Fearmongering ad by the NRA

Yeah, the Constitution doesn't say a lot of things about what people do. It doesn't mention abortion or marijuana. Are you saying people can't legally do either of those?
I already gave you a link about the Militia Act of 1903, which does define both types. It was for the National Guard in each state to receive equipment and train funded by the federal government in exchange for greater control by the federal government. And it also affirmed the previous Militia Acts of 1792, which "conscripted every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company. (This was later expanded to all males, regardless of race, between the ages of 18 and 54 in 1862.)" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792

It's actually called the Reserve Militia.

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the militia shall consist of every able-bodied male citizen of the respective States, Territories, and the District of Columbia, and every able-bodied male of foreign birth who has declared his intention to become a citizen, who is more than eighteen and less than forty-five years of age, and shall be divided into two classes-the organized militia, to be known as the National Guard of the State, Territory, or District of Columbia, or by such other designations as may be given them by the laws of the respective States or Territories, and the remainder to be known as the Reserve Militia."
- (Militia Act of 1903) http://legisworks.org/sal/32/stats/STATUTE-32-Pg775.pdf

And the founding fathers expressly said that armed citizens were a defense against any standing army, foreign of domestic.

"If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
- Hamilton, Federalist 29

---

(Mar 28, 2018 01:52 AM)Yazata Wrote:

(Mar 27, 2018 11:04 PM)Syne Wrote: "Today, as defined by the Militia Act of 1903, the term "militia" is primarily used to describe two groups within the United States:

   Organized militia – consisting of State militia forces; notably, the National Guard and Naval Militia.[9] (Note: the National Guard is not to be confused with the National Guard of the United States.)
   Unorganized militia – composing the Reserve Militia: every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age, not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia."
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_%2..._States%29

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246

Thanks for the reference, Yaz.

Like I said repeatedly, the well-regulated militia WAS the common folk for a time, until the National Guard took over that responsibility. Hence the outdatedness of the 2nd Amendment. We don't rely on all the men above 18 and under 45 in the United States for military service. We have a standing army and navy and a militia now, which is well-regulated in that it provides its own equipment and training in the form of the National Guard of each state. It's utter nonsense to declare all the men in the U.S. between 18 and 45 as members of some militia nobody even knows exists and aren't trained to be part of. Many men don't have guns and have never shot one in their life. Many others are pacifists. Are you seriously saying all these men can be called into service at any moment and expected to kill or die fighting some enemy? No..there is no such militia. And there is no expectation for this militia to someday fight against our own military. That would be a very one-sided battle for sure.

Here's how the Articles of Confederation describe the "well-regulated militia" of that time:

"but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage."

That is definitely NOT the anti-govt militia of farmer Billy Bob and his eight cousins with their shotguns.

Nope, already refuted by the Militia Act of 1903, and already shown that the founding fathers did consider every able-bodied man to be a safeguard against even our own standing army. The National Guard could not hope to stand against the US military, but armed citizens in other countries have proven difficult, even for the US military required to use door-to-door tactics. Most states require training to get a concealed carry permit, and most gun-owning parents teach their children to use guns.

Total active US military = 1,429,995
US gun owners = 9,750,000

To defend themselves and their own families. You better believe it.

The Articles of Confederation were written in the necessity of war.

Quote:Total active US military = 1,429,995
US gun owners = 9,750,000

To defend themselves and their own families. You better believe it.

LOL! Guns against jet bombers and apache helicopters and tanks and rigged up hummers? They'd make short work of you alt right goons. You're so called "unorganized militia"...

(Mar 28, 2018 03:47 AM)Magical Realist Wrote:

Quote:Total active US military = 1,429,995
US gun owners = 9,750,000

To defend themselves and their own families. You better believe it.

LOL! Guns against jet bombers and apache helicopters and tanks and rigged up hummers? They'd make short work of you alt right goons.

So we won't indiscriminately attack the civilian populations of our enemies (instead using door-to-door tactics and surgical strikes), but you think we would against our own citizens? You're obviously the paranoid one. You might as well claim they'd nuke America.

The US jets and helicopters didn't fair so well fighting guerrilla tactics in Vietnam. We even had trouble in Iraq and Afghanistan. All these countries and populations were significantly smaller and significantly less armed that Americans. That doesn't even account for those 9,750,000 gun owners distributing their guns to 313 million citizens, against the roughly 6 million military/law enforcement, with guerrilla tactics over 3.8 million square miles, including dense cities and forests.

(Mar 28, 2018 04:58 AM)Syne Wrote:

(Mar 28, 2018 03:47 AM)Magical Realist Wrote:

Quote:Total active US military = 1,429,995
US gun owners = 9,750,000

To defend themselves and their own families. You better believe it.

LOL! Guns against jet bombers and apache helicopters and tanks and rigged up hummers? They'd make short work of you alt right goons.

So we won't indiscriminately attack the civilian populations of our enemies (instead using door-to-door tactics and surgical strikes), but you think we would against our own citizens? You're obviously the paranoid one. You might as well claim they'd nuke America.  

The US jets and helicopters didn't fair so well fighting guerrilla tactics in Vietnam. We even had trouble in Iraq and Afghanistan. All these countries and populations were significantly smaller and significantly less armed that Americans. That doesn't even account for those 9,750,000 gun owners distributing their guns to 313 million citizens, against the roughly 6 million military/law enforcement, with guerrilla tactics over 3.8 million square miles, including dense cities and forests.

LOL! You got this revolution all planned out don't you? Destroy the U.S. military with your precious rifles and then take over the U.S. government and enslave all the black people, gays, muslims, and immigrants in concentration camps? Victory at last over the New World Order? Yeehaw!

How utterly pathetic....

And I hate to break the news to you but:

"Overall, 48% of all registered voters identify as Democrats or lean Democratic compared with 44% who identify as Republican or lean toward the GOP."

So much for your alt right overthrow of our American democracy.

(Mar 28, 2018 05:19 AM)Magical Realist Wrote:

(Mar 28, 2018 04:58 AM)Syne Wrote: So we won't indiscriminately attack the civilian populations of our enemies (instead using door-to-door tactics and surgical strikes), but you think we would against our own citizens? You're obviously the paranoid one. You might as well claim they'd nuke America.  

The US jets and helicopters didn't fair so well fighting guerrilla tactics in Vietnam. We even had trouble in Iraq and Afghanistan. All these countries and populations were significantly smaller and significantly less armed that Americans. That doesn't even account for those 9,750,000 gun owners distributing their guns to 313 million citizens, against the roughly 6 million military/law enforcement, with guerrilla tactics over 3.8 million square miles, including dense cities and forests.

LOL! You got this revolution all planned out don't you? Destroy the U.S. military with your precious rifles and then take over the U.S. government and enslave all the black people, gays, muslims, and immigrants in concentration camps? Victory at last over the New World Order? Yeehaw!

How utterly pathetic....

And I hate to break the news to you but:

"Overall, 48% of all registered voters identify as Democrats or lean Democratic compared with 44% who identify as Republican or lean toward the GOP."

So much for your alt right overthrow of our American democracy.

That's all about self-defense you paranoid moron. Remember this? "To defend themselves and their own families."
You're the one who made the threat:

(Mar 26, 2018 09:48 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: We'll just blow you away.

And doubled down with:

(Mar 28, 2018 03:47 AM)Magical Realist Wrote: LOL! Guns against jet bombers and apache helicopters and tanks and rigged up hummers? They'd make short work of you alt right goons. You're so called "unorganized militia"...

And the first effective gun control in the US was to keep blacks from owning guns:

"Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney in the infamous Dred Scott case in 1856. Taney stressed in his Dred Scott v. Sandford opinion that if African-Americans could be admitted as citizens in any state, “It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right … to keep and carry arms wherever they went.”"
- https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/po...ntrol-laws

Conservatives have been pretty vocal about everyone, blacks, gays, women, etc., arming themselves. Everyone has the equal right to self-defense, and more so targeted populations, like gays in the Florida night club and blacks in crime-ridden inner-cities. And it was a Democrat who put Asians into internment camps in the US.

So Democrats would use guns against Conservatives and Republicans? If so, they should start arming up. Or would they just be collateral damage in your "US military indiscriminately attacking US citizens" paranoid delusion? "Overthrow"? More paranoia.


Learn about guns, especially how to use one, so you don't have to piss your pants over an inanimate object.

(Mar 28, 2018 06:49 AM)Syne Wrote:

(Mar 28, 2018 05:19 AM)Magical Realist Wrote:

(Mar 28, 2018 04:58 AM)Syne Wrote: So we won't indiscriminately attack the civilian populations of our enemies (instead using door-to-door tactics and surgical strikes), but you think we would against our own citizens? You're obviously the paranoid one. You might as well claim they'd nuke America.  

The US jets and helicopters didn't fair so well fighting guerrilla tactics in Vietnam. We even had trouble in Iraq and Afghanistan. All these countries and populations were significantly smaller and significantly less armed that Americans. That doesn't even account for those 9,750,000 gun owners distributing their guns to 313 million citizens, against the roughly 6 million military/law enforcement, with guerrilla tactics over 3.8 million square miles, including dense cities and forests.

LOL! You got this revolution all planned out don't you? Destroy the U.S. military with your precious rifles and then take over the U.S. government and enslave all the black people, gays, muslims, and immigrants in concentration camps? Victory at last over the New World Order? Yeehaw!

How utterly pathetic....

And I hate to break the news to you but:

"Overall, 48% of all registered voters identify as Democrats or lean Democratic compared with 44% who identify as Republican or lean toward the GOP."

So much for your alt right overthrow of our American democracy.

That's all about self-defense you paranoid moron. Remember this? "To defend themselves and their own families."
You're the one who made the threat:

(Mar 26, 2018 09:48 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: We'll just blow you away.

And doubled down with:

(Mar 28, 2018 03:47 AM)Magical Realist Wrote: LOL! Guns against jet bombers and apache helicopters and tanks and rigged up hummers? They'd make short work of you alt right goons. You're so called "unorganized militia"...

And the first effective gun control in the US was to keep blacks from owning guns:

"Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney in the infamous Dred Scott case in 1856. Taney stressed in his Dred Scott v. Sandford opinion that if African-Americans could be admitted as citizens in any state, “It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right … to keep and carry arms wherever they went.”"
- https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/po...ntrol-laws

Conservatives have been pretty vocal about everyone, blacks, gays, women, etc., arming themselves. Everyone has the equal right to self-defense, and more so targeted populations, like gays in the Florida night club and blacks in crime-ridden inner-cities. And it was a Democrat who put Asians into internment camps in the US.

So Democrats would use guns against Conservatives and Republicans? If so, they should start arming up. Or would they just be collateral damage in your "US military indiscriminately attacking US citizens" paranoid delusion? "Overthrow"? More paranoia.  


Learn about guns, especially how to use one, so you don't have to piss your pants over an inanimate object.

No..I'm not going to go buy a stupid gun to defend myself from your homophobic alt right insurrectionist buddies. I'll just call 911 like normal peaceloving people do. I'm on the side of the laws remember.

(Mar 28, 2018 06:52 AM)Magical Realist Wrote:

(Mar 28, 2018 06:49 AM)Syne Wrote: That's all about self-defense you paranoid moron. Remember this? "To defend themselves and their own families."
You're the one who made the threat:

(Mar 26, 2018 09:48 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: We'll just blow you away.

And doubled down with:

(Mar 28, 2018 03:47 AM)Magical Realist Wrote: LOL! Guns against jet bombers and apache helicopters and tanks and rigged up hummers? They'd make short work of you alt right goons. You're so called "unorganized militia"...

Learn about guns, especially how to use one, so you don't have to piss your pants over an inanimate object.

No..I'm not going to go buy a stupid gun to defend myself from your homophobic alt right insurrectionist buddies. I'll just call 911 like normal peaceloving people do. I'm on the side of the laws remember.

You're the only one here who has threatened anyone. The rest is your delusional paranoia getting the better of you. Quit pissing yourself already. Conservatives and Republicans are actually the patriotic ones seeking to protect Constitutional rights. Wanting to usurp Constitutional rights (and thereby the government charged with protecting those rights) is actually what insurrectionists do.

But I'm glad you have such confidence in the police, whose incompetence allowed the Parkland shooting.

It's always interesting to see this debate conducted on an American forum, between Americans.
I'm currently active (well, was until recently) on a forum in Australia, and the issue of gun control in the USA is very much a topic of conversation all over the world, as far as I can tell.

It'd be interesting to know where you all come from, as in which specific state of the USA.

To my mind, there's a lot of things missed in the international debate due to a lack of knowledge of American history. I like to think I know a fair bit about it, and can understand the various points of view presented here as well, from multiple standpoints... which is why I have difficulty making up my own mind on the subject.
There is a lot of data available out there regarding gun ownership and use in the USA, for anyone who wants to build an understanding of the subject. But that data isn't being used...or, at least, it is not being used intelligently and in an objective manner.

I think Americans need to understand more of their own history, and the data surrounding issue itself, in order to fully understand and be able to conduct this debate intelligently, but unfortunately they don't. Or they don't appear to.