Who is the militia?

Bows and arrows are most certainly just as protected as a gun is by the 2nd Amendment. That's why it says "arms" and not just "guns". An "arm" in the context of the 2nd Amendment is any type of weapon in common use that the common man is able to carry and bring to a fight. This includes, swords, knives, bows and arrows, guns.

 

One should note however that because they can use such in no manner implies that they are limited to such. Many Militia companies brought small cannons with them as late as the Civil War which, by the way, was, in early going, fought by militia units on both sides.

 

most gun banners are immune to arguments concerning falling crime rates.. why? because avid gun banners aren't motivated by crime rates and their gun banning goals have nothing to do with reducing violent crime

 

which is why the NYS ban on nunchucks was struck down after Heller and why a state attempt to ban "switchblade" knives in Oregon was struck down by the state supreme court using the oregon Second amendment provision (which is why some really good automatic knife makers are in Oregon)

 

§246. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

 

Not true

• 42,654 people die from gun violence
• 16,651 are murdered
• 76,725 people survive gunshot injuries
• 34,566 are intentionally shot by someone else and survive
• 24,569 die from gun suicide
• 3,554 survive an attempted gun suicide
• 503 killed unintentionally

Other statistics about gun violence include:

• In 2021, gun deaths reached their highest level in at least 40 years, with 48,830 deaths that year alone.
• In 2021, there were 6.7 gun murders per 100,000 people, below the 7.2 recorded in 1974.
• In 2021, there were 7.5 gun suicides per 100,000 people, statistically similar to the 7.7 measured in 1977.
• In 2022, 34 students and adults died while more than 43,000 children were exposed to gunfire at school.
• 2023 has shown an 8-10% overall DECREASE in deaths and injuries from gun violence. Some cities are seeing 20%+ decreases.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/

https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/

 

It's also important to note that one of the most American things about our Constitution is that it was designed to keep the government.

Politicians who are trying to restrict that are quite literally going against the intent of our democracy.

 

Gun crimes ARE increasing
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/

https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/

 

Have you ever looked at the statistics for the number of defensive use of firearms to compare to these numbers? It might make your head explode.

 

The first part of solving a problem is recognizing what the problem is.....something the right turns a blind eye to. Can't solve a problem if you won't admit what the problem is.

 

I doubt it. Where do the numbers come from? Call in radio shows? They don't come from the police, that's for sure.

 

well you fail several times including the concept that suicides ARE NOT violent gun crimes. "exposed to gun fire in schools" sounds like nebulous bullshit to me.

Look at the bolded part 42K or so die from gun violence but only 16.5K are murdered. UH suicides or justifiable shootings are not gun crimes.

 

the issue is that left-wingers see gun rights voters as the real problem not armed criminals. IF you all saw armed criminals as the real problem, you'd be pushing laws that actually target violent criminals-not lawful gun owners

 

Nor should you.

 

Then offer solutions to solve the problem. Hint: The problem is not guns. Therefore any solutions you offer up must not involve guns.

 

Owning a firearm has nothing to do with it. If you are an able bodied male between 17 and 45 you are definitely in a militia. Depending on what state you reside in, you are even if you are older than 45. Some states even include females.

 

Designed go keep the government fearful of its citizenry*

 

Some 22 states have state defense forces, and only a few of the states call them 'militia', but I meant the kind of militia as existed in the late 18th century, when there was conscription for all males 18 --45 when these were the ONLY defense forces. We now have an active military and national guard. .

But, the salient point was the issue of private v collective right to bear arms wasn't a settled argument until Heller.

 

Ever heard of Washington's Continental army?

 

It really doesn't matter. In Heller v US, the Supreme Court ruled that the "militia" wording in the 2d amendment in no way affected th right of a citizen to keep and bear arms.

 

How do you reconcile your assertion that so-called "gun crimes" are increasing, while violent crime overall remains at or near an all-time low? Is it your position that "gun crimes" are not violent crimes? Or that a doubling of the number of guns over the last 30 years has had no effect on the violent crime rate at all?

 

Well in the excerpt from the Florida constitution, it defines the term itself so there isn't any confusion as to what was meant. When looking at the US constitution, originalism dictates that we look at what the term meant at the time the document was written.

But meandering definitions is a real problem on a political forum. Everyone has their own personal definition (see the use of the term "fascism") and it creates mountains of confusion trying to figure out what people actually mean.

 

Only to leftists the rest of us read things as written not as we would like them to be. Pedantry aside as long as there are human beings in the country there is a militia.

 

Not really. Self Defense has always been defined defending your home. I have no qualms, and most people have no qualms about defending their homes. I read a guy who defended his home with a Katana in the homeowner defended himself with that sword while nearly severing off the hand, a cross slash across the chest, and some other injuries of the would-be burglar. This was in Washington DC. But defending your home is not defined as a militia. That is internet stupidity talking there.

 

If that's the case then they would call it home defense instead of self-defense.

Do you think you're right to defend yourself ends at your property line?