Militia question 1

[shanek]

As usual, a non-answer to an uncomfortable question.

Claus, you LIAR, you have yet to provide ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE of ANYTHING any of the framers wrote to refute this point. You're a woo-woo. You ignore evidence that's presented, don't present any evidence of your own, and then try and claim victory when we show confidence in our conclusions.

That's being a WOO-WOO, Claus.

 

[CFLarsen]

Claus, you LIAR, you have yet to provide ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE of ANYTHING any of the framers wrote to refute this point. You're a woo-woo. You ignore evidence that's presented, don't present any evidence of your own, and then try and claim victory when we show confidence in our conclusions.

That's being a WOO-WOO, Claus.

BadaBing!

 

[shanek]

BadaBing!

Provide ONE quote supporting you, Claus. ONE quote from anyone in Congress or any of the State conventions that debated the Bill of Rights. ONE. ONE QUOTE supporting you and not us.

 

[CFLarsen]

Provide ONE quote supporting you, Claus. ONE quote from anyone in Congress or any of the State conventions that debated the Bill of Rights. ONE. ONE QUOTE supporting you and not us.

BadaBing!

(As if popular vote had anything to do with how reality was determined....who's the woo, shanek?)

 

[shanek]

BadaBing!

(As if popular vote had anything to do with how reality was determined....who's the woo, shanek?)

I said NOTHING about popular support, liar. YOU made a claim about the views of the founders. Yet you cannot come up with ONE SINGLE QUOTE supporting you.

So the answer is, YOU'RE the woo-woo, Claus.

 

[American]

I think you're all fussing over details.

The middle class pays mercenaries (police, guardsmen, militia, whatever) to keep punks from stealing their stuff, including their daughters and their personal property. To keep them loyal, it's helpful to draw from a pool of like-minded folks. The most like-minded are the militia, as their loyalty can not be bought. Police would be the next solution to keep things in order, but they are less loyal and must be well-paid. The Guard is just another layer of this mercenary class, employed when the illusion of "Rights" falls apart, and sh-t really needs to be put back in order or else society falls apart.

I'd sure like to think those "Rights" are inherent, but in practice they are clearly granted to us by government. (Not that it was intended to be that way, but that's the reality that worked out over the centuries.)

 

[CFLarsen]

I said NOTHING about popular support, liar. YOU made a claim about the views of the founders. Yet you cannot come up with ONE SINGLE QUOTE supporting you.

So the answer is, YOU'RE the woo-woo, Claus.

BadaBing!

 

[richardm]

It might be interesting to look at a similar map of state crime rates, especially murders. If the gun control people are right, we should see more per-capita murders in the red states than the black; I predict it would be the exact opposite.

I haven't quite managed to find that, but did find this chart, which is interesting. If I have time today I'll produce a map based on it:

(from here )

The blue part is the trend for the whole US, and the red line is the homicide rate per 100,000 people for that area.
Two areas that are particularly interesting are New England (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont) and West North Central (Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota) which are below the trend, and West South Central (Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas) which is substantially above the trend. It's quite encouraging that they're all heading downwards, though.

Which way did Texas vote again? In fairness, I think that with a couple of exceptions the per-capita murder rate doesn't seem to be affected all that much by left-wing politics - Texas has 5.9/100000 murders in 2000 while California has 6.1/100000, to pick two obvious sample states. Louisiana had 12.5/100000, which is substantially bigger, and the highest in the USA - and they voted Republican.

 

[shanek]

BadaBing!

Your refusal to provide evidence has been noted.

 

[shanek]

I haven't quite managed to find that, but did find this chart, which is interesting. If I have time today I'll produce a map based on it:

You should be able to get state-by-state information from the FBI Uniform Crime Reports. If I get the time I'll look them up.

 

[Luke T.]

Can somebody name me one incident that citizens used the rights that were given to them by the 2nd Amendment to react to an abuse of power of the central government?

I always think of the Black Panthers when someone follows this line of questioning.

Black Panther Party Platform.

7. We want an immediate end to POLICE BRUTALITY and MURDER of black people. We believe we can end police brutality in our black community by organizing black self-defense groups that are dedicated to defending our black community from racist police oppression and brutality. The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States gives a right to bear arms. We therefore believe that all black people should arm themselves for self-defense.

edited to add: You will find the "regulations" of this self-appointed militia at the above link.

3 Main Rules of Discipline

1) Obey orders in all your actions.

2) Do not take a single needle or a piece of thread from the poor and oppressed masses.

3) Turn in everything captured from the attacking enemy.

 

[Luke T.]

I would be interested to know if any European nations have the equivalent of U.S. bounty hunters and laws regarding a "citizen's arrest."

 

[CFLarsen]

Your refusal to provide evidence has been noted.

It's a refusal to play your games.

BadaBing!

 

[shanek]

It's a refusal to play your games.

No, it's a refusal to support your own claims, born out of pure woo-wooism. So continue with your meaningless "BadaBing!" as if it means anything. You're only destroying what little remains of your credibility.

 

[CFLarsen]

No, it's a refusal to support your own claims, born out of pure woo-wooism. So continue with your meaningless "BadaBing!" as if it means anything. You're only destroying what little remains of your credibility.

BadaBing!

 

[rikzilla]

It's a refusal to play your games.

BadaBing!

Man, what's up with you Claus???? You're sounding like a troll and I wish you'd stop. You're damaging your reputation as a reasonable and accomplished skeptic...at least with me. I've enjoyed SkepticReport, and many of your posts...but this is just plain childish!

Perhaps I'm biased in favor of Shane since I agree with him and not you on this issue, but I've pissed off (and been pissed off) by both of you equally....I think you are hurting your own credibility here Claus.

for whatever that's worth.....

-z

 

[CFLarsen]

I am simply tired of shanek's disingenious way of debating, that's all. I refuse to dance to his tune, so he begins to throw out wild accusations instead.

I'm tired of being called a liar, when I am clearly not. I'm tired of being called a woowoo, when I am clearly not. I'm tired of being screamed at by someone who obviously has problems controlling his anger.

All that would be tolerable, if for one fact: I am increasingly concerned about his ideas of bringing a gun to TAM3, solely to "p!ss" me "off".

 

[Larspeart]

Recent militry history has sown that for the most part militias function quite well with no top down control.

You bet it has, .


Throughout history, militias have been all across the spectrum in terms of effectiveness, from utterly inept, to devastatingly effective.

By-and-large, they ARE effective. They are also cheap, disposable, and prone to self-destruction after their need has passed (a good thing for rebuiling and the populace afterwards.



In answering Claus and his first, initial question, #3 is the correct answer. A militia is the general populace, charged with the general defense of the homeland in times of war/invasion. There is no other definition for a militia, and also no restrictions placed on it.

The term 'well-armed' is just that. If the founding fathers intended for their to be restrictions placed on the type of armament a militia could employ, they woudl have phrased that term VERY differently, stating something like 'entitled to use all non-projectile/non-explosive weapons they can muster' or something. Essentially, making a militia a 'torch and pitchfork brigade'. They didn't, because they recognized the need and usefulness of a Well-Armed militia. It proved EXTREMELY effective in the Revolutionary War, and again in the War of 1812. Even in the Civil War, the homefront was defended by those too old to march and enlist/be drafted. The elderly, the crippled, and even the women were FULLY EXPECTED to take part in the defense of their homes and towns.

 

[Larspeart]

Its clear to me. People should have guns cause we may need them to help defend the country.

Think of the time it was written. The country didnt have this big professional military. They gained freedom from the publci coming to gether with their arms.

Did the revolutionary army ARM their soilders or did the bring their own guns??

Anyhoo. The spirt of the 2nd seems to be that if people have guns can never be enslaved by a government gone bad. And you cant count of the Natl Guard to protect you. THey are an arm of the fed govt. They control them.

Well, we DID have a professional army. it was actually fairly large considering our size at the time (Europena nations had EMPIRES to hole, hence needed a MUCH larger army then us, but for our size, it was 'big enough).

Also, the Continental Army typically supplied the recruits with arms, not the other way around. While some yeoman farmers may have decided to bring their own, superior firearms to battle (a Kentucky Rifle for instance, over the inferior muskets the armies of BOTH sides were using) the army supplied most of the guns, and all of the powder.

I do agree with you on your last sentence. The right to bear arms allows the ability to prevent slavery. You may die fighting them off, but you can prevent slavery with a firearm.


Ed makes a number of EXCELLENT points, and I especially like his decision to not bother debating Euro's on the issue. It is VERY ard for a Euro to understand the entire gun ISSUE, as their history has no non-military experience with them. Only landed nobility had any access to firearms or hunting, hence the majority of Euros see guns as an 'elitist thing' or something which has no bearing.

What Euros have to understand is that the view of guns is fundamentally different in the US.

 

[CFLarsen]

The term 'well-armed' is just that.

Just clarifying: It's not "well-armed", it's "well regulated".

We have seen a couple of definitions of what "regulated" means, as well as who regulates this militia. Which is also a term disputed.