it much anymore. I know he's wrong, he knows he's wrong, everybody with more than 2 brain cells to rub together knows it too.... but he's never going to admit it, so what's the point?
Arkady/Bugsy/Spamature usually would have made a dozen Top Pot by this time of morning, they must be hiding with Georgia On Their Minds*
 
D

Deleted member 21794

Guest
And there you have it. Of course, he'll reply that that particular right is archaic and outdated. Sort of like Freedom of Speech and Religion. Remember, every liberal on the planet thinks the Constitution needs a re-write.
Maybe he's right. Maybe we should go beyond applications and background checks to exercise our Second Amendment rights. Perhaps we should also have to put in applications to exercise our First Amendment rights, especially given all the violent rhetoric by Republicans. While we're at it, let's do away with the Fourth Amendment. Cameras in every home. Imagine how many children we could save from abuse. Imagine how many women we could save from *toxic masculinity*. Hey, Saudi Arabia, a major wealthy nation, chops hands off for stealing. Let's be more like other major wealthy nations!

It's the 21st century. Get with the program! Like really, freedom is sooooooo totally last decade, dontchaknow?
 
Top