Welcome to DU!
    The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
    Join the community:
    Create a free account
    Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
    Become a Star Member
    Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
    All Forums
        Issue Forums
        Culture Forums
        Alliance Forums
        Region Forums
        Support Forums
        Help & Search
    
Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: What did the Founders mean... [View all]gejohnston
(17,502 posts)23. just a few things,
        The Militia Act of 1792 doesn't have that much to do with the national guard since it isn't a state militia.  It is funded and trained by the federal government.
 That act did not give all Americans the right to military arms as it only applied to all those enrolled.
  Most civilian arms were superior to military weapons.  For example, civilians had rifles, while the military only had muskets.  The same is true of repeating weapons from that time until well into the 19th century.  
Also, the founders did not, nor did any of the Enlightenment thinkers, believe the State gave individual rights. They were, as am I, strong believers in natural rights theory. Meaning, the rights protected by the BoR are limits on the government from infringing on individual natural rights. Meaning, you have the right because you exist. Today, I think that is the fundamental difference between liberals and progressives. Liberals, which I am, still believe and support the Enlightenment and Natural Law Theory, described by Locke and Paine while progressives, which I am not, seem to have more in common with European conservatives 200 years ago.
What is it about Swiss gun laws you like? What tangible benefit to our society do you think there would be? Switzerland, like most of Europe and Canada, views it as a privilege like driving. But then, given a number of restrictions on speech etc, I'm guessing what we take for granted as rights are simply privileges.
No, I don't consider ideological reasons valid. Outside of shill studies that cherry pick data, there is no evidence gun laws affect crime rates. In fact, that is the plurality of criminology studies show. What there is a perfect correlation between the GINI coefficient and crime.
The real issue amounts to wealth inequality and decaying infrastructure especially in the urban centers like Baltimore, Chicago, and Newark. Since the Democrats are viewed as the "party of gun control", which is not popular, which is why the euphemism of "gun safety" is used, that loses elections. As more POC and women are getting involved in the shooting sports, and Generation Z is projected to be far more conservative than any generation in my lifetime, the prospects doesn't look good for us does it?
Just three things to explain where I'm coming from
I am personally opposed to malum prohibitum laws in general. Since CCW liberalization, violent crime either continued to drop at the same rate as before. No shootouts over parking spaces etc. That tells me that the prohibitions had no added value and shouldn't have existed.
Laws don't prevent anything. They simply define what is acceptable in a society. Heroin has been strictly controlled if not banned for over a century. More Americans still die of heroin overdose than gunshot wounds.
Which party do you trust to deal with the root of the problem I mentioned above? Same here. So why shoot that party in the foot?
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
  Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
						
							102 replies
							
								 = new reply since forum marked as read
							
						
      
      
					
						Highlight:
						NoneDon't highlight anything
						5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
						RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
 = new reply since forum marked as read
							
						
      
      
					
						Highlight:
						NoneDon't highlight anything
						5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
						RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
					
                    
					
                     = new reply since forum marked as read
							
						
      
      
					
						Highlight:
						NoneDon't highlight anything
						5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
						RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
 = new reply since forum marked as read
							
						
      
      
					
						Highlight:
						NoneDon't highlight anything
						5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
						RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
					
                    
					
        
        So the French Navy was just there for show? Funny, I could've sworn it was them who ensured victory.
        malchickiwick
        Jun 2017
        #4
      
        
        US history is rife with examples of our leaders' mistakes and even crimes
        discntnt_irny_srcsm
        Jun 2017
        #10
      
        
        This reply doesn't say anything about your thoughts on the subject...
        discntnt_irny_srcsm
        Jun 2017
        #18
      
        
        Did you also note that 'everyone' else who isn't in the NG, is also a member of the militia?
        jmg257
        Jun 2017
        #28
      
        
        Meh- a prolix, badly formatted argumentum ad populum *and* sheer Colonism:
        friendly_iconoclast
        Aug 2017
        #93
      
        
        The government "...derives its just powers from the consent of the governed..." n/t
        discntnt_irny_srcsm
        Jun 2017
        #11
      
        
        History is filled with examples of people oppressed by Leaders who abuse their power
        MedusaX
        Jun 2017
        #7
      
        
        I can't say it better than most of the posters above have already said, but will add
        Alea
        Jun 2017
        #8
      
        
        Generally, Hamilton is good on this, yet his notion of a select militia didn't come about for
        jmg257
        Jun 2017
        #9
      
        
        Not really arguing anything, Jim - pointing out it is quite easy to know what the founders meant
        jmg257
        Jul 2017
        #40
      
        
        You have the right to express your opinion using any method available before 1792
        friendly_iconoclast
        Jul 2017
        #41
      
        
        If that's true, then why aren't single shot firearms recommended over "self loading" models...
        Marengo
        Jul 2017
        #45
      
        
        "...(S)omething we do not need in modern society" Would that be the royal 'we', or...
        friendly_iconoclast
        Jul 2017
        #46
      
        
        A) GC&RKBA is not an 'amen chorus', and B) none of that bears upon what I posted
        friendly_iconoclast
        Jul 2017
        #58
      
        
        Your opinion is welcome, however it is nonsensical and there is no obligation for anyone to accept..
        Marengo
        Jul 2017
        #55
      
        
        "Revolvers are for people who display poor marksmanship or who intend to kill multiple times."
        friendly_iconoclast
        Jul 2017
        #47
      
        
        Should the government prevent the ownership of word processing software? It postdates 1793...
        Marengo
        Jul 2017
        #57
      
        
        So, you're ok with me having a 20 shot semi-auto .68 caliber rifle then?
        AtheistCrusader
        Aug 2017
        #95
      
        
        Perfect! And this is yet another point that restriction supporters will never grasp.
        pablo_marmol
        Aug 2017
        #90
      
  