My FB rant for the morning.

[JC5123]

I was listening to Brian Scott on KTWO this morning talking with Rich Dennison about gun control. While it was one of the most civil conversations that I have heard, and I applaud Rich for standing up for his side without demonizing the opposite opinion. I was still screaming at the radio because BOTH of them miss the point of the 2A.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Okay, lets review. Who is the militia? That would be us, the citizens.

Well regulated means well armed. Basically every citizen should be armed and equipped as a basic infantry soldier. That means AR-15's and every other terrible implement of war carried by the modern soldier on the battlefield.
The founders hated the idea of a standing army. And the fact that we have one now does not diminish the intent of the 2A. Quite simply it is the last resort check against the federal government.

Shall not be infringed. What part of this is so hard to understand?

[Jrlobo]

JC,

      ...that means M-16/M4 not AR-15. We have to stop allowing a "little" infringement to continue. As for the standing army, perhaps it is time we reconsider that as well.

[tombogan03884]

JC,

      ...that means M-16/M4 not AR-15. We have to stop allowing a "little" infringement to continue. As for the standing army, perhaps it is time we reconsider that as well.

I agree with the first part .
It is time to role back all infringements including the NFA .
However even the Founding Fathers found once they tried to apply it that a strictly militia military was not practical from either an economic or military stand point .
The technical requirements of a modern military make that even more true today.

[JC5123]

JC,

      ...that means M-16/M4 not AR-15. We have to stop allowing a "little" infringement to continue. As for the standing army, perhaps it is time we reconsider that as well.

Agreed, however in the current battle, the first step is to stop the enemy advance. Then go on the offensive to restore the true integrity of the 2A.

[lhprop1]

Well regulated means well armed. Basically every citizen should be armed and equipped as a basic infantry soldier. That means AR-15's and every other terrible implement of war carried by the modern soldier on the battlefield.
The founders hated the idea of a standing army. And the fact that we have one now does not diminish the intent of the 2A. Quite simply it is the last resort check against the federal government.

Shall not be infringed. What part of this is so hard to understand?

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

http://constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

To me, this not only means that we should be well armed, but we should be proficient shooters.  Our founding fathers intended for us to be and to remain a nation of riflemen.  

[Sponsor]

[Jrlobo]

JC,

      Some of us might think that best way is have a counter-offensive that not only stops the anti-gunners in their tracks but forces them to retreat in preparation for surrender. The Wyoming bill is one step in that direction. If 26 or more states were to declare their rights under the 10th Amendment, that would be the start of a counter-offensive. There is no stopping after that. There is no better defense than a good offense (keeps their defenders on the field).

Tom,

     And just why did the founders think that a standing army was a danger to our freedom? Perhaps the Bonus Army should tell you:

The Bonus Army was the popular name of an assemblage of some 43,000 marchers—17,000 World War I veterans, their families, and affiliated groups—who gathered in Washington, D.C., in the spring and summer of 1932 to demand immediate cash-payment redemption of their service certificates. Its organizers called it the Bonus Expeditionary Force to echo the name of World War I's American Expeditionary Force, while the media called it the Bonus March. It was led by Walter W. Waters, a former Army sergeant.

Many of the war veterans had been out of work since the beginning of the Great Depression. The World War Adjusted Compensation Act of 1924 had awarded them bonuses in the form of certificates they could not redeem until 1945. Each service certificate, issued to a qualified veteran soldier, bore a face value equal to the soldier's promised payment plus compound interest. The principal demand of the Bonus Army was the immediate cash payment of their certificates.

Retired Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler, one of the most popular military figures of the time, visited their camp to back the effort and encourage them.[1] On July 28, U.S. Attorney General William D. Mitchell ordered the veterans removed from all government property. Washington police met with resistance, shots were fired and two veterans were wounded and later died. Veterans were also shot dead at other locations during the demonstration. President Herbert Hoover then ordered the army to clear the veterans' campsite. Army Chief of Staff General Douglas MacArthur commanded the infantry and cavalry supported by six tanks. The Bonus Army marchers with their wives and children were driven out, and their shelters and belongings burned.

A second, smaller Bonus March in 1933 at the start of the Roosevelt Administration was defused in May with an offer of jobs for the Civilian Conservation Corps at Fort Hunt, Virginia, which most of the group accepted. Those who chose not to work for the CCC by the May 22 deadline were given transportation home.[2] In 1936, Congress overrode President Franklin D. Roosevelt's veto and paid the veterans their bonus years early.

And of course, General MacArthur went on to bigger things, eh? So, what ever happened to retired USMC General Smedley Butler? That's an interesting story all by itself. My point though is the standing army will follow orders even if it means action against Americans on American soil. The founders were right to worry about that...and so should we.

[tombogan03884]

 Smedley Butler was a self proclaimed socialist who went on to a career in Law enforcement administration until his anti business views got him sh!tcanned .
Just because he received 2 Medals of Honor doesn't mean he was smart .
If he were alive today he would have voted for Obama.

Actually, If you read "The Federalist Papers" Hamilton, Jay, and Madison are quite clear that a standing army is a danger to Liberty because it always serves as the regimes tool of oppression.

[JC5123]

Actually, If you read "The Federalist Papers" Hamilton, Jay, and Madison are quite clear that a standing army is a danger to Liberty because it always serves as the regimes tool of oppression.

Katrina comes to mind.

[Jrlobo]

Personally, I don't think it is okay to use our standing army against Americans, no matter what the cause. We have a volunteer army that did not sign up for that purpose. You are not the only one who has read the Federalist Papers. And Smedley not only won 2 Medals of Honor, he was the most decorated Marine of his time. Seems to me he paid his dues to express his opinions as he saw fit, even if I don't agree with them.

[JdePietro]

In my talks with people the idea of a militia seems to be one that is not allowed to even enter the conversation. While I agree whole heartily with the comments made above I almost feel like our point can be smarter than that. I've gotten a few people to concede that perhaps those living in ivory towers aught take a look past the tip of their own nose on occasion and gather the totality of circumstance. Here is an actual example of the dialog I have had.

Person A: Nobody needs assault rifles, manually operated arms and semi auto handguns fulfill the need to protect yourself and that is what the founders had in mind anyway.

Rebuttal: I think you could make a better make your points to someone who is pro 2a if you correct some of the common misconceptions. Very few people own "assault weapons". That term parroted by the media actually refers to automatic, select fire carbines. Misinformation always weakens an argument and that is something you may want to consider.

Person A: Fair enough, but you don't think the founders really intended for the people to overthrow their government just because they don't like who is in charge do you?

Rebuttal: I think the founders lived in a time where there lives and liberties were in a constant state of attack. You could cover the great wall in China with quotes from the founders about the need for firearms and their use, clearly their intent was to prevent a government from abusing their powers, however few countries are ever made better by civil war. Part of what makes this country great is that we settle disputes with law and debate not war and fighting and I think most gun owners and non gun owners would like to keep it that way. The written intent of the 2a has not changed but its application may have over the years. Look at countries that have lost their right to firearms. Free speech and expression have always followed as well as strict regulations of other hobbies such as motor sports and internet content and super high tax rates. While I don't believe most gun owners are running to the white house to overthrow the government I think that having arms among common people tells the world and our government that we are a free nation capable of holding our own and that we do not require our legislators help in managing our freedoms.

Person A: You still haven't given me a good reason for people to own a semi automatic rifle capable of holding 30 rounds or more.

Rebuttal: Well for starters perception is everything in this conversation. All firearms are made to fire multiple shots, how you get them to do that bears very little importance as to how lethal they are considered. If I showed you a picture of a camouflaged bolt action rifle with a huge scope and some pieces of tan cloth hanging off it what would you call it? You'd probable say that it was a sniper rifle. That is some silly nomenclature since the rifle itself is one of the most inconsequential pieces of gear in a modern snipers tool kit. With little more than a pair of binoculars someone trained as a military sniper can call in an air strike and level a village. So all that bolt action rifle is, is a rifle. The person behind it is the sniper and most people don't have the weight of the US military behind them so at the end of the day all they may have is tactics and tactics don't make you a sniper but they can be used with just about any firearm to hurt or maim or to protect and defend.

Person A: So if bolt action firearms are so deadly why do you need an AR15.

Rebuttal: Because bolt action rifles are largely an offensive use firearm. They are great for hunting and taking pray, they even make great pest control rifles, but when used for defensive purposes they lack some ergonomics and features that would allow a person to defend a position be it their home, office or place of leisure more safely. The AR15 rifle is a perfect defensive rifle, short and ergonomic its has rails for mounting lights and optics that allow you identify your target and use it in tight places like hallways and bedrooms.

Person A: Why do you need that to defend your home? If I needed a rifle with 30 round clips to defend my home I'd move!

Rebuttal: There is that ivory tower. Just because you perceive the area you live in to be a safe neighborhood doesn't mean that all of America is such a place. Many town along the boarder have to deal with an ever increasingly dangerous drug cartel presence and they do not play so nice. Pistols are easily out matched by just a few people armed with rifles or shotguns. If it was my family and friends I would want to have the best equipment available to put up a defense and the AR stands out as one of the best. On the other side of the coin most north eastern city houses are better suited for an AR type rifle. Generally the .556 or .223 will not penetrate sheet rock walls and still have enough velocity to be lethal, pistol cartridges and buckshot will. I would not want to endanger my neighbors in the event of a multi person home invasion so the AR would also be my choice in that scenario too.

Person A: So you live in fear of constantly being attacked by multiple aggressors?

Rebuttal: No I live in peace and enjoy owning and competing with my rifles, pistols and shotguns. Shooting in national matches and meeting some of the friendliest and most knowledgeable people on earth I get to be a part of a community that embraces all forms of competition, including some that are in the Olympics! The bonus is that I own some great firearms to be used if only absolutely necessary to defend my life and those that I love and if they scare a few politicians than so be it.

The conversation ended shortly there after but I got an email a week ago from that person asking more questions about guns. While I hold out no hope that they may come around to my side they certainly didn't walk away from that with the opinion that I was some nut scared the gubnent was going to take my guns. I think now more than ever we need to have smart dialog like that and less of the constant posting of quotes and cliches we normally revert to.