|
BamaD -> RE: Defending the House with Guns! (9/13/2015 9:02:23 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
quote:
ORIGINAL: epiphiny43
As much as it discomfits many today, it's incredibly obvious the 2nd Amendment didn't legalize an armed militia, it allowed an Armed Citizenry.
Perhaps you need to study colonial American history a bit closer. The 2nd amendment, according to the framers implied an armed militia. That the militia would be made up of citizens. Yet, the reason the citizens were armed was not because of what many 'corrupted 2nd amendment defenders' think it means. Back in the late 18th century the thought process was very tactically minded. If an invading force (be it brigands, pirates, or even Indians) could destroy the armory/arsenal that was in town, it would level the town defenseless (more or less). But if each person of that town had a weapon, ammo, and supplies, it would be much harder to eliminate the defender's arms. Therefore, while every male, 17-74 was generally in the militia and had a gun; the gun was used for their duties with the Militia. In many cases, the militia was 'fine' with someone using their weapon to kill wild game.
The above part is the actual understanding of the third part in the 2nd amendment: "The Right to Bear Arms....". Quite different from the bullshit we hear from the NRA, eh?
That we haven't been attacked by brigands, pirates and Indians in mass numbers for over a hundred years; I can understand how people would forget this stuff if not reminded....
quote:
ORIGINAL: epiphiny43
Even the briefest of acquaintance of the history of life of the times means it was inconceivable for much of the population OR the communities at every level to survive without firearms.
Yet most of the industrialize nations on the planet survive year after year with stable governments and most of its citizens without easy access to firearms. You might try visiting these countries and asking its people if the government is truly tyrannical now that they do not have guns. Once they understand your a stupid America, then they'll explain that you have it all wrong.
quote:
ORIGINAL: epiphiny43
Local histories show many militias were basically all the local white males with ownership of a firearm as well as some others.
Imagine if those black slaves had guns? The American Civil War might not have had to happen!
Your local histories are missing some critical information. It was not just men whom were in militias, but women. During the American Civil War, it was not unheard of for women to be on the battlefield in a front line position. I heard of one such lady whom manned a battery. She handled what ever position was needed (loader, firer, etc...). In fact, in EVERY conflict of mankind, women have fought along side men. Or have you never heard of Joan of Arc?
quote:
ORIGINAL: epiphiny43
(Community protective organization in Quaker and similar communities would be interesting study) Current focus on militias as military organizations ignores how that was very dependent on current threats. The situation of each community led to various existing arrangements to provide mutual assistance where no other government was often present.
The concept of the militia from colonial days was to be in a position to aid another town's militia if the need arose. From dealing with brigands to handling a flood. In the modern era, police forces of all the towns in Massachusetts hold treaties to give aid if another police force requires it. Be it handling a multi-town car chase, to helping to find a missing child. The police departments of 2015 are the modern versions of militias from the 18th century. If brigands, pirates and Indians attack; those police forces can get aid from local, state, and federal agencies. Including the National Guards of several states and the US Military!
quote:
ORIGINAL: epiphiny43
War, fires, natural disasters, common infrastructure and ecostructure efforts all were a continuum with armed combat at one extreme. Drilling with weapons and military discipline was absent for most areas and regions till a imminent threat emerged.
Back in colonial days, the militia met every weekend on the town 'square' (most New England squares are triangles). The men would drill. The women would gossip. The kids would play (sometimes imitating their fathers). The militia brought the community together. The politicians would give the latest information in government. Traveling sales people would hawk their wares. A little festival that would last an hour or two.
Sometimes town militias would train in other towns with that town's militia.
quote:
ORIGINAL: epiphiny43
The history the amendment was reacting to includes the history of England and the Continent where various governments had disarmed segments of the population for political control.
The 2nd amendment was to allow the folks with guns whom were trusted to have guns, regardless of local and state politics. It was not meant to allow Billy Bob the town drunk, Margaret the town's insane woman, Skip the town idiot, or Jim the person whom was a hunter for a job but not part of the militia; the same ability to have firearms as those in the militia. None of those people (except for Jim in the example) were trusted with guns. Jim, just doesn't like organized people with guns.
In modern days, it seems we as a society allow any insane fuck easy access to arms. Or drunks with guns! Or idiots with guns. Youtube.com is full of each example if your curious....
Funny how you now promote a slightly warped interpretation of what you ridiculed earlier. Yes they saw that armed citizens were the first line of defense against brigands and the like, the modern term for brigand is thug, intruder, home invasion and such. There isn't a cop on every street corner to defend you, you do that yourself, the police attempt to find them and hold them for trial after they have committed the crime. Everyone up to and including the Supreme court knows this. Anyone who has done even 1% of the research you claim to know that every timetime a crime is committed with a gun a minimum of 4 are stopped by armed citizens. Even Blumberg admits to half a million justified defensive firearm uses a year, the FBI extimates the number to be much higher. You must also remember that this is far more underreported than any crime, no point in reporting to the cops that a crime didn't happen unless someone gets hurt, most of the time the punk runs away when he sees that he can get hurt. So once again you are living in a fantasy world.
|
|
|
|
