Debate about Gun Control

[playwrite]

(06-15-2016, 04:34 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(06-14-2016, 09:33 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: The Second Amendment provides for states to have their own militias (National Guard, state police). Possession of firearms in a way contrary to the "well-regulated militia" does not mean the right to bear arms if one would be rejected from being a member of the militia due to some gross turpitude (such as a criminal conviction or membership in a criminal organization like ISIS or MS-13) or incompetence (lunacy, idiocy, addiction, habitual drunkenness). Military service can be a civic duty, but it usually implies some hardships. Enlistment in the Armed Services or even in reserve units may be attractive, but it does not give one more freedom. One obviously has certain responsibilities attached to any 'militia' weapon. Likewise, join a police force (even if the job has such attractions as good pay and a spiffy uniform) and recognize that the job entails some significant control of one's life.

Your ability to blather away while remaining ever so ignorant of the basics is amazing.  The National Guard is paid and was organized by Teddy Roosevelt as a standing army so it can be sent abroad.  It is not the militia.  The militia can be used by the Feds to enforce laws, suppress insurrections and repel invasions, but not to go abroad.  The state police is also paid.  By the standards of the revolutionary era, the would be paid for by the government and thus assumed to be under the influence and control of the government.  Thus they are organized under very different statutes than the militia.

The militia is all adult males.  It was assumed that the security of a free state required that they be armed and trained.  Security included defending one's self and one's community from everything from hostile natives to criminals.  The laws were written accordingly.

You are also still sticking with the Jim Crow interpretation of the 2nd, invented by bigots and rejected along with the rest of the Jim Crow precedents by modern courts.

It is dull and tedious to keep correcting your deliberate ignorance, but I'll keep doing it.

I'd be fine with your bringing up the dull and tedious argument about Jim Crow interpretations of the 2nd, if we go back to the gun technology used back in the 19th Century for what could be legal to own today.  Yeesh.