Utopia Talk / Politics / US 2nd Amendment

murder Member	Fri Nov 09 09:20:18 "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." OK then ... so why shouldn't gun ownership automatically result in conscription? Seems logical. Seems fair. What do you all think? :o)
jergul large member	Fri Nov 09 09:26:39 That line of reasoning sounds eerily familiar :-).
Rugian Member	Fri Nov 09 09:28:34 The militia has nothing to do with the Armed Forces.
obaminated Member	Fri Nov 09 09:43:44 murder is making a pretty solid run for dumbest poster on this forum.
patom Member	Fri Nov 09 09:50:23 Rugian, today the Armed Forces that we send to fight our mini-wars are mostly made up of National Guard troops from all states. In most peoples minds the National Guard is the Militia of today.
murder Member	Fri Nov 09 09:51:08 "The militia has nothing to do with the Armed Forces." I'm not sure what you're getting at. They aren't regular army, but they can be called into national service, and are regulated by Congress.
jergul large member	Fri Nov 09 09:54:15 Ruggy Why not assume he means conscription into a well regulated militia? In its simplest form, a gun purchase means your are automatically deputised into the local policeforce. The policeforce is then responsible for your training and detecting underlying health issues that might come in the way of gun ownership.
murder Member	Fri Nov 09 10:13:44 Yeah ... and we could send them all to Afghanistan. ;o)
jergul large member	Fri Nov 09 10:19:21 Federalizing local policeforces is on Trump's table, just like it was on Obama's. So, yah. Entirely possible.
Sam Adams Member	Fri Nov 09 10:23:28 I actually like this. Any citizen in good standing (the well regulated) gets easy access to all kinds of good weapons, and also limited police powers/duties.
TJ Member	Fri Nov 09 10:25:57 Owning a weapon isn't a requirement to be conscripted. Life can change in an instant. You needn't look any other place than this forum when freedom is challenged.
hood Member	Fri Nov 09 10:30:43 "limited police powers/duties." Awful idea. It already doesn't work with the actual trained police. You think fucking tards with military grade weapons are gonna have a better track record?
murder Member	Fri Nov 09 10:38:20 "... and also limited police powers/duties." No, but you do get to clean the latrines. And the weapons are strictly BYOG. That is the point of the 2nd Amendment.
jergul large member	Fri Nov 09 10:56:35 TJ It may not be a requirement, but it could be a requirement for gun ownership protected by the 2nd ammendment. Hood Any reason to think they would have a worse track record? Murder Deputization does provide limited police powers. And while BYOG is the qualification, it does not mean supplementation is not allowed by the well regulated militia organization.
TJ Member	Fri Nov 09 11:02:29 jergul: So could wheelchairs. :)
murder Member	Fri Nov 09 11:46:50 "Deputization does provide limited police powers. And while BYOG is the qualification, it does not mean supplementation is not allowed by the well regulated militia organization." They have the same policing power as any other soldier. And yeah they could be supplied with other weapons ... but being as how this is my proposal, they aren't getting shit but forced labor and crappy pay.
murder Member	Fri Nov 09 12:10:47 I think we should deploy all gun owners to Alaska to fortify ourselves against a joint Russian/Chinese invasion. Unfortunately due to budgetary constraints, they will all have to bring their own cold weather gear, tents, and ammunition. We will supply them with all the rations they can eat though. :o)
Pillz Member	Fri Nov 09 12:20:43 Obviously murder sucked jergul off one too many times and has caught whatever degenerative neurological disorder that jergul suffers from. Hopefully it's fatal
Dukhat Member	Fri Nov 09 12:24:45 Really our problems started when we didn't have a war started by corrupt politicans and the military-industrial complex every generation like we use to. It really helps kill off the excess population of dumb males in a population. We should have hunting licenses for Trump-supporting male. Not given to them but FOR them as targets of a lively human hunt. It wouldn't be very sporting since so many are morbidly obese and have poor agility due to playing video games all day. But that doesn't stop the asshate group of current hunters anyways.
kargen Member	Fri Nov 09 12:31:49 Technically once you hit 18 (if male) you must register for the draft should there ever be need for a draft again. Failing to register hasn't been prosecuted since 1986 though and congress doesn't seem to be eager to move forward on the issue. There was an effort by Charles Rangle in 2003 and acouple of times since then to pass a law saying if there is a draft both men and women would be drafted. It got no support at all not because of the women being drafted issue but the draft in general. Short of it is when you hit 18 whether you have a gun or not you can consider yourself conscripted as all it takes to call you up is a vote by congress to start enforcing draft registration laws again.
murder Member	Fri Nov 09 12:32:49 "It really helps kill off the excess population of dumb males in a population." Our guys rarely die anymore unless we do something really stupid.
murder Member	Fri Nov 09 12:33:45 "Obviously murder sucked jergul off one too many times and has caught whatever degenerative neurological disorder that jergul suffers from." So you don't like my proposal? Don't care. It's all perfectly legal. :oP
murder Member	Fri Nov 09 12:44:34 "Short of it is when you hit 18 whether you have a gun or not you can consider yourself conscripted as all it takes to call you up is a vote by congress to start enforcing draft registration laws again." I'm not talking about registering for the draft. I mean enlistment. You own a gun to protect your state? We hear you, and we're putting you to work. Don't repeal the 2nd Amendment, put it to good use!
Forwyn Member	Fri Nov 09 13:12:40 "It already doesn't work with the actual trained police. You think fucking tards with military grade weapons are gonna have a better track record?" FWIW, MPs are far superior to podunk city cops.
jergul large member	Fri Nov 09 14:34:34 So in its simplest form, a draft registry should be dependent on gun ownership (if you don't own a gun, you are not subject to the draft) with select services doing the medical check that might uncover health reasons barring gone ownership. Only those registered in the draft registry have constitutional protection for their gun ownership. Others may own guns, subject to local, state, and federal laws and ordinances.
TJ Member	Fri Nov 09 14:42:33 You mean in its bias form. What happened to diversity? That is exclusive.
hood Member	Fri Nov 09 14:54:20 "FWIW, MPs are far superior to podunk city cops." Oh I'm well aware. That isn't what Sam was suggesting though.
jergul large member	Fri Nov 09 15:38:07 TJ I am drawing a distinction between constitutionally protected gun-ownership (for use within a well regulated militia) and gun-ownership that may have limits set by local, state, or federal laws and ordinances. Say what you want, but the position is based on a reasonable intepretation of the constitution's wording.
TJ Member	Fri Nov 09 15:50:43 jergul: It is only based on your choice of interpretation. You are circumventing the original intent and wording of the 2nd,as well, ignoring historical precedent.
patom Member	Fri Nov 09 17:07:22 Murder, "They have the same policing power as any other soldier. And yeah they could be supplied with other weapons ... but being as how this is my proposal, they aren't getting shit but forced labor and crappy pay" To my knowledge, the military has no police power inside this country unless there is 'Martial Law'.
murder Member	Fri Nov 09 17:54:05 "So in its simplest form, a draft registry should be dependent on gun ownership (if you don't own a gun, you are not subject to the draft) with select services doing the medical check that might uncover health reasons barring gone ownership." There is no draft involved. Every single gun owner goes into service, until such time as they no longer feel the need to secure their free state and dispose of their firearms.
murder Member	Fri Nov 09 17:56:14 "To my knowledge, the military has no police power inside this country unless there is 'Martial Law'." Yeah.
McKobb Member	Fri Nov 09 18:33:58 It's good to want things.
murder Member	Fri Nov 09 19:27:09 No reason it can't happen. It's past time for all these 2nd Amendment posers to be called on their bullshit. :o)
Hot Rod Revved Up	Fri Nov 09 20:56:12 You guys forget one little detail. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to protect The American People from the kind of government that the extreme left want's to establish.
Forwyn Member	Fri Nov 09 22:10:32 "OK then ... so why shouldn't gun ownership automatically result in conscription?" Sure. If it's to the National Guard, i.e. one weekend a month, two weeks a year, and no foreign deployments. The militia is for home defense.
jergul large member	Fri Nov 09 22:16:57 TJ The intent is obviously that people have contemporary military arsenals in their homes so that mobilization to fight domestic and foreign tyrants is trivially easy. Supplementally, the intent was to limit the size and need of a standing federal army to nothing. Original intent does not apply to current practice. My intepretation otherwise clearly legitimate. Historical precedent to the 2nd ammendment would be the citizen-soldier concept dating back to the Greek Polis' at the very latest. Here again, the focus would be on the personal responsibility to have and maintain the top grade military tools of the time. Fully automatic assault rifles, high powered sniper rifles, ATGMs, MANPADs, small multiple rocket launchers (say on the back of a pickup), high quality IEDs, and advanced encrypted coms, night vision equipment and body armor are the kind of things that have 2nd ammendment protection by the intent of the constitution. Not 95% of the crap Americans actually own. Murder Every single gunowner is a draft. A registry would be the first step in making sure they all served until struck from the registry. "In its simplest form".
jergul large member	Fri Nov 09 22:27:23 HR and Forwyn It could very well be that the concept should be organized at State levels with the option of federalization if State government concurs.
TJ Member	Sat Nov 10 01:10:50 jergul: The citizens have the power if they have the will. It is the thread that has always been bound within Constitutional documents. A lot of blood has been shed to preserve and I have no doubt it is done flowing to continue its preservation. The ability to defend myself and family against an aggressor intending harm is not something I'll relinquish no matter how fruitless it may seem, because it would be far more fruitless if I needed and didn't possess the ability. I firmly believe in liberty or death in my personal life as well as the life of this Country. "Supplementally, the intent was to limit the size and need of a standing federal army to nothing." Not to limit a standing Federal Army, but to limit State regulated militias. We don't use militias or the Federal Army to enforce domestic law. I'm convinced it's best we agree to disagree.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Sat Nov 10 01:24:04 Liberals, be honest. If someone is breaking down your door what would you rather have: A gun in your hand or A cop three minutes away? Be honest. Why do I ask, I will never get an honest answer from a liberal.
jergul large member	Sat Nov 10 01:28:33 TJ I am talking about what is constitutionally protected and what the historical backdrop for that was. Lack of constitutional protection would not mean local laws and ordinances would disarm you. You might have to demonstrate a worthy purpose within some form of framework (you want a handgun? Join a pistol club. You want a shotgun? Take a hunting course for certification). We have gobs of fully automatic weapons in regular households without constitutional protection. The founding fathers envisioned a federal navy. They did not envision a standing federal army. That was what the well regulated militia was supposed to do. Citizens certainly have the power if they have the will. But the constitution imagined giving citizens a huge head start by giving them the right to hold military grade weapons. With accountability (a well regulated militia can mean nothing less). I find the idea of ludicrous small-arms having constitutional protection quite ludicrous. Note my argument is not anti-gun per se. I think any American of sound mind should have access to military grade hardware. But with verifiable accountability if he or she does. It could be summed up as a "worthy purpose" principle. If you can document a worthy purpose, then you should have the weapon.
jergul large member	Sat Nov 10 01:29:09 What should be constitutionally protected rather*
jergul large member	Sat Nov 10 01:32:55 HR If someone was breaking down your door, would you rather they had a gun in their hand, or an accomplice 3 minutes away? I am fine with you being a member of a pistol club and therefore having access to a fire arm that you might used to defend yourself. But a gun solely for home defence would not qualify in my country. The statistical likelihood of that happening is way too small. Much smaller than an accident or suicide arising from your having the weapon. So you would need a more worthy purpose to have a gun in my country and in my opinion.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Sat Nov 10 01:51:55 jergul - If someone was breaking down your door, would you rather they had a gun in their hand, or an accomplice 3 minutes away? That's BS. If a crook was breaking down my door and cared not a twit for my life he would already have his gun in his hand. Since your country doesn't have a Constitutional Right then your country is irrelevant as far as this discussion is concerned.
jergul large member	Sat Nov 10 02:00:25 HR Wrong. I am demonstrating that gun ownership is independent of constitutional protection. Which is highly relevant. The argument that either the Constitution is intepreted in a highly liberal way, or we will lose all our guns is invalid.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Sat Nov 10 08:26:01 "Wrong. I am demonstrating that gun ownership is independent of constitutional protection. Which is highly relevant." Our Constitution gives us The Right to own a gun or not. It is our choice. If we did not have that Constitutional protection our guns would have been confiscated years if not decades ago. The liberals in this country do not want us to have guns. They are a threat to the power over us that they covet. I do not a gun, but I did at one time. Now I own a Marine Combat Knife and a spring-loaded baton.
TJ Member	Sat Nov 10 09:52:06 jergul: I know the following quote was presented to HR, but I'll bite one more time. "I am demonstrating that gun ownership is independent of constitutional protection. Which is highly relevant." I was overly fatigued earlier this morning. An unalienable right has nothing to do with worthy use other than what is already clear. The natural right was and is embedded within the U.S. Constitution and it is only as good as its citizens. The right can't be legally revoked by an outside force independent of self, which is a literal interpretation, not modern conservatism or liberalism. Within written law is the means of removal to well documented singular actions and I'm all in favor in a lawful Nation. Hooray for Norway, I have no desire to change your cultural laws, nor any other Country as far as that is concerned. Our Constitution holds the key of its own alteration and has been applied 27 times. I'm perfectly satisfied with that process. I'm not in favor of whatever means is necessary and that includes local, district or federal judgeship's. One more thing: I suppose I applied Federal Army because I was drafted into the Army(a mental mishap). I actually meant it to be Federal Military.
jergul large member	Sat Nov 10 09:56:11 HR lulz, no. Even weapons that are blatantly illegal are not confiscated here. wwii vintage stuff is regularly turned in when someone dies and the inheritors go "wtf - this cannot possibly be legal". The only thing the State really takes seriously is weapon storage. They have to be stored certified gun safes, or rendered physically inactive by storing the sum of its parts in very different locations in the house (For example with an fully automatic assault rifle. Keep the sealed plastic bags of ammo in the pantry, the bolt in the basement and the rest of it behind stuff in the bedroom closet). The ammunition is sealed ziplock bags and is particularly well protected with a sticker saying "do not open unless there is a war or you have been mobilized and told to do so".
Hot Rod Revved Up	Sat Nov 10 11:21:34 Cool.
jergul large member	Sat Nov 10 12:02:49 TJ The right can actually be revoked. Sometimes with deadly force applied by police, other times by felony convictions. The 2nd thing should be extremely worrisome. Felony convictions have tripled in living memory with the growth mainly fuelled by victimless crime convictions. Something like 12% of the adult population lacks 2nd amendment rights for felony reasons alone. The sum of all adults barred for any reason may push 25% (I have not checked). There is nothing to stop a malicious legislature from disarming even more Americans by the simple measure of reclassifying more things as felonies. DUIs alone could seriously impact if enforcement and prosecution felony charges and convictions a priority. My point remains that the 2nd amendment is illusionary (it does not give you the tools to defeat foreign and domestic tyrants, nor can it protect you from being disqualified from gun ownership if the Government decided to put more effort into disqualifying people). This has to be seen against the backdrop of many people dying to firearms. It gives the Government incentive (After Breivik, Norway put limitations on fertilizer, not firearms. Despite Breivik using both weapons and bombs). I think worthy purpose criterium provides better protection in practical terms.
TJ Member	Sat Nov 10 12:26:49 jergul: I had your rebuttal covered: The Constitution is only as good as its citizens determine. All things are subject to change even in Norway.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Sat Nov 10 14:08:22 jergul, there was one Amendment that passed through all of the hurdles only to be repealed a few years later because the people did not like it. Do you know what it was?
jergul large member	Sat Nov 10 17:16:20 TJ Well, in that case, your constitution sucks donkey balls. See any daily news coverage. Anyway, you should be able to see that it is entirely possible to have reasonable views on guns in households without thinking that Constitutional rights in that regard are particulary constructive. HR My non google guess would be prohibition.
jergul large member	Sat Nov 10 17:28:53 Do you think 25% of Americans should not have 2nd amendment rights? Do you think felons, domestic violence mideemeanour sentencees, and people with a history of mental illness, or social drug use should not have 2nd amendment rights? Your answer should be the same to both questions. For the sake of consistency.
TJ Member	Sat Nov 10 18:36:59 jergul: As I've repeatedly said: It's the citizens and not the Constitution. Somewhere near the middle believes the opposite half sucks donkey balls. Both balls get rocked. Angst over the situation concerning me is null and void. I'm just a fan of the game and not a player. :)
murder Member	Sat Nov 10 19:43:15 "Sure. If it's to the National Guard, i.e. one weekend a month, two weeks a year, and no foreign deployments. " Forwyn: The National Guard does get deployed overseas. They practically lived in Iraq for a decade.
Forwyn Member	Sat Nov 10 19:49:26 Yeah, and as such they don't qualify as a militia.
murder Member	Sat Nov 10 20:03:38 They do qualify as a militia ... because Congress says so.
Forwyn Member	Sat Nov 10 20:31:37 Congress can say whatever they want, a professional reserve force that deploys around the world is not a militia, and only a retard would argue such.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Sat Nov 10 23:45:58 jergul - Your answer should be the same to both questions. For the sake of consistency. If you cannot honestly see the difference then I am not qualified to explain the difference.
jergul large member	Sat Nov 10 23:53:01 HR My point was that perhaps 25% of American adults do not have 2nd amendment rights. How high would that percentage be before you become worried? I take it my prohibition stab in the dark was correct. Forwyn Interesting leap from volunteer to professional.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Sun Nov 11 00:05:09 Yes, prohibition is correct. Congrats. I don't really see your point. Certain people do not have the right to own or hold weapons because of their own bad actions.
Forwyn Member	Sun Nov 11 00:12:35 jergul NG is held to the same PT, marksmanship, UCMJ, etc etc etc standards, and deploys right alongside them. It is a reserve professional force.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: