Who is the militia?

You truly don't know how crime is done. Do you think Donald Trump was "soft on crime" when he signed the First Step Act? Ironically, when it comes to the January 6th defendants, you were soft on crime. Maybe you should look in the mirror. And on January 6th, we did see violent crime that day. And those guys were die-hard Trump supporters including the Oath Keepers, 3 Percenters, and other "militia" groups that were trying to act more like paramilitary forces answerable to no one.

Most crimes are that of opportunity ranging from embezzlement to outright burglary/theft to even homicide. Some are premeditated such as the Ted Shaughnessy to other homicides.

 

Based on what?
Trump had one challenge, ONE, during his administration and he failed miserably. He rode in on Obama's economic coattails and did nothing to improve anything but his own pocketbook.
Biden walked into a destroyed economy (like Obama did) and has done a credible job. Sure, we had a little recession but we were damn close to a depression. It's insulting to think that the clown show that was the Trump administration would have been better.

 

Any debate with you

 

The NRA (like I said) was FOR gun control.

 

Really, name one.

 

But you can bet turtle dude is aware of the fact that the general public can buy cannons all day long.

 

Guns are the problem. It's that simple.

 

I never said cannons. I said knives or sharp instruments. Even numb chucks, or more accurately called nunchuka or chuka sticks, became popularized with Bruce Lee movies, and other early Kung Fu movies that hit the US Airwaves in the 1960s and 1970s. We, as a country, were fascinated by that, and after the Enter the Dragon movie and the death of Bruce Lee, kung fu martial arts studios began to pop up across the country. That is where the irrational fear was. If you read the actual decision, it was the irrational fear of why it was banned even though the law I cited still has all those other "arms" still prohibited because they are considered dangerous weapons. And that is the key. The problem is the Supreme Court has not definitively defined what is and what is not a "dangerous weapon" such as military weapons, which a cannon surely can be, even those on sale which you will need an FFL license to purchase, legally.

But if you want to fire a cannon, go here to this place in South Texas, Rio Grande.

 

Only with a FFL license to do so legally. It is still an illegal possession for all others. Anyone can purchase a firearm. However, a felon who is in possession of a firearm will be charged with a crime in the same manner if one is in possession of a cannon and does not have that paperwork to make it legal.

 

Correction, certain people who possess guns are the problem. The other problem is there is no surefire way to prevent people who are not supposed to have firearms from possessing firearms, mostly because gun manufacturers don't care about laws, just maximize profits by any means necessary.

 

Well, I have already given statistics that gun violence is up. What you have failed to acknowledge is that "violent crime" consists of, in the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, violent crime is composed of four offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Those things don't need a gun. Given that fact, your second question is answered.

 

First, I noticed that you never responded to the post showing you wrong about the nun chucks case? I also note that you didn't once address swords in this post. As for knives, check out the history of the Bowie knife's use during the civil war. Where it was widely used by both sides until it eventually got replaced with the bayonet. Logically speaking, why would a knife get replaced for a knife designed to be put on the end of a musket to skewer people....?

And you missed a part of Scalia's quote. Its not just "dangerous weapons". Its "dangerous AND unusual weapons".

You might also want to consider the following.

LINK: The Second Amendment Protects Knives as Long as They’re Not Made For Cooking | Smart News| Smithsonian Magazine

 

I have read the bill. There is a difference between the term militia and private paramilitary organization. A private paramilitary organization is not answerable to anyone but themselves whereas any militia, organized or unorganized, are generally answerable to civilian authorities, whether it is the governor or the President of the United States. The phrase that you used is what is trying to be prevented on what happened on January 6th. Yes, it is vague somewhat but can be more clearly defined in amendments to the bill, if it comes to that. But I also suspect, despite all the hoopla from the far right, that this bill will never get past first base much like a lot of bills in the House or Senate. j

We the people should be done at the ballot box, not what happened on January 6th. Additionally, other prohibited activities include not impersonating a federal law enforcement official, but there is no federal law on that. States have those laws, but I think they are increasing the penalties than what is already known in 18 USC 912. Personally, I do not support the bill because we already have the mechanisms in place. But I am all for the bill to increase the penalties though.

 

When I responded to you, I did. I just think you didn't or assumed what you thought I wrote instead of what I wrote.

 

Uhm, you were the one who said

 

No, they're not. Education is the problem. Poverty is the problem. Mental health is the problem. A justice system designed to punish rather than rehabilitate is the problem. Guns are just a symptom at best. Instead of looking at things two dimensionally try looking at it 3 dimensionally.

 

You did what? Respond about the nun chucks? Because I don't see the word at all in your post. Respond about swords? Again, don't see the word in your post. You did mention cannons, but you were shown that they can actually be bought by another poster. And I addressed your knives argument. Which you have apparently ignored also.

 

You're correct. And you replied with

Still not sure what it means..

 

Poverty is a problem. How we treat the most vulnerable shows how a society views itself. Not allowing food for starving children based on, in part, of government assistance, shows the id of society, not enlightenment or empathy to the person who did not choose in that situation for one reason or the other.

Want to improve poverty, include free training with reasonable wages to pay for rent, food, healthcare, and childcare as a condition of obtaining federal/state assistance.

The justice system chooses those who can be rehabilitated by the sentence they receive. It also depends on the crime. The lower the crime, the greater the chance of rehabilitation. For instance, kindof stupid to send someone to life without the possibility of parole for violating a traffic offense, right? Those who assaulted police officers such as some of the January 6th defendants? Should they get life without the possibility of parole?

BTW, you are not thinking three-dimensionally here, just one-dimensionally.

 

you know what it means but I suspect you are afraid to answer the question.

 

No, I do not!!

 

Then complete the thought about the "protecting the ghettos" statement. There are three possibilities for you to consider.

 

WTF, I haven't a clue what you want.. Don't give me options..

 

It doesn't apply to the militia. It applies to "a well regulated militia". Right-wing fanatics who claim they are a "militia" are NOT "well regulated".

In any case, the 2nd A does NOT address the matter of "owning guns" (one way or the other). But that's a different topic.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/english-102-to-keep-and-bear-arms.586083/
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/history-101-why-the-2nd-amendment.586263/

 

Nope, you made the claim, and I gave you three options about that claim. I am not going to do the work for you in order for you to dodge again, like your first response to me.