Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Daelak]

I understood your point. :P And I will say again....I oppose what you are suggesting..:P

Why would you oppose being trained by military officials?

- - - Updated - - -

/facepalm
I see we have another person who has NO IDEA what the word "regulate" meant in 1787 when the constitution was ratified.

Of course I do, why would you be against all new firearm purchases be signed up for the state militia and trained by federal military officials?

[vaeevictiss]

Why wouldn't you want to join a state militia and be trained by federal military officials? Do you want law abiding American citizens not to trained well with their firearms? It is almost like you are covering for the law breakers by opposing any training or registration.

I completely agree that people who carry should be trained on its use...but i see no reason people should be forced to join a militia and be "trained" by "federal officials" when there are excellent classes run by private organizations that run amazing courses from the basic beginner class to very advanced classes.

[Ghostpanther]

Why would you oppose being trained by military officials?

- - - Updated - - -


?

For one. I already have been. You realize how many millions of veterans are out there? And I will say this one last time to you....I already stated I am not oppose to license requirement for new gun purchases or trades after a certain date, which would require a safety course to be passed. But that can be done by the local police or any registered gun trainers. Does not have to be done by the ATF.:P

[Daelak]

I completely agree that people who carry should be trained on its use...but i see no reason people should be forced to join a militia and be "trained" by "federal officials" when there are excellent classes run by private organizations that run amazing courses from the basic beginner class to very advanced classes.

But it is an American right to be part of a well regulated and trained militia administered by federal military forces, why are you denying American Citizens free training from our own military?

- - - Updated - - -

For one. I already have been. You realize how many millions of veterans are out there? And I will say this one last time to you....I already stated I am not oppose to license requirement for new gun purchases or trades after a certain date, which would require a safety course to be passed. But that can be done by the local police or any registered gun trainers. Does not have to be done by the ATF.:P

Why would you not want to be trained by the military? What is the downside to this proposal?

[vaeevictiss]

But it is an American right to be part of a well regulated and trained militia administered by federal military forces, why are you denying American Citizens free training from our own military?

because you are making it a requirement...not a right.

and also no, the militia is not supposed to be "regulated and trained by federal military forces". Thats not in the Constitution.

[Daelak]

because you are making it a requirement...not a right.

and also no, the militia is not supposed to be "regulated and trained by federal military forces". Thats not in the Constitution.

Of course it is a requirement, it says so in the 2nd amendment. Who should the militia be regulated by? Powerpuff girls?

[vaeevictiss]

Of course it is a requirement, it says so in the 2nd amendment. Who should the militia be regulated by? Powerpuff girls?

apparently you missed the several posts telling you thats not what regulated meant to the drafters.

[Daelak]

apparently you missed the several posts telling you thats not what regulated meant to the drafters.

The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.

Good Game.

[vaeevictiss]

Good Game.

Ok now you are getting confusing. You initially stated you wanted the federal govt to "regulate" as in the modern usage of regulate. Now you are using regulate as it was written for the constitution. I have no issue with the latter, as long as it is not required. FP29 mentions that it is a good thing...but not a requirement.

Most states already have militias...but it is voluntary. It would be impossible to manage if every gun owner was required to do it.

[Daelak]

Ok now you are getting confusing. You initially stated you wanted the federal govt to "regulate" as in the modern usage of regulate. Now you are using regulate as it was written for the constitution. I have no issue with the latter, as long as it is not required. FP29 mentions that it is a good thing...but not a requirement.

Most states already have militias...but it is voluntary. It would be impossible to manage if every gun owner was required to do it.

Regulate now means the same thing it did when Hamilton wrote about it in FP29. What would the point of a voluntary and untrained militia be? It would be unregulated. Not every gun owner, every gun owner who purchased a gun through a licensed dealer.

[THE Bigzoman]

Good Game.

If that's the case, then legislation should be directed to militias rather then guns.

[Daelak]

If that's the case, then legislation should be directed to militias rather then guns.

But we have an impotent legislature, nothing can get done.

[Eroginous]

Regulate now means the same thing it did when Hamilton wrote about it in FP29. What would the point of a voluntary and untrained militia be? It would be unregulated. Not every gun owner, every gun owner who purchased a gun through a licensed dealer.

No, it doesn't. Right now, regulations are stiff rules governing a process or organization. To be regulated means to have stiff rules governing you. When the term 'well regulated' was used in the 1700s, it meant 'in good working order.' A militia 'in good working order' was a 'well regulated militia.' 'In good working order' meant 'well equipped and organized.' It did not have anything to do with federal alignment, involvement, or training. Here's the excerpt you posted with the wording slightly changed to what 'well regulated' actually meant in 1788:

The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a militia in good working order, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.

See how it makes more sense? Not only that, but that excerpt is talking about how standardizing training among militias would be too expensive and likely hazardous to the health of their militia since it would require them to travel on foot from their home state to a military training site. He goes on to explain how skills must be developed over time with experience, rather than being 'trained' in a short period of time. Lastly, he talks about how the militia is supposed to be comprised of common folk and not just people who meet military standard.

It would help if you actually had any reading comprehension.

http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/20...ly-did-it-mean

Oh, and I figured I'd actually post a link that does a pretty decent job of explaining it.

[Daelak]

No, it doesn't. Right now, regulations are stiff rules governing a process or organization. To be regulated means to have stiff rules governing you. When the term 'well regulated' was used in the 1700s, it meant 'in good working order.' A militia 'in good working order' was a 'well regulated militia.' 'In good working order meant 'well equipped and organized.' It did not have anything to do with federal alignment, involvement, or training. Here's the excerpt you posted with the wording slightly changed to what 'well regulated' actually meant in 1788:



See how it makes more sense? Not only that, but that excerpt is talking about how standardizing training among militias would be too expensive and likely hazardous to the health of their militia since it would require them to travel on foot from their home state to a military training site. He goes on to explain how skills must be developed over time with experience, rather than being 'trained' in a short period of time. Lastly, he talks about how the militia is supposed to be comprised of common folk and not just people who meet military standard.

It would help if you actually had any reading comprehension.

"Well regulated" means the exact same thing in 1788 as today in the context of the 2nd amendment. It had everything to do with federal alignment and training, for the federal government supplied them with munitions and training when the militias were activated, since it was part of the constitution of the US.

There is no point of putting it in the 2nd amendment if it was a voluntary, non-training militia. All militias were trained and well stocked by federal funds.

[lockedout]

But we can and should mandate yearly testing on firearm proficiency. Make gun owners sign up for their local militia that would be administered by the ATF, and let them be trained.

No way. If you own a gun and wan't to take training that's fine. Forcing people is not ok.

[Daelak]

No way. If you own a gun and wan't to take training that's fine. Forcing people is not ok.

Forcing people to get firearms training is not ok? In what world do you think that would be ok?

[Eroginous]

"Well regulated" means the exact same thing in 1788 as today in the context of the 2nd amendment. It had everything to do with federal alignment and training, for the federal government supplied them with munitions and training when the militias were activated, since it was part of the constitution of the US.

There is no point of putting it in the 2nd amendment if it was a voluntary, non-training militia. All militias were trained and well stocked by federal funds.

No, it does not. The terms use in the 1700s came from a very rudimentary understanding of basic freedoms and independence. IE, you were in charge of yourself and what you did had to be of some value and use to your family and small community. The essence of which was the importance of being well regulated, or in good working order. The original 13 colonies and the outward expansion to the west was a largely isolated and independent existence for people living back then. They did not have the internet and smart phones by which they could relay information instantaneously across the world to other people, nor did they have cars/trains/planes by which to travel great distances in short periods of time.

Therefore it was vastly important to have a self sufficient organization which could serve as a military force in the time of need. That's why the articles of confederation (before the constitution) outlined that each state would have it's own militia (there were 13 states at the time, which mean 13 independent armies) separate from the federal army of the union. This is also why Hamilton wrote about their training coming from experience over time instead of formal military training and how unfeasible it would be to standardize all the militias in accordance with the military, in the paragraph you linked.

See, there's this fundamental problem where in every post you make you suggest there be one supreme authority that governs everyone (the federal government) where they have all the power and everyone else just falls in line or becomes a criminal by default. The entire point of the constitution was to limit the federal governments power and divide it amongst people who serve within it as short term representatives, easily replaced by more qualified individuals as elected by the common folk. The entire point of limiting the governments power was to avoid the type of government the colonials came to America to get away from (the British monarchy, ruled by the Catholic church), especially to avoid a situation where a small group of people have all the power (like it does today).

The very idea of having a militia is to not be regulated by the federal government. To be regulated would only give them the power over said militia, increasing their total power, and diminishing the power the people have over themselves.

[lockedout]

/facepalm
I see we have another person who has NO IDEA what the word "regulate" meant in 1787 when the constitution was ratified.

Doesn't even matter because if you read the entire sentence "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."

It says a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. Then it says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. So regardless of what regulated meant back then, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

- - - Updated - - -

Forcing people to get firearms training is not ok?

No it isn't.

[Daelak]

No, it does not. The terms use in the 1700s came from a very rudimentary understanding of basic freedoms and independence. IE, you were in charge of yourself and what you did had to be of some value and use to your family and small community. The essence of which was the importance of being well regulated, or in good working order. The original 13 colonies and the outward expansion to the west was a largely isolated and independent existence for people living back then. They did not have the internet and smart phones by which they could relay information instantaneously across the world to other people, nor did they have cars/trains/planes by which to travel great distances in short periods of time.

Therefore it was vastly important to have a self sufficient organization which could serve as a military force in the time of need. That's why the articles of confederation (before the constitution) outlined that each state would have it's own militia (there were 13 states at the time, which mean 13 independent armies) separate from the federal army of the union. This is also why Hamilton wrote about their training coming from experience over time instead of formal military training and how unfeasible it would be to standardize all the militias in accordance with the military, in the paragraph you linked.

See, there's this fundamental problem where in every post you make you suggest there be one supreme authority that governs everyone (the federal government) where they have all the power and everyone else just falls in line or becomes a criminal by default. The entire point of the constitution was to limit the federal governments power and divide it amongst people who serve within it as short term representatives, easily replaced by more qualified individuals as elected by the common folk. The entire point of limiting the governments power was to avoid the type of government the colonials came to America to get away from (the British monarchy, ruled by the Catholic church), especially to avoid a situation where a small group of people have all the power (like it does today).

The very idea of having a militia is to not be regulated by the federal government. To be regulated would only give them the power over said militia, increasing their total power, and diminishing the power the people have over themselves.

Keep reading:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792

Your "view" is not aligning with the reality of militias of the US after the revolutionary war.

- - - Updated - - -

No it isn't.

So let me get this straight; you think it is wrong to have compulsory training after purchasing a firearm. You would rather them forgo training?

[lockedout]

The entire point of limiting the governments power was to avoid the type of government the colonials came to America to get away from (the British monarchy, ruled by the Catholic church), especially to avoid a situation where a small group of people have all the power (like it does today).

I think there should be some type of restriction for family members of a president to run for office. Bush Clinton etc.

- - - Updated - - -

So let me get this straight; you think it is wrong to have compulsory training after purchasing a firearm. You would rather them forgo training?

I think if people want to train with their firearm then that's great and if not that's fine also.
You are arguing "well regulated" when I already explained above it doesn't matter what it meant since it says right after that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."