Does The NRA Represent Sane Gun Owners Anymore?

[Infected Mushroom]

the Founding Fathers believed it was necessary in 1788 within the context of the war with Great Britain

They could have very well fielded a regular army, though, making the militia not necessary.

Like I said, try again.

then you are arguing that it didn't apply even in 1788, which isn't something that matters too much to me either way

it no longer applies now for sure, and that's what matters

[Prussia-Steinbach]

a standing military's job is to protect that free society, not to threaten the free state

and in the USA's entire history, the military has never acted contrary to that mission

holy fuck

don't tell me you actually believe this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internmen ... _Americans
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/12/world ... .html?_r=0

Shit like this is the reason you aren't taken seriously.

[Paddy O Fernature]

They could have very well fielded a regular army, though, making the militia not necessary.

Like I said, try again.

then you are arguing that it didn't apply even in 1788, which isn't something that matters too much to me either way

it no longer applies now for sure, and that's what matters

Says you.

[Galloism]

They could have very well fielded a regular army, though, making the militia not necessary.

Like I said, try again.

then you are arguing that it didn't apply even in 1788, which isn't something that matters too much to me either way

If it didn't apply in 1788, then you're arguing the founding fathers were retarded.

If the founding fathers are retarded, we should take them for what it's obvious they were trying to do, not by any random clauses they stuck in at various places. The part that's clear and understandable is that the right to bear arms should not be infringed.

[Infected Mushroom]

then you are arguing that it didn't apply even in 1788, which isn't something that matters too much to me either way

If it didn't apply in 1788, then you're arguing the founding fathers were retarded.

If the founding fathers are retarded, we should take them for what it's obvious they were trying to do, not by any random clauses they stuck in at various places. The part that's clear and understandable is that the right to bear arms should not be infringed.

No I am not arguing that they were retarded. That would require a medical diagnosis. They are now long gone and so that would be a moot debate.

[Imperializt Russia]

No it has enough troops

the fact that X soldiers (some of them being in the militia) are retained is not evidence that if the number of soldiers were less than X, the free society is threatened

you are conflating ''more is better within reason'' with ''the number we have now is the exact minimum number that's necessary''

Ok, for the sake of amusing you, prove the militia is no longer necessary.

Proof, not conjecture. Prove that it's not necessary, but I give you one additional condition.

Your conditions must ALSO show that it was necessary to have a militia in 1788.

IIRC (which I'm likely not, but anyway), the reliance on militias were born partly out of a lack of organised standing forces and also a belief that they weren't to be trusted or something (the concept was not liked for some reason, I believe). Hence all that free state malarkey.

In the intervening couple hundred years, the effectiveness of a minuteman with a rifle has dropped from "somewhat" to "approaching nil". This is partly due to the fact that the US now has a large and absurdly capable standing army.
Militias were retained precisely for conflicts like the War of 1812, which was fear of Empire Strikes Back. Believe it or not, we're kind of over that now.

The US is no longer under any existential threat of invasion that would necessitate a militia.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

That would mean that it was also not necessary in 1788, which means that you're asserting the founding fathers were retarded.

Try again.

the Founding Fathers believed it was necessary in 1788 within the context of the war with Great Britain

The American Revolution ended in 1783. The Bill of Rights was fully ratified in 1791.

Try again.

[Cedoria]

The NRA represents nothing and nobody. Looking at them and their positions, I just see a bunch of brain-damaged hillbillies with nothing better to complain about. They are a bunch of nobodies, who unfortunately have far more political influence then they deserve.


That's just my view of course, but this episode certainly gives a glimpse of the bubble that these people live in. A very small, warped deranged bubble.

[Galloism]

If it didn't apply in 1788, then you're arguing the founding fathers were retarded.

If the founding fathers are retarded, we should take them for what it's obvious they were trying to do, not by any random clauses they stuck in at various places. The part that's clear and understandable is that the right to bear arms should not be infringed.

No I am not arguing that they were retarded. That would require a medical diagnosis. They are now long gone and so that would be a moot debate.

You are arguing that they put something in the constitution, and operative clause that was invalid literally as it was being written.

That's insane.

[Infected Mushroom]

Ok, for the sake of amusing you, prove the militia is no longer necessary.

Proof, not conjecture. Prove that it's not necessary, but I give you one additional condition.

Your conditions must ALSO show that it was necessary to have a militia in 1788.

IIRC (which I'm likely not, but anyway), the reliance on militias were born partly out of a lack of organised standing forces and also a belief that they weren't to be trusted or something (the concept was not liked for some reason, I believe). Hence all that free state malarkey.

In the intervening couple hundred years, the effectiveness of a minuteman with a rifle has dropped from "somewhat" to "approaching nil". This is partly due to the fact that the US now has a large and absurdly capable standing army.
Militias were retained precisely for conflicts like the War of 1812, which was fear of Empire Strikes Back. Believe it or not, we're kind of over that now.

The US is no longer under any existential threat of invasion that would necessitate a militia.

I agree

[Galloism]

Ok, for the sake of amusing you, prove the militia is no longer necessary.

Proof, not conjecture. Prove that it's not necessary, but I give you one additional condition.

Your conditions must ALSO show that it was necessary to have a militia in 1788.

IIRC (which I'm likely not, but anyway), the reliance on militias were born partly out of a lack of organised standing forces and also a belief that they weren't to be trusted or something (the concept was not liked for some reason, I believe). Hence all that free state malarkey.

In the intervening couple hundred years, the effectiveness of a minuteman with a rifle has dropped from "somewhat" to "approaching nil". This is partly due to the fact that the US now has a large and absurdly capable standing army.
Militias were retained precisely for conflicts like the War of 1812, which was fear of Empire Strikes Back. Believe it or not, we're kind of over that now.

The US is no longer under any existential threat of invasion that would necessitate a militia.

Eh, we did pass a new militia act in 1903. I mean, yeah that was 100 years ago, but we still do have, as a matter of law, both an organized and unorganized militia.

[Infected Mushroom]

No I am not arguing that they were retarded. That would require a medical diagnosis. They are now long gone and so that would be a moot debate.

You are arguing that they put something in the constitution, and operative clause that was invalid literally as it was being written.

That's insane.

they believed, rightly or wrongly, that at the time the Constitution was drafted, a militia was necessary

hence to their knowledge, they were enacting something that applied at the time

whether that was in fact true or not is something for historians and alternative history people to debate, but it doesn't change what the text says

[Galloism]

You are arguing that they put something in the constitution, and operative clause that was invalid literally as it was being written.

That's insane.

they believed, rightly or wrongly, that at the time the Constitution was drafted, a militia was necessary

hence to their knowledge, they were enacting something that applied at the time

whether that was in fact true or not is something for historians and alternative history people to debate, but it doesn't change what the text says

Except, they very specifically wrote it in such a way that it doesn't have an actual limiting clause.

Why would they do that if it wasn't on purpose?

[Infected Mushroom]

IIRC (which I'm likely not, but anyway), the reliance on militias were born partly out of a lack of organised standing forces and also a belief that they weren't to be trusted or something (the concept was not liked for some reason, I believe). Hence all that free state malarkey.

In the intervening couple hundred years, the effectiveness of a minuteman with a rifle has dropped from "somewhat" to "approaching nil". This is partly due to the fact that the US now has a large and absurdly capable standing army.
Militias were retained precisely for conflicts like the War of 1812, which was fear of Empire Strikes Back. Believe it or not, we're kind of over that now.

The US is no longer under any existential threat of invasion that would necessitate a militia.

Eh, we did pass a new militia act in 1903. I mean, yeah that was 100 years ago, but we still do have, as a matter of law, both an organized and unorganized militia.

but its no longer necessary

no country is going to invade the US, which has the world's most powerful military, if we disband the militias tomorrow

[Infected Mushroom]

they believed, rightly or wrongly, that at the time the Constitution was drafted, a militia was necessary

hence to their knowledge, they were enacting something that applied at the time

whether that was in fact true or not is something for historians and alternative history people to debate, but it doesn't change what the text says

Except, they very specifically wrote it in such a way that it doesn't have an actual limiting clause.

Why would they do that if it wasn't on purpose?

they wrote it in, its the first part of the amendment

[Galloism]

Eh, we did pass a new militia act in 1903. I mean, yeah that was 100 years ago, but we still do have, as a matter of law, both an organized and unorganized militia.

but its no longer necessary

no country is going to invade the US, which has the world's most powerful military, if we disband the militias tomorrow

Security does not refer only to invasion. The militia still acts in areas of natural disaster and domestic crisis, and maintains the security of our domestic airspace. Reacting properly to such things is part of maintaining our national security.

The military is generally not permitted to intervene on US soil.

[Paddy O Fernature]

Except, they very specifically wrote it in such a way that it doesn't have an actual limiting clause.

Why would they do that if it wasn't on purpose?

they wrote it in, its the first part of the amendment

.....

As already pointed out quite clearly to you, this isn't the case.

Swing and a miss! Try again.

[Infected Mushroom]

but its no longer necessary

no country is going to invade the US, which has the world's most powerful military, if we disband the militias tomorrow

Security does not refer only to invasion. The militia still acts in areas of natural disaster and domestic crisis, and maintains the security of our domestic airspace. Reacting properly to such things is part of maintaining our national security.

The military is generally not permitted to intervene on US soil.

but it is permitted to do so in national emergencies

[Prussia-Steinbach]

but its no longer necessary

no country is going to invade the US, which has the world's most powerful military, if we disband the militias tomorrow

Security does not refer only to invasion. The militia still acts in areas of natural disaster and domestic crisis, and maintains the security of our domestic airspace. Reacting properly to such things is part of maintaining our national security.

The military is generally not permitted to intervene on US soil.

^For good, established, historical reason.

[Imperializt Russia]

but its no longer necessary

no country is going to invade the US, which has the world's most powerful military, if we disband the militias tomorrow

Security does not refer only to invasion. The militia still acts in areas of natural disaster and domestic crisis, and maintains the security of our domestic airspace. Reacting properly to such things is part of maintaining our national security.

The military is generally not permitted to intervene on US soil.

One could argue that the National Guard isn't very "militia-ish" these days, it's very much a standing force. It has F-15s and F-16s and A-10s and Abrams and Pattons and M16s by the million and will probably receive F-22 and F-35 aircraft one day.

[Galloism]

Security does not refer only to invasion. The militia still acts in areas of natural disaster and domestic crisis, and maintains the security of our domestic airspace. Reacting properly to such things is part of maintaining our national security.

The military is generally not permitted to intervene on US soil.

but it is permitted to do so in national emergencies

Uh, not without direct order of the president, and only under very specific circumstances when the militia is incapable of managing the situation.

Posse Comitatus.

Generally speaking, if the militia is capable of handling the situation, the army may NOT be deployed.

[Galloism]

Security does not refer only to invasion. The militia still acts in areas of natural disaster and domestic crisis, and maintains the security of our domestic airspace. Reacting properly to such things is part of maintaining our national security.

The military is generally not permitted to intervene on US soil.

One could argue that the National Guard isn't very "militia-ish" these days, it's very much a standing force. It has F-15s and F-16s and A-10s and Abrams and Pattons and M16s by the million and will probably receive F-22 and F-35 aircraft one day.

It's very specifically defined as the militia by the militia act of 1903, and still maintains forces in a very militia like way. I think they're still doing the 1 weekend a month 2 weeks a year thing, where people do a little bit of militia work but they're mainly a plumber.

Or whatever.

[Infected Mushroom]

but it is permitted to do so in national emergencies

Uh, not without direct order of the president, and only under very specific circumstances when the militia is incapable of managing the situation.

Posse Comitatus.

Generally speaking, if the militia is capable of handling the situation, the army may NOT be deployed.

its nonsensical to argue that the US' security would immediately be at risk if you got rid of the militia

there's no reason why the normal military couldn't do those functions, the President would no doubt grant it if it ever became an issue, authorisation is irrelevant

[Galloism]

Uh, not without direct order of the president, and only under very specific circumstances when the militia is incapable of managing the situation.

Posse Comitatus.

Generally speaking, if the militia is capable of handling the situation, the army may NOT be deployed.

its nonsensical to argue that the US' security would immediately be at risk if you got rid of the militia

It's also nonsensical that a phrase without a limiting clause should be read as having a limiting clause, but here you are.

Regardless, we are still using our militia to maintain national security. We could hypothetically do something else, but so could the founding fathers, and if that's the case, than the 2nd amendment itself should be written off as having no meaning at any point in all of history. I want to recognize an explanation clause as an explanation clause - you want to write off the whole amendment literally since the moment it was written.

there's no reason why the normal military couldn't do those functions, the President would no doubt grant it if it ever became an issue, authorisation is irrelevant

Except he'd have to authorize each deployment. If an airliner was hijacked or there was an aircraft on a suspicious course, ATC couldn't call the national guard for an intercept, they would have to call the white house, wake up the president, get him to directly authorize such action, and THEN aircraft could be deployed on an intercept.

The time delay could be critical.

[Infected Mushroom]

its nonsensical to argue that the US' security would immediately be at risk if you got rid of the militia

It's also nonsensical that a phrase without a limiting clause should be read as having a limiting clause, but here you are.

Regardless, we are still using our militia to maintain national security. We could hypothetically do something else, but so could the founding fathers, and if that's the case, than the 2nd amendment itself should be written off as having no meaning at any point in all of history. I want to recognize an explanation clause as an explanation clause - you want to write off the whole amendment literally since the moment it was written.

there's no reason why the normal military couldn't do those functions, the President would no doubt grant it if it ever became an issue, authorisation is irrelevant

Except he'd have to authorize each deployment. If an airliner was hijacked or there was an aircraft on a suspicious course, ATC couldn't call the national guard for an intercept, they would have to call the white house, wake up the president, get him to directly authorize such action, and THEN aircraft could be deployed on an intercept.

The time delay could be critical.

the time delay is an inconvenience, but it won't render the mission impossible

hence its not necessary to have a militia

the limiting clause is in the operational part of the text, right before the first comma