The Time Has Come to Upgrade 2A

[Pepperdoodle]

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
2nd Amendment

I'm a 2nd amendment supporter....even though I don't own guns,
Each time a sad situation happens by Criminals with evil hearts, it strengthens my support of the 2nd amendment.
I fully support those who do and are responsible gun owners.
During my life not one of the many that I have known who owns guns have ever misused a gun.
I've went target shooting. No one was ever at risk of being shot unless I would have aimed the gun at them. But that's not how you do it...nor is that my heart!! That is key in situations where someone misuses a gun, it's the person's heart.
A Criminal's heart is different. It's mainly the Left who want to focus on the object, not the real problem which are Criminals and their hearts.
Responsible gun owners are not a threat to any innocent person...none at all.
The real problem isn't the guns...anymore than it is when any other object a person chooses to harm innocent people with is used.
One example...Darrell Brooks on 11/21/21 at the Waukesha Christmas parade. He drove an suv into a crowd of people and kept driving, this resulted in the deaths of 6 people and injuries to 62 others. Plus there have been other vehicles used to run over groups of people...so if it's the object, let's ban vehicles.
Once a person has the intent to misuse a firearm or any other potentially deadly object on innocent people and do, they...not the object used...is the problem.
Responsible gun owners are not a threat to any innocent person at all. You put a gun in the corner and leave it. It will hurt no innocent person sitting there unless a person with bad intent picks it up.
Also, a gun is not going to pick itself up, load itself and harm an innocent person by itself. That takes a Criminal heart.....that should be the focus.

 

[rocknanchor]

The real problem isn't the guns...anymore than it is when any other object a person chooses to harm innocent people with is used, , That takes a Criminal heart.....that should be the focus.

Here-here! All your comment has a very fine, well-meaning focus. So long as it is also focused on the upgrade.

I understand how that is not especially easy since, like you, myself being a 2A supporter but, every year we find ourselves outpaced from our own gov't. To Date: Where is today's 2A upgrade when that 'Government-friendly', 2A-wielding franchise became equipped with the drone arsenal capable of taking out not only rogue terrorist's far away, but on our own soil, where is the spirit of 2A's equivalent to that? Or the newly formed stock of machine-gun mounted, land roving robot dogs to prowl out anyone unfit to breathe to the one sitting at the controls?

For today's 2A supporter (like me), what have THEY done to uphold the spirit of 2A? There is now no line of defense for the patriot to interrupt the frequencies that operate these inventions. In effect, the 2A has become a laughingstock to the tech-savey globalist!

If only we weren't so under-equipped, AI's assistance could enhance our existence. Amusingly, 'How to remove a murderous tyrant in a F-15 at mach-1 with a hunting rifle?'

 

[rocknanchor]

‘’Criteria for Denial, Mental health issues (only if declared by a court).’’

Think that's an isolated incident to deter our 2A freedom?

Look at who is performing the work for the anti-2A crowd, ,

''As an academic who relies upon the FBI for accurate reports on crime, I am disappointed by the many errors found in their crime data, particularly on their active shooting data,” said Gary Mauser, an emeritus professor at Simon Fraser University in Canada who has extensively studied gun control and defensive gun uses.''

''The news media, federal lawmakers, and courts frequently rely on the FBI’s active shooting reports. News media articles rely on the FBI data to argue that guns are rarely used to stop these attacks. Headlines illustrate this framing: “Rare in the U.S. for an active shooter to be stopped by a bystander” (Associated Press); “Rampage in Indiana a rare instance of armed civilian ending mass shooting” (Washington Post); and “After Indiana shooting, one hero but no lasting solution to gun violence” (New York Times).''

The 'reliability' of gov't stats identified as: Defensive Gun Use or, Active Shooter Incidents

SOURCE

 

[rocknanchor]

2A - "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."

Enquiry: Since under federal law, the National Guard is designated as the "organized militia", how could the citizenry possibly recover if in fact, a powerful tyrant were to assume the reigns of power?

AI Search Assist

If a powerful tyrant were to assume control, recovery for the citizenry could involve grassroots movements, civil disobedience, and the establishment of alternative governance structures. Additionally, the support of the National Guard and other military forces, if aligned with the people, could play a crucial role in restoring democratic order.

Understanding the Role of the National Guard

The National Guard serves as the "organized militia" under federal law, which means it is a reserve military force that can be called upon by both state and federal authorities. Its primary functions include:

• Domestic Response: Assisting in emergencies like natural disasters or civil unrest.
• Federal Support: Being deployed for overseas military operations when needed.

Citizenry and Tyranny

In the event of a tyrant assuming power, the citizenry's ability to recover would depend on several factors:

1. Legal Framework

• The Constitution provides mechanisms for checks and balances, including, the ability to challenge unlawful actions through the judiciary.
• Citizens can advocate for their rights and freedoms through peaceful protests and legal actions.

2. Civil Society and Resistance

• A strong civil society can mobilize public opinion against tyranny. Grassroots movements and organizations can play a crucial role in resistance.
• Historical examples show that organized resistance can effectively challenge oppressive regimes.

3. Role of the National Guard

• While the National Guard is under state control, it can also be federalized. If a tyrant were to misuse the Guard, citizens could appeal to other military branches or federal authorities to restore order.
• The loyalty of National Guard members to their communities can be a significant factor in resisting tyranny.
• Historical connection: The National Guard evolved from the state militias and was considered a form of "select militia" at the end of the 18th century and throughout the 19th century.
• The modern interpretation of the amendment considers both the organized (National Guard) and unorganized (citizenry) components of the militia, although there is no consensus on how this applies to modern gun rights.

Conclusion

The recovery from tyranny would likely involve a combination of legal action, civil resistance, and the potential support of military forces that uphold constitutional values. The citizenry's engagement and resilience are crucial in such scenarios.

 

[Tuur]

Understanding the Role of the National Guard

Right here the argument goes off the rails. The AI apparently didn't know about state defense forces, as authorized in the US Code, Title 32, Section 109. That dates back to the 1950s. Federalization of state forces had been a sore point all the way back to the War of 1812, and state defense forces addressed that somewhat. Basically, states can fund and maintain their own defense force, which was pretty much the way of things before, but these forces could not be federalized. For the most part nothing much has been done with it, but it's on the books. When I once saw an honest to goodness posse assembled, that may or may not have been under that authority. The same when a law enforcement officer needed backup and pointed out a few of us to provide it. Doubt the latter would happen now; not so sure that the former wouldn't still happen.

Something to keep in mind that state defense forces are not and have never been ad hoc militias. Militias operated under direct authority of the state, it's members paid for their time on active duty. Mess up while called up, and it was a court-martial. A unit that really messed up was disbanded and the district divided up into other districts. Assemble an ad hoc militia could bring you up on civilian charges. Some units apparently elected their officers, but in other states they were commissioned by the state, The whole point was that citizens were expected to respond to being called up in time of trouble. In rural areas, that's still the case for all sorts of emergencies.

Something wide: States are still divided up into militia districts. They used to show these on county maps.

 

[rocknanchor]

Right here the argument goes off the rails. The AI apparently didn't know about state defense forces, as authorized in the US Code, Title 32, Section 109. That dates back to the 1950s. Federalization of state forces had been a sore point all the way back to the War of 1812, and state defense forces addressed that somewhat. Basically, states can fund and maintain their own defense force, which was pretty much the way of things before, but these forces could not be federalized. For the most part nothing much has been done with it, but it's on the books. When I once saw an honest to goodness posse assembled, that may or may not have been under that authority. The same when a law enforcement officer needed backup and pointed out a few of us to provide it. Doubt the latter would happen now; not so sure that the former wouldn't still happen.

Something to keep in mind that state defense forces are not and have never been ad hoc militias. Militias operated under direct authority of the state, it's members paid for their time on active duty. Mess up while called up, and it was a court-martial. A unit that really messed up was disbanded and the district divided up into other districts. Assemble an ad hoc militia could bring you up on civilian charges. Some units apparently elected their officers, but in other states they were commissioned by the state, The whole point was that citizens were expected to respond to being called up in time of trouble. In rural areas, that's still the case for all sorts of emergencies.

Something wide: States are still divided up into militia districts. They used to show these on county maps.

Darn interesting! Got me thinking, can or cannot the "well regulated" original and untouched constitutional loyalty engrave itself into state gov't deep enough to escape being overwhelmed, ever? Or am I fantasizing on something beyond sworn to uphold?

 

[Tuur]

Darn interesting! Got me thinking, can or cannot the "well regulated" original and untouched constitutional loyalty engrave itself into state gov't deep enough to escape being overwhelmed, ever? Or am I fantasizing on something beyond sworn to uphold?

Not sure what you mean. The War of 1812 was fought with mostly militia troops on the US side. By the Civil War, regulars had a low opinion of militia troops. Wiley Bell notes in his book Johnny Reb: The Common Soldier of the Confederacy that in Atlanta a Confederate regular did an unflattering "imitation" of a militiaman. In another instance related by Bell, a Confederate soldier wrote about his amazement that the militia fought.

Note: If the title of Bell's book give anyone heartburn, he also wrote The Life of Billy Yank: The Common Soldier of the Union.

Anyway, during Sherman's March to the Sea, I think it was Stoneman who gained permission to take make a raid on Camp Sumter (the prison at Andersonville) to free the POWs. As they advanced, word went out for basically everyone who had a gun to report to such-and-such a location at such-and-such time. Not how the militia was usually mustered out, but by then most between the ages of 13 and maybe 60 (hazy memory here) were called up to active duty. Those in charge mixed those who turned out with Confederate veterans, and they successfully routed Stoneman. Think another unit finished the job in a second battle, but that's another hazy memory.

On the other hand, when a column of Sherman's troops were nearing a community in Georgia, those who remained mounted a defense. Knowing they couldn't go toe-to-toe, they attempted an ambush. That proved to be no contest. The Union troops easily defeated them. But when they advanced and saw they had fought old men and boy, many of those hardened vets broke down and cried, and gave what aid they could.

Two different examples; two different outcomes.

 

[rocknanchor]

The National Guard serves as the "organized militia" under federal law, which means it is a reserve military force that can be called upon by both state and federal authorities.

No, federal law cannot call up state NG. It can request it and the state may oblige but only at its sole discretion.

 

[rocknanchor]

Not sure what you mean.

Could patriotism be increased today? Moreover, without taking Hillsdale's course on the Constitution, the slow drain on the definition of our founding has left the individual to a diverse assortment that constitute their own "liberty", leading them to tribalism. Seems the cohesiveness we were once known for has taken a serious hit.

 

[rocknanchor]

Admittedly, not up to speed on a lot of this, but some things take on an obvious nature. If 'Gun Free' Chicago can enjoy the highest gun-induced mortality rate, and with that kind of obstacle being overcome, how much longer till they lay down their blue-steel firearms for blue-screen drone arsenals? And the fallen innocent still fall.