WellRegulatedMilitia

WellRegulatedMilitia https://www.dailykos.com/news/WellRegulatedMilitia News Community Action Copyright 2005 - Steal what you want Mon, 27 Jan 2020 04:15:14 +0000 Mon, 27 Jan 2020 04:15:14 +0000 Daily Kos rss@dailykos.com (Daily Kos) Daily Kos rss@dailykos.com (Daily Kos) A Nation that Cages Children in Abuse, Chaos and Denial - is Broken https://www.dailykos.com/story/2019/12/14/1905620/-A-Nation-that-Cages-Children-in-Abuse-Chaos-and-Denial-is-Broken Should any American soldier be so base and infamous as to injure any prisoner…I do most earnestly enjoin you to bring him to such severe and exemplary punishment as the enormity of the crime may require…for by such conduct they bring shame, disgrace and ruin to themselves and their country – George Washington With questionable military service commitment, or indeed involvement, men like George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Mitch McConnell, Bill Barr and Donald Trump will never understand our first Commander-in-Chief’s indictment that our American Dream definition of American Exceptionalism, be ensconced in an embrace of moral and ethical treatment of prisoners, by extension, the less fortunate, and ultimately, children - for while such powerful men will die of old age dreaming of life on Mars, they willingly deny this opportunity to children alive on earth today – choosing instead to leave them behind to die of, Climate Change. Who among James Madison’s Constitution creating patriots gave any <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/12/04/william-barr-communities-without-respect-may-lose-police-protection/2606237001/" target="_blank">Attorney General</a> the right to deny police protection to cities that don’t show respect to police? What should We the People do about Rudy Giuliani still in Ukraine profaning any democracy’s core value: <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/shortcuts/2018/aug/20/truth-rudy-giuliani-legal-adviser-trump" target="_blank">truth</a>? When did we choose to ignore and be ignored by non-voting citizens, thus acquiescing our Land of the Free aspiration and Home of the Brave acclamation to the lost world of <a href="https://www.rawstory.com/2019/12/judge-orders-state-department-to-expand-search-for-records-of-rudy-giuliani-and-mike-pompeo-communications/?utm_source=push_notifications" target="_blank">reptilian mob mentality</a>? Where is there support for the government we elect to go beyond making wars and raising taxes to pay for them, to actually claim the right and embrace the responsibility to elevate the lives of all who live in America: 1863 Draft Riots, New Equality laws in 1857, FDR’s New Deal, perhaps? Does denial of our past and future prove our presidential welcome mat can only tolerate the footprints of those armed with a penis? Does the transparency of our trolling Russian tool trashing Transgender Americans come from Putin probe excrement, or does our current dick doth protest too much? Why is Seoul so close to the North Korean border, asked America’s 45th president. They have to move, insisted Donald Trump. All U. S. civilians should be evacuated from South Korea, orders Trump. <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/dec/09/trump-seoul-evacuation-north-korea-book" target="_blank">Ignoring military and civilian advisers, </a>The Don commands, Go Do It! How is it, we still follow men impaling America on wars, assassinations and domestic terrorism caused funerals? Who is protecting our children in schools when some jurisdictions in the United States are choosing to not expend resources to enforce certain gun control measures perceived as a violation of their misinterpretation of America’s Second Amendment: forgetting the importance of: <ul> <li>A well-regulated Militia – not the increasing number of unregulated Right-Wing extremists akin to those who incited tragedy and deadly violence in Charlottesville in August 2017</li> <li>being necessary to the security of a free State, - Since Congress and President Woodrow Wilson created America’s National Guard, 103 years ago, our free State has not needed the ominous portent of massively well-armed ultra-conservative vigilantes to keep Americans secure</li> <li>the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed – ignoring the all-important (,) comma before, the right - making the right to bear arms contingent upon the necessity of securing the national security of a former colony transforming into a free State</li> </ul> Our Bill of Rights, which includes the intentionally misinterpreted and maligned Second Amendment, thoroughly abused for Conservative Corporatism and NRA bottom line, became Constitutional law in December 1791 - 125 years before the establishment of our updated regulated militia: America’s National Guard. What is it that makes millions of Americans fantasize a Charlie Brown security blanket will save America from increasing violent threats from highly organized <a href="https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a30148485/the-base-right-wing-militia-smuggle-canadian-border/?fbclid=IwAR2Qc1WqCSk3ClsjvLhl-GIT1g-6NXgDQ5fhdAhb8pZAALeUxHRStvNxW1c" target="_blank" title="">white supremacists militia</a> warning us of their intentions when Trump is removed from office by Senate trial or 2020 election? When will we recognize the swelling bog of our infamous national Swamp is caused by the willing self-immersion of Congressional Republicans, unconfirmed and Acting Cabinet Heads wading with murderous Turkey and Saudi dictators? Where are our Statue of Liberty priorities, in <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/12/us/politics/trump-border-wall-investigation.html" target="_blank">Trump’s border wall</a> or preventing another Ice-cold detention <a href="https://www.propublica.org/article/inside-the-cell-where-a-sick-16-year-old-boy-died-in-border-patrol-care" target="_blank">caged child’s death</a>, whose only crime was, <a href="https://rantt.com/the-gop-gerrymanders-to-uphold-minority-rule" target="_blank">yearning to breathe free</a>? Why do we taunt a working <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZduzHjWLqIU" target="_blank">young female actor</a>, instead of using Social Media clout to decry, <a href="https://www.propublica.org/article/gages-lake-school-illinois-students-seclusion-restraint?utm_source=pardot&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=majorinvestigations" target="_blank" title="">None of the Children at the School Are Safe.</a> How can we not actively emulate the good neighbor spirit of <a href="https://www.inc.com/chris-matyszczyk/a-waffle-house-employee-realized-he-had-too-many-customers-solution-was-truly-unexpected-and-says-a-lot-about-brand.html" target="_blank" title="">Waffle House customers</a> , rather than<a href="https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/7kzzqq/mitch-mcconnell-just-told-fox-news-exactly-how-impeaching-trump-is-going-to-end" target="_blank" title=""> White House treachery</a> and elect to reward our Founders by awarding our children the Happy New Year gift of a Democratic president and U. S. Senate, who inspire us to unite in, <a href="https://www.aol.com/article/news/2019/12/13/michelle-obama-comes-to-greta-thunbergs-defense/23880227/" target="_blank">passionately pursuing a life of excellence</a>. To fix what <a href="https://www.kentucky.com/news/politics-government/article230000489.html" target="_blank">Dark Money Conservatives</a> have broken, America must listen to children and attend to the future of Millennials. rss@dailykos.com (The Reasonable Voice) abruptclimatechange BillBarrdenyingpoliceprotection BillofRights Children ClimateChange DickCheney DonaldTrump DonaldTrumpConservatives FakeSantaClausehackschildsbedroomvideomonitor georgew.bush GeorgeWashingtononTorture ICEKillsChildren JamesMadison Militia MitchMcConnell NoneoftheChildrenattheSchoolAreSafe passionatelypursuingalifeofexcellence pelotonbikeactress PeterBergensnewbookTrumpandHisGeneralsTheCostofChaos PresidentJamesMadison PrivateMilitias RudyGiulianiRussiantruth RudyGiulianiUkrainianlies SafetyofSchoolChildren SecondAmendmentSanctuaries SocialMediaWeaponofMassDestruction TransgenderAmericans TrumpsBorderWall VotingMillennials WellRegulatedMilitia yearingtobreathefree _1905620 Sat, 14 Dec 2019 14:21:11 +0000 Merchants of Death: NRA and the gun lobby know exactly what they are doing. https://www.dailykos.com/story/2019/9/13/1885232/-Merchants-of-Death-NRA-and-the-gun-lobby-know-exactly-what-they-are-doing Gimme a goddamn break already. What part of “well regulated” don’t these gun fetishists not get? The above picture from the NRA’s own publication makes it clear as day they know the AR-15 is for military purposes. Here’s a link to <a href="https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2014/2/27/the-first-colt-ar-15-rifle/" target="_blank">the original article</a>. <figure class="image-captioned align-right"><img alt="howeandharrisonandar15.jpg" src="https://images.dailykos.com/images/717212/large/howeandharrisonandar15.jpg?1568378136" title="howeandharrisonandar15.jpg"> <figcaption>Roff showing the boys his new toy.</figcaption> </figure> This is not ambiguous, or even in question. <blockquote> News and publicity releases on a .22 center-fire rifle offered for military purposes, the Armalite AR-15, have raised the question as to whether it should replace the present standard M14 rifle of 7.62 mm NATO caliber. </blockquote> The article goes on to note how light the new rifle is. Something we have become all too familiar with. One of the selling points? MANY MORE ROUNDS OF AMMUNITION CAN BE CARRIED with this weapon of war. Those aren’t my words. That’s the NRA talking. <blockquote> The primary advantage possible with a small bore is lightness of rifle and ammunition, and this is important. A small bore rifle with a given number of rounds of ammunition can weigh materially less than in cal. .30 or 7.62 mm NATO, or for the same weight many more rounds of ammunition can be carried. </blockquote> But that’s not all. The added advantage of this new killing machine? Less recoil. BETTER SHOOTING AND MORE HITS UNDER COMBAT CONDITIONS. Those aren’t my words. That’s the NRA talking. You gotta admit, given the carnage this weapon of war has inflicted on civilians, we know that is an accurate assessment. <blockquote> Another advantage of the small bore rifle is reduced recoil (though this is less important than formerly, since present gas-operated breech mechanisms make the perceptible recoil much softer than from a hand-operated rifle). Light recoil facilitates training by lessening the shooter's fear of recoil. It has been hoped, and sometimes stated, that this will be reflected in better shooting and more hits under combat conditions. </blockquote> The AR-15, although it is “only” a .22 calibre small bore rifle, actually offers significantly more punch than a .22 calibre pistol. In an AR-15, the bullets leave the barrel at 3625 feet per second. At that velocity, you can cover a mile in less than 2 seconds. <blockquote> The cartridge used in this rifle is the .224 Winchester E2. It fires a 53-gr. flat-base bullet at a stated muzzle velocity of 3300 f.p.s. It differs slightly from the Armalite AR-15 rifle cartridge, which was called at first the .222 Remington Special and now the .223 Remington. The .223 fires a 55-gr. boattail bullet at a stated muzzle velocity of 3265 f .p.s. </blockquote> That’s fast. But wait there’s more! Let’s talk about how many of these bullets you can fire. <blockquote> The unrestricted high cyclic rate of about 750 shots per minute brings the recoil impulses in such fast succession that, despite the straight stock, it was found comparatively difficult to hold the rifle down on aim in full-automatic fire. Facility in full-automatic fire can come only with practice. </blockquote> Basically, you have a weapon capable of shooting more than 10 bullets per second at a muzzle velocity that covers a mile in less than 2 seconds. At that rate, a standard 20 round box magazine would be emptied about the time the first bullet hit its target. Yeah, real hunting material. Of course, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, so how did the American armed forces respond to this new weapon of war? <blockquote> The U.S. Air Force recommended after its 1960 test that the AR-15 rifle be adopted as the standard shoulder weapon in the Air Force. By far the largest possible user of the rifle is the U.S. Army. The Army initiated and supported the experiments leading to the AR-15 rifle and its cartridge, and on their completion tested them very extensively. The AR-15 thus has received much consideration. </blockquote> At the time this article was written the decision to adopt this as standard issue by the Army was still being evaluated. As the article noted in conclusion: <blockquote> The United States small arms industry is cooperating fully in this effort. </blockquote> So all the goddamned gun fetishists who want to cry about “muh rights” and cling to their toys can go pound sand as far as I’m concerned. This is a weapon of war. The manufacturer’s know it. The military knows it. The NRA knows it. Everyone knows it. Pretending otherwise is Mything The Point. rss@dailykos.com (Victor Klemperer Respawned) AR15 MerchantsofDeath MythingThePoint NRA WellRegulatedMilitia _1885232 Fri, 13 Sep 2019 13:04:24 +0000 America's Other Drug Problem: Why Open Carry Is Even Worse Than You Think. https://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/1/9/1467780/-America-s-Other-Drug-Problem-Why-Open-Carry-Is-Even-Worse-Than-You-Think DISCLAIMER AND CLARIFICATION: I am not an anti-gun nut. I don’t hate firearms and I am not afraid of them. Projectile weapons, whether toy or functional, have been part of my life since shortly after I learned to walk. The details on my DD Form 214 note that of the two years, eleven months and two days of my period of active service in the Regular Army, Viet-Nam service consumed 362 days. I have trained and qualified on the M1, M14 and M16. I also carried other pieces at various times during that era. TL;DR Introductory Narrative: One evening in Nha-Trang, I was given light duty because of a medical issue (DON’T purchase and eat a mango from friendly local vendor without extensive precautions) and instead of Sergeant of the Guard duty, I was assigned to prisoner escort duty. My job was to convey the subject to a point where he was to be collected the following morning, and make sure he was still there for collection, employing whatever means necessary. To make the job easier, I was issued the iconic handgun, the M1911, with web belt, the other stuff that designated me as “under arms”, and a “don’t mess with me” brassard. Inspecting the piece, with which I was already entirely familiar, I found a full clip, no round in the chamber, and all mechanisms in good estate. All was right with the world, at least in my tiny corner of it. Until, in the wee hours of the morning, I began to think about the whole experience. I was bothered. Strapping on that comfortingly heavy artifact had wrought a change in me that I had not considered before. I was a different person. No longer the scrawny, kinda weird kid who was an electronics wiz, I was now nine feet tall, very muscular, entirely covered with hair and most definitely someone who had made grade E5 eleven months in. I had the instrumentality to enforce my least whim, and something deep within noticed, approved, and gave indication that it would like more of the same. The person I had become was one I did not like at all. Necessary in the circumstance, but not for everyday use. I had earlier hints of this, but when you are busy getting your RF squad in position during one of those frequent terrorist incidents, the M16 is only a part of what is happening to you. THE GIST: Unlike myself, many people like the person they become when carrying a weapon, especially when nobody else, except for nearby members of their tribe, is visibly armed. Unfortunately, like many other psychoactive drugs, carrying can fundamentally change your decision making process. You might find yourself putting rounds into a vehicle driven by a suspected shoplifter in the Walmart car park, for a recent example. And it can definitely be habit-forming. WELL REGULATED: Considering the phrase “well regulated militia”, I recall that the most heavily gun-controlled environments I have ever experienced were military installations, especially those in a combat zone. Folks who didn’t have a duty reason to be under arms, but just liked to swagger around with weapons handy, would have been swiftly taken into custody and sent to the stockade for further processing, assuming that they didn’t get into a fire fight when the CPs came to arrest them. THE UPSHOT: SKEDADDLE!* I have good reason to remove myself and my family immediately from any area where people are wandering around heavily armed but ignorant of the basics of trigger discipline. Especially when their judgment may be clouded by a drug that cannot be detected in a Field Sobriety Test. * Or, in Texas, absquatulate. rss@dailykos.com (Shebardigan) bozoharam OpenCarry WellRegulatedMilitia YallQaeda _1467780 Sat, 09 Jan 2016 18:33:16 +0000 The Oregon (non-) Militia, The Second Amendment, and the Constitution. https://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/1/25/1465905/-The-Oregon-non-Militia-The-Second-Amendment-and-the-Constitution As this is written a heavily armed group of criminal “patriots” has taken over a Federal Wildlife Refuge in a very rural part of Oregon. They assert that they are good Americans. The fact that they hate the Federal Government and are, they think, using their 1st and 2nd Amendment rights to protest many of its “unjust” and “Illegal” policies and decisions is not at all strange to them. They also claim to be “Constitutional” because they believe that (their interpretation of) the <a href="http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/page/tenth-amendment" target="_blank">Tenth Amendment</a> and of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 trumps <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_lands" target="_blank" title="">Article Four</a>, Section 3, clause 2 of the Constitution, and that therefore the federal ownership of so much land in the west is illegal. No court has ever supported that claim. Meanwhile in Washington D.C. the NRA seems to have a stranglehold on the US Congress, as well as on many state governments. This is lamented by many, from President Obama to Gabby Giffords to every person who can see beyond the end of the barrel. The majority of Americans consistently (when asked neutrally worded polling questions) favor <a href="http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/most-americans-agree-with-obama-that-more-gun-buyers-should-get-background-checks/" target="_blank">background checks</a> for all gun buyers. In early January 2016 President Obama took the step of trying to close loopholes in gun safety laws. Predictably, the Right, led by many of their Republican Presidential candidates, reacted as if he’d tossed a few young children into a microwave oven after murdering their parents with a dull axe. To some of these, any form of gun control is a start down “<a href="http://swampland.time.com/2013/04/11/the-national-rifle-associations-slippery-slope-strategy/" target="_blank">the slippery slope</a>” to outlawing all guns or to government confiscation of all civilian firearms, which some Rightists believe are every liberal’s dream. <figure class="image-captioned width-md align-right"><img alt="AC3_tyranny_dlc.jpg" src="http://images.dailykos.com/images/200356/large/AC3_tyranny_dlc.jpg?1453741299" title="AC3_tyranny_dlc.jpg"> <figcaption>The game “Assassin’s Creed III” portrays the type of tyranny that staunch NRA types believe that they are here to stop.</figcaption> </figure> Stating an argument often made, “The Second Amendment is our last defense against tyranny,” writes Joe Otto of the Conservative Daily. "The right to keep and bear arms is a doomsday provision..." He and his many sharers of this view imagine that they and other patriotic gun owners can, should the occasion demand it, beat down a tyrannical American government the way the original Minutemen kicked butt on the British lobsterbacks. Is what is happening now in the US the way our Founding Fathers wanted things to be regarding the Second Amendment? Put a bit less formally, did the Founding Fathers really intend that any group of citizens could grab some very dangerous firearms, call themselves a Militia, and go about tyrannizing a small rural community to which they had come, uninvited, to “help”? Let’s take a look. <blockquote> The Second Amendment <a name="two"></a>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. </blockquote> Consider the phrase “A well regulated Militia.” The “well regulated” aspect of this is often left out of Rightist claims regarding this amendment. “Regulated” means just that. Regulated. <figure class="image-captioned width-sm align-right"><img alt="165px-Seal_of_the_United_States_National_Guard.svg.png" src="http://images.dailykos.com/images/199057/large/165px-Seal_of_the_United_States_National_Guard.svg.png?1453483151" title="165px-Seal_of_the_United_States_National_Guard.svg.png"> <figcaption>Even the National Guard symbol shows their Minuteman roots. They are the actual “well regulated Militia.”</figcaption> </figure> Is every citizen who owns a firearm automatically a “Militia member”? Not if it’s a “well regulated” militia. NRA types often argue that they, the modern civilian gun owners, are the equivalent of the Minutemen from Revolutionary times. This is an aspect of the “defense against tyranny” assertion shared by Joe Otto. News flash. The “Minutemen” from the Revolutionary War period were the equivalent of today’s National Guard. They signed up with the local government, drilled and trained (to a greater or lesser extent, just like different National Guard units do today), and were called forth by elected officials or by officers appointed by elected officials. There is some evidence that even at Lexington and Concord many of the Minutemen didn’t own their own guns, but grabbed them out of the community storeroom (armory) when called to action. (This would add an interesting twist to the Second Amendment, if proved. Perhaps more on this later.) Another Amendment in The Bill of Rights, the Seventh, makes the “Minutemen as National Guard” aspect even more clear. <blockquote> The Seventh Amendment begins: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger. </blockquote> Twice, then, in the Bill of Rights, the Founding Fathers wrote that a Well Regulated Militia was necessary. No doubt. The Militia (National Guard) has proven its worth many times in the centuries since the Constitution became the law of the land. This Militia, as they defined and described it, truly is the modern National Guard. (And very unlike the thieving, vandalizing, sex-toy-ridden yokels in Oregon.) Following the Militia phrase that begins the Second Amendment comes, “being necessary to the security of a free State”. At the time the Constitution was written, the US was a small country, surrounded by unhappy English to the north in Canada, in the Ohio Valley, and at sea, by the very unpredictable French about to get the Louisiana Territory, and by the Spanish in a disputed Florida and in Mexico, plus the Indian Nations. Many of the latter, <figure class="image-captioned align-right"><img alt="United_States_1789-08-1790.png" src="http://images.dailykos.com/images/199075/large/United_States_1789-08-1790.png?1453484623" title="United_States_1789-08-1790.png"> <figcaption>This was “US”, just before France bought the Territory of Louisiana. We weren’t even dreaming of Alaska or Hawaii. Even the Pacific Ocean as a border sounded far-fetched, at least until Jefferson sent Lewis and Clarke west in 1804.</figcaption> </figure> especially, were a threat to settlers on the frontier. We now see clearly that the American Indians were defending themselves and their own homelands. They were cheated, lied to, murdered, and massacred as often as they were treated honestly and honorably. Still, they were often hostile and dangerous to the European Americans, even while in many cases escaping slaves found then to be welcoming. Yes, at the time of our founding things were rough. America’s security as a nation was precarious, as were the lives of many individuals, families, and communities, especially on the western reaches. Firearms being forbidden to any (non-felonious) person, family, or community in such circumstances would have been inhuman. The Second Amendment quite rightly made sure that persons and communities could defend themselves. <h4>Tyranny, Anyone?</h4> All right. A well regulated Militia is fine, and so is self defense. There remains a key question: Was the Second Amendment ever meant to provide the populace with a means to change the government if it became tyrannical? Was the populace supposedly able to change the government by force if necessary, and the Second Amendment a key part of this? Most liberals and progressives lean to “No,” and almost all conservatives and right-wing types say, “Yes.” The thing is, whatever the answer really is, today whichever side is correct (shockingly to some) is totally irrelevant. If the Joint Chiefs and the Pentagon ever decided to take over the country, and (big if) if the soldiers, sailors, and airmen and women followed their orders to do so, does anyone, even in the NRA, think the civilians could stop them? <figure class="image-captioned width-md align-right"><img alt="TankPic.jpg" src="http://images.dailykos.com/images/200358/large/TankPic.jpg?1453741946" title="TankPic.jpg"> <figcaption> If this were to happen, “Good luck, civilian gun owners!”</figcaption> </figure> Does anyone believe that even with the well-advertised “300 million guns” in the hands of civilian Americans now, that any civilian or group of such (even stalwart hardies like those playing macho with each other up in Oregon) could stop them? Does the NRA leadership really machine guns, artillery, rockets, jets, drones, and helicopter gunships of the US military? Who is kidding whom? Truly, the only defense the US populace has from its military and police forces is the fact that each member of each of these has sworn an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States of America. These members of the military are good citizens. They would realize the illegality of any such military coup. They would not comply with orders to round up citizens or to do anything similar. The US military shooting or bombing unarmed American civilians? Unthinkable. But impossible though it is, let’s say a right-wing paranoid’s fears did come true. If so, no amount of civilian firearms could do a thing about it. We civilians don’t have military grade weaponry to the tune of drones, helicopters, missiles, rockets, jets, and tanks. Even in Washington’s time, nobody took the Second Amendment to mean citizens could have a battery of cannon in their back yard, or a twelve pounder in their living room aimed at the front door. Truly, the military terribly outguns the civilians. In other words, our only chance to successfully rebel against and to change a “tyrannical” government is if the military does not oppose us, or, even more hopefully, would join in with us. <figure class="image-captioned align-right"><img alt="1555-1561, Moscow, U.S.S.R. --- A soldier loyal to the coup leaders stands atop his tank in Red Square. --- Image by © Peter Turnley/CORBIS" src="http://images.dailykos.com/images/199067/large/article-2026340-0D718A4C00000578-421_468x315.jpg?1453484275" title="1555-1561, Moscow, U.S.S.R. --- A soldier loyal to the coup leaders stands atop his tank in Red Square. --- Image by © Peter Turnley/CORBIS"> <figcaption>Yes,these tanks could have opened fire in Moscow in 1991. Today, if the right wing fears are true, and the US government is headed to tyranny, can the NRA membership stop our tanks? No. Only the soldier citizens inside could.</figcaption> </figure> A modern example of this happened in 1991 in Russia with hard-drinking (even by Russian standards—could he have matched Churchill?) President Boris Yeltsin. The military attempted a coup. The generals sent in the tanks. Apparently sober for a change, all Yeltsin could do was ask, “Are you here to kill Yeltsin?” The tank commander said no, that he’d been told he was being sent in to preserve order. He wasn’t going to fire on civilians or the lawful president of the country. Yeltsin said that was good, and gave a speech. This was the key moment in stopping the attempted coup. However, if the tank crew had turned their guns on Yeltsin and the crowd, there was nothing that Yeltsin and civilians in the crowd could have done except run or die. Same here, folks. <h4>Changes</h4> Even in Washington’s time the civilians defeating his army was very unlikely. His men had become better trained (thank you, very strict and proper Baron Von Steuben) and due to Washington’s artillery (thank you, stubborn and steady Henry Knox). <figure class="image-captioned width-sm align-right"><img alt="STUEBEN_exb2_1.jpg" src="http://images.dailykos.com/images/200215/large/STUEBEN_exb2_1.jpg?1453687238" title="STUEBEN_exb2_1.jpg"> <figcaption>Baron Von Steuben, the Prussian aristocrat who trained Washington’s army. Among foreign volunteers, only LaFayette could rate as being as important a contributor to winning the Revolutionary War.</figcaption> </figure> Except over the ensuing centuries something strange has occurred, especially since World War I. Since the 1920’s with the Thompson Submachine Gun (the “Tommy Gun” favored by Al Capone types) each of us civilians has access to the equivalent of Washington’s artillery, and each one of us can carry it around, or at least certainly keep it at home. Forget the automatics for now. Even modern semi-automatic weapons can kill as many persons in a few minutes as an artillery battery could at the end of the 1700’s. If an artillery battery could kill 40 of the enemy every minute it was doing well. For one thing, after the first shot or two there was so much smoke that aiming became problematic at best. Today (up to now mostly Christian, with a few Moslem) madmen and terrorists in the US can kill this many, or more, in a minute with firearms, most of which are “legally purchased.” Now, truly, we have the equivalent of the killing power of Washington’s artillery in our hands and in our homes. And we don’t need a team of oxen to haul it around. Today’s NRA with their weapons could have wiped out any army of Washington’s era. This doesn’t just show why Washington and the other Founding Fathers didn’t mean for the 2nd Amendment to include civilians possessing mortars or cannon. It also shows how far we’ve come technologically with our weaponry. Still, to repeat, even able to whip Washington’s army with today’s civilian weaponry, modern civilians have no chance against today’s military. The problem is that now many individuals, ones who are not part of the police, military, <figure class="image-captioned align-right"><img alt="maxresdefault.jpg" src="http://images.dailykos.com/images/199088/large/maxresdefault.jpg?1453486662" title="maxresdefault.jpg"> <figcaption>Yes, in Washington’s and Knox’s era it took teams of oxen to haul around artillery with the killing power of weapons we each can hold in one hand now.</figcaption> </figure> or “well regulated Militia,” do possess weapons able to kill as many as Washington’s cannon could. Was this what our Founding Fathers intended? That any person, let alone a crazy, enraged, or zealous (so-called) patriot or terrorist could carry (the equivalent of) a cannon into a classroom, college, or theater? No. Absolutely not. They would be horrified at the thought. This is not to say Firearms are bad. It is not to say that no civilians should have them these days. At the very least, law-abiding citizens should and do have the right to protect themselves, their families, and their homes, plus to target shoot and to hunt. Between the Left and Right a common ground needs to be found. This needs to be between those who hold the Second Amendment only pertains to “well regulated” and “Militia,” and the other side that stays focused on “not be abridged.” Certainly there is such an honorable position in the middle, a just meeting place. It seems doubtful that any rational person truly believes that “everyone has the right to carry the equivalent of Washington’s artillery around.” (Remember, a rational person...) <figure class="image-captioned width-md align-right"><img alt="OpenCarry.jpg" src="http://images.dailykos.com/images/200238/large/OpenCarry.jpg?1453692995" title="OpenCarry.jpg"> <figcaption>With one clip, our blue-jeaned male could “take out” as many as one of Henry Knox’s biggest cannon shots. Lovely to have that in a store, what?</figcaption> </figure> (And, in a side note, is all tyranny governmental? In my experience, many who open carry a powerful weapon do so with a chip on their shoulder. They’re trying to prove a point, and are daring someone to say something about what they believe is their “right.” Aren’t many gun zealots carrying out a kind of bullying, a type of tyranny, themselves? How many people in Burns, Oregon feel okay to go up to the heavily armed “Militia” and say, “We really want you guys to leave.” In some cities aren’t firearms used by criminals to terrorize—“tyrannize” over—whole neighborhoods? If we all are really against tyranny...) In fact, virtually nobody (despite the scare stories, not even Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton) is asking anybody (besides felons, those suffering from potentially dangerous mental health conditions, and suspected terrorists) to give up the right to protect their families or home with firearms. What most on the left and in the center want is to halt the ease with which felons, maniacs, mentally ill persons, and terrorists can get and use weapons with the killing power of 18th century artillery. Stopping these persons from having firearms, especially ones with as much killing power as Washington’s cannon had, just makes sense. And this certainly falls into the range of what our Founding Fathers intended. <h4>A COMPARISON</h4> To take up an comparison mentioned by <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/1/9/1177484/-You-NEED-to-watch-this-clip-of-Jon-Stewart-talk-about-gun-control" target="_blank">Jon Stuart</a> on The Daily Show, let’s look at Drunk Driving. Firearms. Driving. Killing with guns, while angry, insane, psychopathic, ideologically nuts, drunk, criminally engaged,... Killing while driving drunk. Nobody ever considered forbidding cars to all people due to some persons driving drunk. However, largely spurred by MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving), for decades the penalties for “DUI” (Driving Under the Influence) or “DWI” (Driving While Intoxicated) have increased. The police have been trained to be more aware of the dangers of drunk driving and are more watchful (and less forgiving when a tipsy person is caught "close to home," or whatever). Various campaigns have <figure class="image-captioned align-right"><img alt="images-1.jpg" src="http://images.dailykos.com/images/199093/large/images-1.jpg?1453487235" title="images-1.jpg"> <figcaption>How about a campaign against gun violence and illegal ownership like what MADD did against drunk driving?</figcaption> </figure> successfully advocated for each group out on the town to have a “designated driver.” Bartenders who continue to serve obviously sloshed persons are subject to charges themselves. Drunken driving went from “fun” to “stupid,” from “no big deal” to “bad and expensive crime.” What has been the result? Drunken driving deaths are down two thirds. Let's move the same way with guns. We can't outlaw people. Outlawing firearms is unconstitutional. Regulating them isn’t. Let’s do as the Second Amendment says. Maintain a "well regulated Militia", and as part of the continuum between “well regulated” and “not be abridged,” let’s prevent felons, suspected terrorists, and the mentally disturbed from legal ownership of firearms. Meanwhile, continue to allow law-abiding citizens to hunt, to target shoot, and to protect themselves, their families, and their homes. Similar to things with drunk driving, increase the penalties for crimes committed with guns, and for illegal ownership. Make sure all gun owners have passed gun safety classes. Childproof all weapons in a family home. Have background checks for all firearms owners. Plus, penalize the person who illegally sold a weapon with just as big a sentence as the criminal gets that he sold it to. Let's move the death rate from firearms down. Let’s make it harder for the crazies, the (Christian or Moslem) religious maniacs, and criminals to have weapons, and penalize them heavily if they do get them and/ or use them. <figure class="image-captioned width-sm align-right"><img alt="images-2.jpg" src="http://images.dailykos.com/images/199100/large/images-2.jpg?1453487855" title="images-2.jpg"> <figcaption> “We, the People.” This is our foundation, our true security.</figcaption> </figure> Do laws like this, fully implemented and consistent, really mean that “like the Nazis,” we’re on a “slippery slope” that will end up with the government “coming for our guns”? No. The Second Amendment stops that from happening. Plus, again, unlikely as it is, if the military were to come to take our weapons, what would the citizen do with a tank outside with its cannon aimed at his living room? (What would or could the self-proclaimed patriotic heroes at the wildlife refuge in Oregon do if the military really came after them?) Our only hope in this case is that “We, the people,” are the Military, too. “We the people” are the way out of this pickle. Intelligent, well-educated and informed, good citizens who “do the right thing”—both civilians and persons serving in the military. And these persons have the right to protect their homes and selves from criminals and intruders, to target shoot, and to go hunting. What we need to agree on is that they don’t have is the right to carry the equivalent of Washington’s artillery into a rural area and try to take over, or to carry this much firepower into the local Burger King, church, store, or onto a campus. rss@dailykos.com (msawpro) Artillery baronvonsteuben BorisYeltsin Cannon GeorgeWashington HenryKnox MADD Militia NationalGuard notbeabridged NRA Oregon RighttoBearArms SecondAmendment Tyranny WellRegulatedMilitia WeThePeople _1465905 Mon, 25 Jan 2016 17:18:49 +0000 Carson should learn about militias - Nazi ones like the SA https://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/10/9/1430316/-Carson-should-learn-about-militias-Nazi-ones-like-the-SA Soooo... Nazis. I try to avoid being trolled into Nazi comparisons, which are typically as insightful as saying 'people are like slugs because they breathe oxygen.' But Carson has a fetish with Nazis like no other presidential candidate. He just made a counter-factual speculation so outlandish that I cannot resist addressing it. Thursday on CNN, Carson said, “<a href="http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/ben-carson-should-probably-stop-talking-about-hitler">the likelihood of Hitler being able to accomplish his goals would have been greatly diminished if the people had been armed.</a>” He's reading from the NRA's litany. <a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/01/11/stop_talking_about_hitler/">In his 1994 book, NRA head Wayne LaPierre dwelt on the Hitler meme at length, writing: “In Germany, Jewish extermination began with the Nazi Weapon Law of 1938, signed by Adolf Hitler.”</a> That law did the opposite: it repealed the Weimar-era gun control laws. Carson ignores the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmabteilung">Sturmabteilung</a> (SA) or Stormtroopers - the Nazi party militia. The essential component to Nazis' rise to power was their militia. By 1921 it has acquired the name and had a key role as part of the party. By 1932 it had over 200,000 members. Imagine <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_Keepers">Oath Keepers</a> 10x its current size, much more strongly organized and with tanks, as an official part of the GOP and violently seeking its goals. Other German parties at the time had similar, but smaller, militias, and the German Army was by treaty limited to 100,000 people. More civilian guns owned by Jews (or anyone else) were not going to make a difference unless Jews had their own militia, stronger than the SA. In addition, the Weimar gun control laws were mandated by America and its allies, who wrote them into the <a href="http://www.vox.com/2015/10/9/9486957/ben-carson-gun-control-hitler">Treaty of Versailles to severely limited private firearm ownership in Germany as part of an effort to reduce Germany's ability to re-arm itself.</a> The militias were a way around those limits. Competing militias fighting in the streets with tanks is, thankfully, very few Americans' idea of democracy. There are racist parties around the world, including our own GOP. But mercifully few have armed militias. Let's keep it that way. People WERE armed - and organized. THAT's what killed democracy in Germany. rss@dailykos.com (Tom Lum Forest) Ben Carson BenCarson brownshirts Elections Gun Control GunControl History Insurrection Oligarchs PrivateMilitias Sturmabteilung WellRegulatedMilitia _1430316 Sat, 10 Oct 2015 05:06:52 +0000 RKBA: what right? https://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/8/27/1233920/-RKBA-what-right <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/08/26/1233614/-RKBA-A-Civil-Right">Yesterday</a> we talked about how the right to keep and bear arms is a civil right. Let's talk about individual rights vs the group right view. <blockquote><img src="http://images.dailykos.com/i/user/302716/glogo_D_RKBA_Spin_Avatar.gif" alt="" title="" align="right" /> Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a DKos group of second amendment supporters who have progressive and liberal values. We don't think that being a liberal means one has to be anti-gun. Some of us are extreme in our second amendment views (no licensing, no restrictions on small arms) and some of us are more moderate (licensing, restrictions on small arms.) Moderate or extreme or somewhere in between, we hold one common belief: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fy8a6fP5PO4">more gun control equals lost elections</a>.  We don't want a repeat of 1994. We are an inclusive group: if you see the Second Amendment as safeguarding our right to keep and bear arms individually, then come join us in our conversation. If you are against the right to keep and bear arms, come join our conversation. We look forward to seeing you, as long as you engage in a civil discussion.  </blockquote> rss@dailykos.com (KVoimakas) 2ndAmendment Civil Rights CivilRights Firearms Guns Militia Recommended RKBA Second Amendment WellRegulatedMilitia _1233920 Tue, 27 Aug 2013 13:02:05 +0000 Gun Control Poll: Which arms would you ban? https://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/1/31/1183808/-Gun-Control-Poll-Which-arms-would-you-ban <a href="http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?similar_photo_id=63912370#id=74862046&src=71b747a9adf0de472786e65389b06815-1-0"><img src="http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/5765/banarms.jpg" title="From Shutterstock" align="left" /></a> Backed by a national wave of revulsion from the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting">Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting</a>, President <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/17/us/politics/obama-to-ask-congress-to-toughen-gun-laws.html">Obama asked</a> Congress to ban assault rifles and high-capacity ammunition magazines, <a href="http://www.ct.gov/despp/cwp/view.asp?Q=517284&A=4226">such as</a> <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/18/us/connecticut-lanza-guns/index.html">was used</a> in the massacre. While some have <a href="http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/thousands_march_for_gun_control_XYRXcNsoSWKXayyCxH3DpO">marched in favor</a> of the assault weapons ban, others have marched -- toting their guns -- <a href="http://www.idahostatesman.com/2013/01/26/2427807/second-amendment-supporters-rally.html">against it</a>, viewing the ban as an attack on their Second Amendment right. But that right to keep and bear arms has always had limits. To begin with, the <a href="http://theparagraph.com/the-bill-of-rights/">Second Amendment</a> itself limits that right to the purpose of  joining a "well regulated Militia." That limit had been <a href="http://truth-out.org/news/item/14138-the-second-amendments-history">well-settled law</a> until 2008, when the Supreme Court in a <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html">5-4 ruling</a> declared further Constitutional rights, such as self-defense by handgun. But even that <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD.html">new reading</a> upheld limits, such as "prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons." And even an unstable gun rights zealot that sees himself taking up arms against a tyrannical U.S. government <a href="http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/b/bowling-for-columbine-script-transcript.html">can admit</a> to a Second Amendment limit. We find a case of that in the movie "<a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0310793/quotes">Bowling for Columbine</a>," where James Nichols, brother of Terry, the convicted <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing">Oklahoma City terror bombing</a> conspirator, showed filmmaker Michael Moore off-camera how crazy he was by putting his under-the-pillow .44 Magnum to his own head. <blockquote>Moore: Mm, put the hammer back. Nichols: No one has the right to tell me I can't have it. That is protected on our constitution. Moore: Where does it say a handgun is protected? Nichols: No, gun. We should... Moore: [interupting] It doesn't say gun. It says "arms". Nichols: Arms. What is "arms"? Moore: Could be a nuclear weapon. Nichols: It's not these - That's right. It could be a nuclear weapon! Moore: Do you think you should have the right to have weapons-grade plutonium here in the farm field? Nichols: We should be able to have anything... Moore: [interupting] Should you have weapons? Should you have weapons-grade plutonium? Nichols: I don't want it. Moore: But, should you have the right to have it if you did want it? Nichols: [thinking about it] That should be restricted. Moore: Ah! Ah, so you do beleive in some restrictions? Nichols: Well, there's wackos out there.</blockquote> Where would you set the limit of what arms you – and your next-door neighbor – could legally keep at home? Please take the poll below. (From <a href="http://theparagraph.com/2013/01/gun-control-poll-which-arms-would-you-ban/">The Paragraph</a>.) <a href="http://theparagraph.com/2013/01/gun-control-poll-which-arms-would-you-ban/#sources">[Sources & Notes]</a>  * * * By <a href="http://theparagraph.com/about#Copyright">Quinn Hungeski</a>, <a href="http://theparagraph.com/">TheParagraph.com</a>, <a defang_rel="license" href="http://theparagraph.com/about#Copyright">Copyright</a> <a defang_rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/">(CC BY-ND)</a> 2012 rss@dailykos.com (hungeski) 2ndAmendment AssaultRifle assaultweapon BowlingforColumbine Gun Control GunControl HandGun JamesNichols Law MichaelMoore NuclearWeapons Obama OklahomaCityBombing SandyHookElementarySchoolshooting Second Amendment Supreme Court SupremeCourt Terrorism TerryNichols WellRegulatedMilitia _1183808 Fri, 01 Feb 2013 05:06:18 +0000 The Birth of the Well Regulated Militia https://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/1/19/1180328/-The-Birth-of-the-Well-Regulated-Militia That the Governors, CiC of, of the States can call on in times of need and if so security of the State! rss@dailykos.com (jimstaro) CommanderInChief Culture FederalCiC Governors Guns Laws NationalGuard President RightsofSociety SocietyRegulations StateCiC StateControlledMilitia WellRegulatedMilitia _1180328 Sat, 19 Jan 2013 13:22:14 +0000 The Second Amendment Can CREATE Gun Control https://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/22/1173214/-The-Second-Amendment-Can-CREATE-Gun-Control The problem with gun control activists is that they are beating their heads against the wrong part of the Second Amendment.   The Supreme Court in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller#Decision">"DC Vs Heller"</a> has ruled that the need for a militia is exactly why individual gun rights are preserved.   By deciding on the individual right to own a gun, the Supreme Court has affirmed the standard that the US is intended to have a militia and it is protected by the Second Amendment.  Their ruling tells us that, essentially, "the militia" and "the people" are legally one and the same. . . and guns are a common right they share.  This is all as it should be legally, and anyone who pretends otherwise is trying to create a "legal fiction" out of the intents of the Second Amendment. In my view, the gun regulation community should be attacking an existing and very old legal fiction rather than trying to create another new one.  That fiction, in my view, is the current legal definition of "Militia" in the US militia code.    If the militia is such a critical thing, protected by an absolute right to the tools of life and death, then it would probably be important to know how it is legally defined wouldn't it?  It would be important to know if that definition was corrupted somewhere along the lines wouldn't it?  Would you want an unconstitutional, rogue, branch of the military running around on American soil?  How about a barely legal rogue branch that is wreaking havoc on society?  Would you want it changed? The militia the Second Amendment spoke of is very easily found in the original <a href="http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm">Uniform Militia Act of 1792</a> and other militia codes of the day.  It was ALL able bodied males from 18-45.  The "well regulated militia" was the entire population of gun holders.  This was not an option.  Even those who didn't want to own guns were forced to buy one for their militia duty.  There was one and only one category of armed citizens, "well regulated militia."   So, lets use the Supreme Courts own standards to look at the Second Amendment backwards.  Individual gun rights are protected because "The individual" and "the militia" serve the same protected purpose in the eyes of the Court.   So why, then, is "the individual" not "well regulated" today as he was then?  The question is not:  "does the citizen have no rights to a gun because he's not militia."  The legal question should be: "does the citizen have the right NOT to be in a regulated militia while holding militia gun rights?" rss@dailykos.com (Plisko) 2ndAmendment Bill of Rights BillofRights Constitution DCvHeller Gun Control Gun Violence GunControl GunViolence MilitiaDuty RASA Sandy Hook SandyHook Second Amendment WellRegulatedMilitia _1173214 Sat, 22 Dec 2012 21:04:12 +0000