Salon: America Is Not Like Switzerland When It Comes to Guns. But It Should Be!

Digby

The Supreme Court’s Heller decision should have ended the debate over the Second Amendment’s militia clause (“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State”). Heller clearly and unequivocally ruled that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. A decision that failed to surprise anyone who noticed that all the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are individual rights. And anyone with glancing familiarity with the Federalist Papers. My favorite quote . . .

The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.” — Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

The people “at large.” As in not organized into a militia. And dontcha just love that an armed American was the dashing Mr. Hamilton’s best hope? Not an educated electorate. An armed populace. So, anyway . . .

While liberals would like us to believe that abortions and same sex marriage are Constitutional rights and “settled law” they singularly refuse to accept the individual gun rights set forth in Heller. And McDonald. Case in point, Heather Digby Parton’s diatribe for salon.comThe right’s deeply misleading new gun-control meme: America should be more like… Switzerland?

Switzerland’s high rate of gun ownership is tied to the fact that it does not have a standing army so virtually every male citizen is conscripted into the militia where they receive comprehensive weapons training. Since they are a militia, they keep their government issued weapons (without ammunition) at home. Therefore, many of the guns in Swiss homes were issued to them by the government and most Swiss gun owners are highly trained in gun safety. This is in contrast to many untrained American yahoos who hang around Starbucks with loaded AR-15s leaning dangerously against the table top while they sip their mocha frappucino.

Take a well-worn meme – the 2A’s a militia thing so the Swiss aren’t like you and me when it comes to guns – add ad hominem and there you have it: proof that no American should own an “assault rifle” unless he or she is part of an organized mob. I mean, government-run militia.

So, the first part of the meme’s implicit argument, that large scale gun ownership prevents gun violence is disproven by the good old USA. Switzerland may have have high gun ownership per capita but so do we.  And our crime rate is the highest in the developed world — by a mile. Clearly having a bunch of guns is not the key to a low crime rate.

Because crime rates are all that counts, right? Not freedom. Crime. And developed countries don’t include, say, Mexico or anywhere else across our porous southern border. And we can’t hark back to the mass murder of World War II throughout Europe in the 1940’s (or in Russia during the 1950’s) to see if our gun rights are worth preserving because that’s old news. And it’s not crime! 

The second part of the argument, that large scale gun ownership doesn’t cause a high crime rate is more complicated. Certainly nobody is saying that guns fire bullets all by themselves. What most people who seek restrictions on gun ownership believe is that having easy access to firearms makes it too easy for flawed humans to make lethal choices in situations that do not have to be lethal. To the gun control advocate, the “freedom” to own guns for fun and profit doesn’t outweigh the freedom to not be shot. To the gun proliferation advocate, the more guns the more freedom. That argument will not be resolved by anything Switzerland does or doesn’t do.

Hello? The freedom not to be shot is EXACTLY why we have the Second Amendment. The freedom not to be shot by one’s own government. Not to belabor a point, but that seems to be a problem both in Europe’s past and the rest of the world’s present. Sure, Switzerland’s got sweet FA to do with our 2A, but the point the pro-gun peeps are making remains: lots of guns doesn’t necessarily equal lots of crime.

Quick! Back the safety of the mischaracterized militia clause!

Why would the founders put that militia stuff in there like that if they were simply creating a fundamental right to bear arms? Switzerland’s militia is a good illustration of why they did that. The gun owners in Switzerland aren’t armed in order to repel a home invasion by criminals. They are armed to repel a foreign invasion. Granted, that is now something of a symbolic gesture considering modern armaments, but it’s fundamental to the way the Swiss think about their guns. And it is very different than the way we think about this.

I think Ms. Parton missed the key word in the clause in which she seeks rhetorical shelter: a well-organized militia being necessary to the security of a free state. A state where citizens do not have the right to keep and bear arms is not a free state. Upon the bedrock of gun ownership our liberty sits. How hard is that to grasp?

comments

  1. avatar Grindstone says:

    Isn’t it racist that they consider “developed” countries to be only white, European nations with high levels of government control?

    Either way, she is completely factually wrong about the US being more violent “by a mile”. The UK far outstrips the US in total violence per capita. Of course, that doesn’t have that nifty little pre-fix of “gun” in front of the word “violence”.

    1. avatar Shire-man says:

      I never understood the moving goal posts around the qualifier “developed.”
      The way I see it, if your nations kiddies are throwing homophobic and racial slurs over Xbox Live you’re a developed nation.

      1. avatar Grindstone says:

        In that case, Russia is the leader of the world then.

    2. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

      Sweden’s rate of rape is over twice as high as ours.

      And it isn’t because white males are doing the raping.

    3. avatar Ray says:

      MORE interesting is that THIS appeared in Salon of all places.

  2. avatar Geoff PR says:

    “Therefore, many of the guns in Swiss homes were issued to them by the government and most Swiss gun owners are highly trained in gun safety. This is in contrast to many untrained American yahoos who hang around Starbucks with loaded AR-15s leaning dangerously against the table top while they sip their mocha frappucino.”

    Because it makes sense that education about how human reproduction works and education on how to safely operate a motor vehicle used on public roads is something all people should know, there is only one thing that should be painfully obvious.

    Understanding the safe storage, handling, and use is something anyone who has a brain should know about firearms.

    Except those fvckwit leftist Democrat – Progressive jack-wads.

    Duh.

    1. avatar Jeremy S says:

      The other problem with the Switzerland example is that the guns are issued by the government and the people are, therefore, a government-sanctioned militia. What freaking sense does it make if our rights are subject to government permission and government sanction? That’s not a right at all. We can only own firearms if we’re in a government-recognized militia? Please. That’s an absurd argument on its face. Aside from the fact that the definition of “the militia” was always extremely broad, such as “all able-bodied males,” rather than anything having to do with after school rifle drill clubs.

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        I believe that article has another error.

        It claimed the issued weapons had no ammunition, last I heard, if memory serves, it was 400 rounds or so.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          No, she got that right. Only QRF units get issue ammunition to keep in the home. This was a budget cutback in the mid-2000s if memory serves. That and people were “forgetting” to turn in their issue ammunition when their term of service was done. (Mostly because it had long ago been expended on private range trips.)

        2. avatar Tom O'B says:

          I beleve the keep at home ammo was a 40 round paper box. Which did get damaged or went missing.

        3. avatar LordGopu says:

          Yeah the gov issued ammo isn’t really a thing anymore but they can buy their own so it makes no difference.

        4. avatar Juanito ''Johnnie'' Ibañez says:

          Before they ended the “At Home” storage of issue ammunition, each militia member was issued a sealed 40-round box of 5.6mm Gewehr Patrone 90 (or GP90) ammunition. It was prohibited to use this ammo for anything other than emergency call-up, but each militia member was/is authorized to purchase their own ammo from the military store to use for off-duty target practice of Schützenfest (“marksmen’s festival”) competition.

    2. avatar pwrserge says:

      This retard obviously has never seen swiss militia members going to and from training with a SIG-552 thrown over their shoulder… Via the subway… With a pitstop at the local Apple store to check out their newest gizmos.

      1. avatar Felipe says:

        That’s absolutely true. As a Swiss citizen, I’m always pissed of when I read/heard anti guns talking about how the system works in Switzerland …
        First of all, yes, we got a sig 550 at home AKA FASS90 (in the french part) or STGW90 in the german speaking part.
        Second thing, she says that we have no ammo at home, and that’s wrong again. The army don’t give you the gp90 ammo which is the ordinance ammunition. But you can go to ANY gun store and buy 5.56 ammo, which can be shot from the FASS90 … What’s the difference ? The rifling of the FASS90 is made to be used with the GP90 ammo, but it can shot 5.56 as well.
        So please, somebody tell that people to stop saying we don’t have rifles AND ammo at home, because it’s a lie. On another point, you can buy as many guns or rifles as you want. There’s a background check that is pretty much a disguised tax. What is more difficult to obtain, and that’s the biggest difference with the USA, is the carry permit. You have to justify a good reason to obtain it, like an immediate threat to your life, or a specific job. The thing is that nobody want’s(or need it) it because the level of criminality in the country is quite low.
        Then, there’s another big difference between the US and Switzerland. It’s size and wealth per capita. Even low paid jobs are paid enough so that with some (socialist 😛 ) helps from the state, every citizen can pretty much have an acceptable level of wellness. Not saying everybody is reach, just saying that a honest poorly paid job and some federal help is a better plan than drugs or robberies…
        As a last word, I’ll say that most Swiss citizens shoot or have shot in their life. And most of us still do it and enjoy it ! That’s one of the things I do with my colleagues/friends from the US when they come to Switzerland, we go to the range, shot all the afternoon and then talk about the differences in between Switzerland and the US. And guess what ? We always end up having a lot of fun and planning our next range day 😀

        1. avatar William says:

          ” it because the level of criminality in the country is quite low.
          Then, there’s another big difference between the US and Switzerland. It’s size and wealth per capita. Even low paid jobs are paid enough so that with some (socialist ? ) helps from the state, every citizen can pretty much have an acceptable level of wellness. Not saying everybody is reach, just saying that a honest poorly paid job and some federal help is a better plan than drugs or robberies…”

          Sounds like around 95% of the U.S. outside of a few cities.

        2. avatar Felipe says:

          Ok, so maybe I went to the bad places. I remember being in Washington DC. At a 5 minutes drive from the air and space museum (great museum by the way !) there was plenty of homeless people hanging in the streets. Same thing happened outside of Chicago, I remember seeing homeless guys in the streets. Maybe things got better since then, I don’t know, didn’t g back to those places, mostly hanging around Philadelphia and it’s true that I’ve seen nothing like these there …

        3. avatar JR_in_NC says:

          Seriously, man, do NOT judge the US by what you see in Washington, DC OR Chicago. Nothing about either of those places is representative of the United States as a whole.

          Actually, it really is a bit of fool’s errand to try to pin down a “United States as a whole” when it comes to anything cultural. That’s something that is difficult, I think, for a lot of Europeans to understand (not saying you specifically…I’m generalizing here to make a point). We really ARE a ‘melting pot’ and if there is one defining characteristic of “American Culture” it is that we are a mixture of often disparate, contradictory underlying cultural influences.

          We have huge regional differences: the South is very different from the Northeast, for example. The West is quite different from the Southeast. Etc.

          The specific areas you mentioned…DC and Chicago…are about as NON-representative of other regions as one can get. Those are two of the handful of pockets of SERIOUS outliers in the country – especially with regard to attitudes on guns.

          Next time you come to the States, see if you can get away from the big metropolitan cities and out into what the Progressives disdainfully call “flyover country.” If you, try to meet some people and get to know them a bit…don’t just go to the touristy places – talk with the guys hanging out at the local gas station (or bar…whatever). See if you can go to some of the small, family owned firing ranges and talk to “local boy” shooters.

          That experience will be FAR different than what you encounter in the cities you mentioned.

          And, you likely won’t see anything NEAR the signs of abject poverty you mentioned. Those Progressive strongholds have bred poverty into a way of life, because the Progressive power mongers that “rule” there depend on the poverty to sell their “services.”

        4. avatar Felipe says:

          That’s what I thought, I got surprised by what was going on in Washington DC and Chicago ! Thanks for the information.
          I can pretty much understand that the regions are really different from each other in the US. If I think about for a second, the US and Europe have pretty much the same size, so I’ll say that the regions are as different as the countries are in Europe.
          I’m planning on visiting the center of the US. That will be only to satisfy my personal curiosity about knowing better the US.
          Most of the guys I know in the US are colleagues or guys working in companies that I’ve helped with their projects. That’s cool because I know them well and their families too, but I think it disconnects me from the rest of the people living in the US, it’s like I’m only in contact with a small portion of the people and only one very specific kind of people.
          What’s sure is that if I come to your area (or any people here area…) I’ll be glad to go for a couple of drinks and talk about our respective countries. Of course, I’ll bring chocolat, no need to ask for it, it’s something I always do when I go to the US 😀

        5. avatar Joe says:

          I’m of Swiss heritage (Basel land), and a former member of the Army National Guard (MOS 19D)…so where are my special privileges? Tell you what, there are none. I’ve never understood that current/former military are not
          given anymore consideration than somebody who never even shot a BB gun in Boy scouts.
          Hey Felipe, does Vetterli 10.4×38, 1911(Kar and IG), 7.5×55, and k31 sound familiar? I shoot them all…does anyone back in Helvetia still shoot any of those?

        6. avatar MeRp says:

          Looks like the Sig SG 550 has a 1:10 twist rate, so if you can lay your paws on some .223 Remington (as opposed to 5.56×45 NATO), then it would probably shoot almost as great as it does with the GP 90. Some of the NATO stuff my tumble a bit much, since it works best with 1:7 (or at least 1:8). Of course it will all shoot and, unless you’re trying to win a precision competition, it is probably all up to the task you would usually use it for.

          If you ever make it out to the other Washington (the state), let me know; I’ll invite you to my range and we can unload some guns the fun way!

        7. avatar Felipe says:

          Yes, .223 Remington will make it, at least up to 100 yards, after that, it’s even hard to hit a human sized target !
          In Switzerland, rifle shooting with the army rifle is at about 300 yards without optics ! So the .223 won’t make it, but you can get ammo in the army ranges for training, there’s no problem.
          Actually, what most people don’t know is that the fass90 has a twist of 1:10 for a specific purpose. In case of one of our neighbor invading us, they won’t be able to use our ammo against us, it will be too poorly accurate after 100yards …
          If you come the the state of Washington, I’ll poke you here and come to the range with you, it will be a pleasure !
          Thank you for the invitation and keep fighting for your right in the USA 🙂

    3. avatar LarryinTX says:

      I like her dimwit assumption that the substitute for a national army is “highly trained in firearm safety”. My guess would be most of their firearms training would be about how to kill someone!

  3. avatar BDUB says:

    “…but it’s fundamental to the way the Swiss think about their guns”

    Um, what about the fundamentals of how “we” think about “our” guns?

  4. avatar Sean in MT says:

    So Garth doesn’t believe in freedom? Got it. Statists gonna state.

    1. avatar BDUB says:

      Excellent!!

    2. avatar Billy-bob says:

      Salon is not completely full of derp…oh hell, yes it is.

  5. avatar Heretical Politik says:

    Can anyone point me to the specific paper that Hamilton quote is from? There are only 85 Federalist Papers, this is not the correct notation, if it exists. Also, a side note: Hamilton opposed the Bill of Rights, although only because he thought they might be construed as the only rights to which the people were entitled.

    1. avatar dlj95118 says:

      …found the reference in Federalist No. 29 via a search (cntrl-f).

      The whole paragraph:
      “Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.”

    2. avatar bobmcd says:

      Federalist Paper Number 29, paragraph six; and the real quote is very much NOT what modern pro-gun people like to quote.

      http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa29.htm

      Hamilton is talking about the impossibility of training the entire population up to the “well-regulated militia” standard (i.e., fully combat-capable). When he points out that this is not practical, he drops back to this as a best-of-a-bad-situation alternative:

      “To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country to an amount which, calculating upon the present members of the people, would not fall far short of a million pounds. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. LITTLE MORE CAN BE REASONABLY AIMED AT WITH RESPECT TO THE PEOPLE AT LARGE THAN TO HAVE THEM PROPERLY ARMED AND EQUIPPED; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.” [capitals mine; I can’t figure out how to italicize a post]

      So he is saying that the best we can hope for is to have the people armed (he most assuredly did not object to the right to keep and bear arms), since we can’t turn everyone into a full-up infantryman.

      Bottom line: a fairly minor misquote/paraphrase, and it does not really fit into the context of the Federalist Paper in question. There are better quotes from the founders than this one.

      But, as George Washington said, “Most of the crap you see quoted on the Internet is just plain false.”

      1. avatar Timmy! says:

        “But, as George Washington said, ‘Most of the crap you see quoted on the Internet is just plain false.'”

        I thought that was Lincoln’s quote.

      2. avatar LarryinTX says:

        “it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.”

        Pardon me if I’m catatonic for a while, as I attempt to imagine 100 million men with arms “assembled once or twice in the course of a year”. I’m thinking downtown D.C. would be good with that, huh?

  6. avatar PeterC says:

    Switzerland does not have an indigenous underclass (at least not yet) and is a relatively homogeneous society. No ghettos = no high crime or murder rate.

    1. avatar Billy-bob says:

      They didn’t sign up for adopt a jihadi like the rest of Europe?

    2. avatar Felipe says:

      Well, that’s not exactly true. Overtime there was a war in Europe or Africa, we had lot of people fleeing from the war arriving to the country. Somalia, Balkans, and so on … After the balkans, there was a raise in criminality but that didn’t last, mostly because we didn’t allow ghettos to be created. We mixed people from the balkans with the rest of the Swiss citizens, so we learned from their culture and they learned from ours. Now, most of the child from the balkans that are born in Switzerland go to the army, play in the national team rather than in the one of their parents and are perfectly integrated.
      That’s one of the difference with Europe. We don’t want to have refugees that will live for years in camps where they won’t never be integrated to the rest of the society. We want them to integrate and be citizens.

      1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

        Excellent!

        So, you encouraged them to take advantage of the opportunities your country offered rather than treating them like sub-humans that had to be ‘cared for.’

        Man…I wish more folks in the US would take note of that.

        1. avatar Felipe says:

          Well, Switzerland is a country that has been made by immigrants. Actually, my parents came from Spain when there was the Franco dictature. They escaped Spain and came to Switzerland. They worked, learned french, paid taxes, got two kids (my sister and me) and did everything to be part of the country because the country helped them to integrate. Low taxes because they had low incomes, small state help when the times were difficult and free school (included university) for their kids(that’s for everybody living in Switzerland), free language courses for them so they can communicate with Swiss people, and a lot of other things. Now I’m an engineer, because the country helped my parents to integrate, I’ve got a job, pay taxes, served in the army and I’m as Swiss as any other guy in the country. Actually, I’m born in the country, but didn’t get a Swiss passport like I would have get in the US. Becoming Swiss is a choice, you have to apply, they examine the case and it takes about 18 to 24 months to get your Swiss passport. I think it’s a good thing because it shows that you want to be part of the country, it’s not something you get for free.

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Filipe, I see a lot the U.S. should at least be considering, there. Thanks for the insight.

      2. avatar Wiregrass says:

        We want them to integrate too but it seems they expect us to accept their culture “as is”, rather than accept ours. We might be a melting pot, but the product is more of an amalgam than an alloy.

        1. avatar Juanito ''Johnnie'' Ibañez says:

          In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, immigrants felt obligated to fully integrate into American society.

          Not so today. 🙁 [ except for the Asians 🙂 ]

  7. avatar pwrserge says:

    Is she likes Switzerland that much, she should live there. Except I know for a fact that they won’t let her over the border. You can’t just show up in Switzerland, squat out a kid, and claim citizenship.

  8. avatar Rick in NH says:

    Having traveled in Switzerland on both business and pleasure, I have observed the Swiss in action. A business associate left an expensive camera on a train years ago. He was able to retrieve it because it was turned in to Lost & Found by a responsible person. The Swiss do not J-walk, and ostracize those who do. They speak German in the north, French in the west and Italian in the south, yet they maintain a national culture that stresses responsibility, not identity. On a business trip I stayed at an Inn where the owner spoke only German and I spoke only English. I managed to get a good breakfast every day, and after I checked out, the bill was reviewed by the person I was visiting and found correct. Compare that to NYC taxi drivers who overcharge foreign tourists.

    Morality and the desire to do the right thing is what sets the Swiss culture apart from most of the rest of the world.

    1. avatar Big E says:

      My experience in Schweiz is similar to yours. There is more graffiti then I would have expected

      I’m not sure it’s fair to use NYC for comparison (in general and cabbies in particular). That basically IS a 3rd world example. Most of America- certainly where I live outside of the urbanized blight spreading so fast- is still a generally decent place.

    2. avatar William Burke says:

      Not to mention Romansch, the fourth official language, which is more like Classical Latin than any other language.

  9. avatar Chadwick P. says:

    Didn’t emperor obammy say that “by like a mile” phrase about crime rates in these United States? Yes yes just like that liberal paradise of Chicago… Anyway this is just more liberal hindbrain “logic” regurgitated. They are losing, they are running out of lies, and they are getting pathetically desperate.
    Carry on friends and always remember that logic and facts are on our side. More people wake up and smell the liberal lies every day.

  10. avatar ANdrew Lias says:

    I agree with her that there is a lack of firearms education in this country; The majority of people will likely be exposed to a firearm at one point or another in their lives. By and large the rules of common sense should govern this but at the same time if the left actually promoted education and teaching about guns they’d put themselves in a bad position when people realized guns weren’t the scary things that they want to publicize them as. Their position relies on ignorance and falls apart without it.

    1. avatar Big E says:

      Parents used to teach their kids important and practical things like how to safely handle a gun. Of course that was before a large percentage of kids were bastards. How quaint that seems now.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        That education, as well as several other subjects, should be taught in public schools. Examining why it is not is a real lesson in 1984-style mind control.

        1. avatar Paul G says:

          Why foist parental duties upon the school system? Do you really want the government responsible for raising your children?

        2. avatar Roymond@ says:

          @PaulG

          Congress has the authority to do that under Article I Section 8. Having the same program of training for everyone, so there’s a common understanding of the handling of firearms, comes under the colonial era meaning of discipline for the militia. Since we’re all in the militia, leaving it to the parents is contrary to good discipline.

          I’ll also note that allowing some parents to have their young citizens (kids) avoid any militia training at all is as contrary to the existence of a well-regulated militia as is straw-buying a handgun for a violent felon, so doing it in the schools just makes sense.

        3. avatar Paul G says:

          Lol. The populace in general was never the well-regulated militia. Unorganized militia, perhaps. Big difference.
          Also, the idea that a government could compel me to purchase a product (gun ,health care) is unconstitutional all around. Scouts be damned.

  11. avatar mark brown says:

    “Since they are a militia, they keep their government issued weapons (without ammunition) at home.”

    It may have changed since the time I read about Switzerland, years ago, I remember that the reservist were required to keep 500 round on hand at all times.
    And they had spot inspection that your battle kit was up to spec.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      These days few are required to keep ammunition in their homes, but most do. Basically there was a problem with issue emergency ammunition being misappropriated for private range trips. I do like how this fascist ignores the fact that the Swiss can easily purchase private weapons or that they get to keep their issue weapons long after their militia service. Often for generations, as a few people I know have “army guns” in the house that belonged to the father, the son, the grandfather, and the great-grandfather.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        “Misappropriated”. Interesting term. Wouldn’t you think, given their intentions about an army, they would be happy to supply 100-200 rounds a year if their citizen-soldiers were actually practicing?

        1. avatar Gavin says:

          The purpose of this particular ammunition provision, was that in the event of emergency the soldier had sufficient ammunition to get to barracks, which is why “unauthorized use” of this Ammo is problematic. GP90 is supplied by the government at sanctioned ranges for 40 cents a round, 100 rounds is 4-5 beers in a bar.

    2. avatar Curtis in IL says:

      Seems stupid the higher-ups would tell them to take the gun home but not supply ammo. How useful is a gun without ammo? If they really did keep the ammo at some centralized location that they would have to report to if/when called, then they may as well keep the guns there, too.

      She can claim what she wants, but I’m guessing any Swiss home invader would meet ballistic resistance.

      1. avatar Felipe says:

        Well, the fact that there’s no more ammo provided from the army is jus a cut in the cost. Then, most people bought ammo by themselves. First of all, because it makes no sense to have a rifle without ammo. Second reason, we go shooting quite often. As per a home invader finding ballistic resistance … Hmmm, usually, guns are clear at home, not by law, but because there’s no need as most people live in the city and if you hear your neighbor screaming you will go check what’s wrong. But in the mountains, where the first house may not be very close, ballistic resistance is to be expected. At least at my place.

        1. avatar Yellow Devil says:

          ballistic resistance. Ha, I like that term, I’m going to steal it from now on.

  12. avatar Ralph says:

    And our crime rate is the highest in the developed world — by a mile.

    Somebody please tell that gozzleheaded old twit that most of the “developed world” has a shortage of Crips, Bloods, MS-13s, Latin Kings . . . of course, now that the “developed world” is taking in the dregs of the Arab world, those stats are going to change.

    1. avatar Col. Angus says:

      Diversity is highly over-rated……

    2. avatar Galtha58 says:

      @Ralph: I always wonder about that quote “And our crime rate is the highest in the developed world — by a mile.” Take a look at this link: http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Total-crimes-per-1000
      We are not anywhere near the top. Now if you look at the same site but at total crimes without taking population into account we do have more crime than anyone else. But what kind of sense does that make ? Larger populations are bound to have more crime. THAT is common sense. Something the author of the article we are talking about seems to lack. Why do people like this think they can just lie and that everyone will believe them?
      Here is another one from Wikipedia on intentional homicide rates by country.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
      If you click on the “rate” on the chart you will be able to get the highest murder rate on the top of the chart. There are MANY countries that are above us on that chart if you do that. Is she saying that none of these countries are in the developed world? Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina, Russia and others are not developed countries ? Wow, guess she must be the person that determines if a country is developed or not. Because I sure thought that many of these countries would be considered to be developed by most people.

  13. avatar GunGeek says:

    http://www.starbucks.com/blog/an-open-letter-from-howard-schultz/1268 Firearms not welcomed at Starbucks, but it’s not a GFZ. Doubtful one sees AR-15’s propped up in Starbucks.

    Ms. Parton (a pseudonym) is a blogger. She blogs “because one function of blogs is to cause a ruckus”. She’s described in Wikipedia as one of the “leading and most admired commentators” of the progressive blogosphere. Studied theater at San Jose State, but evidently didn’t graduate.

    No reason take her statements seriously.

    1. avatar Alex Peterson says:

      Put glasses on anyone and take their picture in front of a full bookcase and the left will think they’re intelligent.

  14. avatar tdiinva (Now in Wisconsin) says:

    Just because it’s in Salon doesn’t mean it’s wrong. Switzerland isn’t like the United States. They don’t have gangs of fatherless young men organized into “social clubs” roaming the streets.

    1. avatar Galtha58 says:

      @tdiinva: It does appear that gangs are becoming a problem (or are a problem?) in Switzerland now:
      http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/authorities-target-brutal-gang-violence/6725574

      1. avatar Felipe says:

        There where a couple of bad things happening in Switzerland, but there’s no big gangs and things like this. I mean, at least not at the level you guys have !

    2. avatar Roymond@ says:

      “Just because it’s in Salon doesn’t mean it’s wrong”

      True enough. After all, it was in Salon that all gays were advised to get armed, get trained, carry, and let the world know it..

      1. avatar Juanito ''Johnnie'' Ibañez says:

        See the ‘Pink Pistols’. 🙂
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_Pistols

        “Pick on someone your own caliber”

        🙂

  15. avatar Brentondadams says:

    Progressive liberals: ‘we need more white people or more laws to keep brown people in check’

    Got it

    1. avatar Jordan says:

      That sounds like an excellent plan. Finally, a progressive idea that I can get behind.

      (/sarc)

  16. avatar gastorgrab says:

    I still get a kick out of that. Gay Marriage is covered under ‘Natural Law’, but the right to defend yourself is subject to “the moralizing of your tribe” (your community).

  17. avatar Bunny says:

    The Swiss government only gives them a limited amount of ammo. I’m 99% sure it’s a box of 50rs, but they are also free to go buy as much ammo as they want. Unfortunately Switzerland has carry laws similar to NYC. Full auto is up to the “county” law enforcement officer and is discretionary. No SBR or SBS laws. I can’t find anything on suppressors.

    1. avatar Felipe says:

      Supresors are subject to a specific licence, easy to get. As it is for the full auto. You’re not supposed to set your rifle to full auto on the ranges, mostly for noise reasons and safety (as most of the ranges are inside ranges …)

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Ah. Restrictions on when you can diddle with the switch is a long way off from going to prison for having the weapon in your hands, even unloaded.

        1. avatar Juanito ''Johnnie'' Ibañez says:

          Of course, the selective-fire capability is “civilianized” to semi-auto only upon completion of the Swiss militia member’s military service. They have the option of paying an administrative fee to keep their issue weapon (Sig SG 510 in 7.5x55mm Swiss or SiG SG 550 in 5.56x45mm NATO) after service.

  18. avatar neiowa says:

    Why you never listen to the opinions of women on the/any Army. Or force Ranger school to pass them just to suit Obumer and his chicks.

  19. avatar jlp says:

    Switzerland disproves a lot of myths. It has high gun ownership but a low crime rate while America has a lot of guns and a very high crime rate. Some Sociologist attribute this to Switzerland being a more homogeneous society with less discrimination as opposed to America that has a multi-racial society and much discrimination which has produced an underclass which is less educated and has less opportunity for higher paying jobs. All of which promote a high crime rate. Although I cannot remember the exact specifics some years ago the NRA ran an article that told of ever increasing gun restriction in Switzerland. Never the less the major reason that Switzerland is a much more desirable place to live than America is not the lack of gun restrictions but the tremendous social benefits of that society. Many Americans I have spoken to that had by necessity been required to live there because they represented American Companies eventually became permanent residents because of the social benefits enjoyed by Swiss citizens that made it impractical for them to return to America. When one has lower higher education costs for your children or yourself, no danger of going bankrupt when one has expensive medications to take or medical operations one needs, longer vacations and many paid holidays the decision not to return to America is a no brainer.

    1. avatar tdiinva (Now in Wisconsin) says:

      The good old USSR had the same benefits too. It isn’t the benefits that make Switzerland a good place to live.

    2. avatar Edward Jaffe says:

      “America” is a big place and gun-friendly VT-NH-ME have the lowest gun homicides — and violence generally — while cites like Chi-town and DC are legal-gun-free and have astronomical violent crime.

      VT-NH-ME are are as safe as anyplace in Scandinavia.

    3. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      jlp,

      “… America has … a very high crime rate.” Really? That is a fact? What is your source?

      1. avatar jlp says:

        My source comes from a variety of outlets including most responsible U.S. media outlets which are many. You can also look such statistics up on line yourself but it does take some intestinal fortitude to do so

        1. avatar Justsomeguy says:

          You might want to check them again. In trying to make her argument, the author for the Salon piece referenced an article that showed we have a large number of crimes compared to many countries. Our crime rate however is below most of the countries she selected,

  20. avatar Juanito ''Johnnie'' Ibañez says:

    “Since they are a militia, they keep their government issued weapons (without ammunition) at home.”

    That should read “without GOVERNMENT-ISSUED ammunition”; for you see, until rather recently (2007) each militiaman was issued a sealed 50-round ‘battle pack’ of SS109 ‘green-tip’ 5.46x45mm NATO ammunition to keep in their home, along with their government-issued SiG Stg.90 selective-fire (as in ‘machine-gun’) assault rifle.

    There is no prohibition for a Swiss militiaman from purchasing their own ammunition from their local government-subsidized arms dealer.

    Many (most?) militiamen use their Stg.90s during the annual Schützenfest.

    http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Bmq7e7Z0QAk/TVqbQm8KEjI/AAAAAAAAAJs/7h7mKgSLQGI/s1600/swiss_rifle3.jpg

    http://thepatriotperspective.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/swiss-girls-with-guns.jpg

    Once they finish their career in the Swiss militia they are allowed to keep their issue rifle, though with the selective-fire capability ‘detuned’ to semi-auto-only function.

    The older retired Swiss militiamen still have their old SiG Stgw.57 ‘battle rifles’ in 7.5×55mm Swiss; and like the Stg.90, ‘detuned’ to semi-auto-only function:

    http://img.timeinc.net/time/daily/2007/0705/360_switzerland_guns0502.jpg

  21. avatar jp says:

    Hmmmmmmm. Been to Starbucks many times…… can’t say I’ve ever seen an AR 15 there.

  22. avatar Anonymous says:

    Oh they grasp it. It’s just too fvcking hard for them to accept it.

  23. avatar Edward Jaffe says:

    NO STANDING ARMY. SEE VT CONSTITUTION.

  24. avatar Edward Jaffe says:

    US Militia ALWAYS meant “all able bodied men” AND BYOW. (bring your OWN weapons and ammo.)

    We DO NOT need a standing Army — unless you are Neocon.

    1. avatar Paul G says:

      Maybe you need to acquaint yourself with the powers of Congress.
      “To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.”
      That isn’t BYOW.

      1. avatar Juanito ''Johnnie'' Ibañez says:

        Maybe you need to ‘bone up’ on a bit of firearms history, Paul:

        “The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. “A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.” And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.”
        ~‘United States v. Miller’, 307 U.S. 174

        Notice the “men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves” statement, Paul?

        That _is_ “BYOW”.

        1. avatar Paul G says:

          Sorry, but no. When the actual words of the Constitution do not fit your agenda, obscure with non-relevant factoids..
          Something in the Constitution about Congress having the power to arm the militia. Read it again. Pretty plain words.

        2. avatar Juanito ''Johnnie'' Ibañez says:

          You do realize, don’t you, Paul, that the Supreme Court of the United States is the arbiter of what the Constitution says and means: and they did just that in ‘Miller.’

          And guess you missed that portion of Article I, Section 8, Clause 16: “To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States…”

          The Congress did that by establishing the National Guard Bureau and giving the “organizing, arming, and disciplining” to the Adjutant Generals of the several states.

          FYI: the _only_ time the National Guard is “employed in the Service of the United States…” is when they are in Title 10 federal status. They are ‘state militia’ (or as we are known here: ‘Texas Military Forces’) under the control of the governor and his adjutant general when they are in their Title 32 state status.

          Moreover, are you aware of this?

          (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.

          ~10 USC § 311 – Militia: composition and classes

          So, Paul: who “organizes, arms, and disciplines” the ‘unorganized militia’?

          ps: I was ABGD Security Police in the Texas Air Guard for five years. 🙂

        3. avatar Paul G says:

          I realize no such thing. Perhaps you could show me where that power was allocated to the Supreme Court by the Constitution. Look hard. Hint: it isn’t there.
          Besides the obvious Constitutional language, the statement you allude to is false. Which is it, all able-bodied men, or those enrolled? History shows that neither is true. Also, you are confusing an unorganized militia with a well-regulated one. The two are the antithesis of each other.
          PS. I served in more than one branch of service, and as active duty, reserve, and national guard. Plus I have read the Constitution, and most other relevant founding documents. Even took classes on the subject, at a conservative college.

        4. avatar Juanito ''Johnnie'' Ibañez says:

          “I realize no such thing. Perhaps you could show me where that power was allocated to the Supreme Court by the Constitution.”

          I guess among the _other_ things you missed we need to add ‘Marbury v. Madison’ 5 U.S. 137:

          https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/5/137

          “Also, you are confusing an unorganized militia with a well-regulated one.”

          Kinda depends what you consider “well-regulated” to mean, Paul; and it doesn’t necessarily mean ‘run by the government’.

          Let’s see what it meant back in that period of time:

          Taken from the Oxford English Dictionary:

          1709: “If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations.”

          1714: “The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world.”

          1812: “The equation of time … is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial.”

          1848: “A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor.”

          1862: “It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding.”

          1894: “The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city.”

          The phrase “well-regulated” was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people’s arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

          http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

        5. avatar Paul G says:

          I didn’t miss a thing, I strung you along and you bit like a large mouth bass.
          Since when can a government body legitimately decide to grant itself powers not granted to it by the Constitution?
          That is what scotus did in Marbury.
          Again, show me where that power is in the Constitution. If it isn’t there, it is an illegal action. Guess what? It ain’t there.
          Stick around, you are learning things.
          Well-regulated meant trained, similarly armed and equipped, back then, as now. You are pulling out the same failed argunents.

        6. avatar Juanito ''Johnnie'' Ibañez says:

          “Again, show me where that power is in the Constitution. If it isn’t there, it is an illegal action. Guess what? It ain’t there.”

          Machts nichts, Paul: ‘Marbury’ is now ‘black-letter law of the land’, whether you, or _I_, like it or not.

          “Stick around, you are learning things.”

          Au contraire, Paul: I’ll teach _you_ some ‘new tricks’. 🙂

          SHORTSTOP!

          If you want to go back to the Constitution, I guess it’s time to point out that there is no ‘National Guard’ there: only ‘the militia of the several states’; and the federal government _only_ has the power to “govern” them when “such Part of them [are] employed in the Service of the United States”, called forth “to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.” ~Art.I,Sec8,Cl15/16 (nka: ‘Title 10 status‘).

          At all other times, their ‘Commander in Chief‘ is their state’s Governor (to-wit: ‘Title 32 status’).

        7. avatar Paul G says:

          Marbury is not black letter law of the land. The Constitution is. Anything contrary to the Constitution is not a legitimate law.
          I thought you claimed to have some knowledge on these things. Guess not.

          The NG as the (well-regulated/organized) Militia is not problematic or unconstitutional. It works within the constraints in the Constitution. That these state militias call themselves xxxx National Guard does not change that.

        8. avatar Paul G says:

          Still waiting for you to show me where judicial review is in the Constitution.

        9. avatar Juanito ''Johnnie'' Ibañez says:

          Don’t have to, Paul.

          Whether you, or _I_, like it, it’s here to stay!

          You fail to understand that for the most part we are in agreement: I do not like ‘Marbury’ _nor_ the still-questionably-passed 14th Amendment. But they are now ‘the Law of the Land’ here in the U.S.

          You’ve already been ‘schooled’ by others here; yet you _still_ hold out as some sort of ‘militia/military/constitutional expert’…which, obviously, you are _not_ (kinda like Barack Obozo).

          And you do know that ‘expert’ pares down to ‘ex’ being a ‘has been’ and ‘(s)pert’ being a ‘drip under pressure’. 😉

          BTW: I am not a lawyer; nor do I play one here in ‘The Ether’. 🙂

        10. avatar Paul G says:

          You’re previous posts make pretty clear that you have no problem with ignoring the Constitution for convenience.
          You can’t have it both ways.

        11. avatar Paul G says:

          Odd isn’t it, that Congress was empowered to organize, arm, and discipline the militia even before the 2A was written. To make it run like clockwork, to be regulated. A well-regulated clock keeps proper time, each second the same length as the others. The quest for longitude was important in clocks becoming regulated. Similarly, in a well regulated militia, all troops are similarly equipped and trained.
          Even way back then.

        12. avatar Juanito ''Johnnie'' Ibañez says:

          “Similarly, in a well regulated militia, all troops are similarly equipped and trained. Even way back then.”

          BULL$HIT!

          It’s blatantly obvious that you have a distorted view of colonial times military.

          While what you stated above _might_ apply to the Continental Army, it wasn’t that way with the militia; as was noted by the SCOTUS in ‘US v. Miller.’

          Moreover:

          “When the war began, American soldiers used the weapons from their state’s militia stores OR FROM HOME.” [EMPHASIS added]
          ~http://ncpedia.org/history/usrevolution/soldiers

          “The resulting colonial militia laws required every able-bodied male citizen to participate and to PROVIDE HIS OWN ARMS.” [EMPHASIS added]
          ~The History of the Militia in the United States
          http://academic.udayton.edu/health/syllabi/Bioterrorism/8Military/milita01.htm

          “Congress has shaped the modern militia’s structure by exercising its Article I militia powers through a series of statutes. The first such legislation was the Militia Act of 1792. This act codified the traditional view of the militia as consisting of all able- bodied citizens. It also required each militiaman to SUPPLY HIS OWN ARMS.” [EMPHASIS added]
          ~Ibid.

          “In 1903, Congress attempted to restore the usefulness of the state militias with the Dick Act. This act marked the beginning of the federalization of the militia. The Dick Act also split the militia into two branches: the organized militia, which became known as the National Guard, and the unorganized militia. The act provided federal funds for equipment and training, required drill a specified number of days each year, and gave federal inspectors the right to review state militia practices.”
          ~Id.

          “Though the division of the militia into organized and unorganized branches still exists today, Congress has not explicitly defined the role of the unorganized militia. Nevertheless, federal statutes do provide for civilian firearms training as part of the Civilian Marksmanship Program. Although legislators have attacked the program as being outdated, it has survived Congressional debates as recently as June 1994. At least one senator has argued that the program continues to add to the nation’s defense capability. Additionally, a United States Army study found that individuals who received training in the program were significantly more effective in combat than those without such training. However, although Congress explicitly created a dual-militia system, the unorganized militias of the various states have remained largely dormant.”
          ~Id.

          You are aware that in DCM the participants use “arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time”; [quote from ‘US v. Miller’] the ‘arms’ being M14 (or its commercial M1A equivilant) and the M16 (or its commercial AR-15 equivilant) in the ‘Leg’ matches. The M1 Garand, the M1 Carbine and the Springfield 03A3 are utilized in the ‘As-Issued Military Rifle’, ‘John C. Garand’, ‘Unlimited M1 Garand’ and ‘As-Issued M1 Garand Special EIC’ DCM matches, with the M1D also being used in the ‘Vintage Sniper Rifle Team’ match.
          ~Competition Rules For CMP Games Rifle And Pistol Matches
          https://thecmp.org/wp-content/uploads/CMPGamesRules.pdf

        13. avatar Paul G says:

          You do realize that the Constitution was drafted AFTER the revolution, right? Oops, you fail yet again.
          o
          Oh, and all your cute footnotes do not hold sway over the Constitution. They can be interesting, but the simple facts speak loudest. That being that what I said is correct, and all that your attempts to “explain” only further clarify your lack of depth on the subject.

        14. avatar Juanito ''Johnnie'' Ibañez says:

          It’s more than obvious that you have never studied ‘Constitution of the United States Annotated’; available from West Publishing, a subsidiary of Thomson Reuters.

          I imagine you’re too cheap to pony up the several hundred dollars to get the subscription (I let mine lapse when I left office), so here’s a version you can peruse:

          Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation
          Includes analysis of Supreme Court cases decided through July 1, 2014
          https://www.congress.gov/constitution-annotated

          Regardless of what _you_ believe the Constitution says, _this_ is what’s the truth today.

        15. avatar Paul G says:

          Ah yes, rhetoric. You are long on it and short on facts
          I didn’t realize the Constitution had changed recently. Oh, it hasn’t!
          You, like too many, have no problem with it being ignored.
          Go play with your flags.

        16. avatar Juanito ''Johnnie'' Ibañez says:

          “Ah yes, rhetoric. You are long on it and short on facts.”

          It’s you who constantly runs away from the _facts_, Paul: not I.

          “I didn’t realize the Constitution had changed recently. Oh, it hasn’t!”

          Unfortunately, we haven’t been a true Constitutional Republic for many, many years now: mainly since FDR introduced the “New Deal”; which, BTW, extended the the ‘Crash of `29’ far longer than if he’d left well enough alone. 😐

          “You, like too many, have no problem with it being ignored.”

          Actually, Paul; I do.

          But unlike you are those of your ilk, who like to ‘talk big’ behind the anonymity of ‘the Ether’, I accept that the only way to change it is as the Founding Fathers wrote in the DoI:

          “Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security…”

          Are _you_ ready to take up arms against this ‘run amok’ federal government, Paul?

          If not, then STFU&GTFA!

          “Go play with your flags.”

          Go play with yourself, Paul.

          Quod erat demonstrandum.

        17. avatar Paul G says:

          More rhetoric.
          Actually WW Wilson and 1913 were banner years way before FDR.
          You bore me with your off the mark assessments.
          And wouldn’t you know, since many years back I played in a band (hard riock/metal) I have a cool shirt, actually have it on now. It says “I quit the band, now I just play with myself”. Double Entendre.
          Go play with your flags.

        18. avatar Paul G says:

          http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html
          You forget that back then no standing army was envisioned or desired, the militia was expected to suffice.
          That is why the Army was limited to 2 year budgets. When needed it would be formed, and when finished, disbanded. Not so the Navy.

        19. avatar Juanito ''Johnnie'' Ibañez says:

          “That is why the Army was limited to 2 year budgets. When needed it would be formed, and when finished, disbanded. Not so the Navy.”

          Paul, you just keep digging that hole you’re in even deeper with every posting. 😉

          After the Revolutionary War, the US Army remained: it was the _Navy_ that was “finished, disbanded” (but not the Marines).

          Next time you watch the presentation of the colors at the start of a football, baseball, et al. game, observe the lineup of the flags when a ‘full service’ colors team presents the colors of the U.S. and the military.

          In all instances, the flags will be arranged, from the viewers’ Left to Right, as National Colors (Stars and Stripes), state flag (if presented), the Army flag, the Marines flag, the Navy flag, the Army National Guard flag (if displayed), the Air Force flag, the Air National Guard flag (if displayed), then the Coast Guard flag (if displayed). [You oughta try performing the ‘wheel maneuver’ with _that_ many flags! WHEW! 😐 ]

          The reason for this is that they are presented in the order of the services’ creation (with the Navy: their ‘re-creation’); with the Air Force being the ‘junior’ of the services.

          You may ask “Why is the Coast Guard, created in 1789, the last in the line?”

          Simple enough: the Coast Guard is considered a ‘paramilitary’ service; that is, it’s only a ‘military’ service when called to active duty; at which time it comes under the control of the Department of the Navy.

          Betcha didn’t know that most (all?) LCVP drivers on D-Day were ‘Coasties’; didja? 🙂

          BTW: Did I tell you that I was Air Force Base Honor Guard for three of my five years service in the Texas Air Guard? 🙂

        20. avatar Paul G says:

          Somebody has to carry the flags.
          Too bad that has little bearing on the Constitution. Just like events that happened prior to the Constitution do not modify or negate the words of the Constitution.
          “To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; 

           To provide and maintain a navy;”
          Notice the differences? Time limits versus none. Limitations. After the war, the need for a Navy was understood, but standing armies were suspect.
          Also, we were broke. T he Alliance was auctioned off, our last naval vessel. But see, when the Constitution was written, provision to rectify these events were written in. Congress was empowered to provide for a Navy, and for coordinating and arming a well-regulated militia. Both without llimits, where Armies had constraints on their allocations. Armies were expected to be raised and disbanded as needed, versus provided for and maintained, like a Navy.
          Being broke was why the Navy was deactivated, and why Congress chose not to arm the militia. Being armed was never the definition of well-regulated. It is about training and cohesiveness. Similarity of equipment only furthers the degree of wellness in the regulation of the militia.
          A read through the quotes on the gun cite link I provided earlier should make that clear
          You need to pay attention to chronology as well, it will keep your foot out of your mouth.

        21. avatar Juanito ''Johnnie'' Ibañez says:

          Yada, Yada, Yada

          ROTFL! 🙂

          Ya just gotta keep on posting _your_ version of history, rather than accept the _real_ history of the United States military.

          To-wit:

          Continental Navy (1775)
          Disarmament (1785)
          Establishment (1794)

          “The United States Navy claims 13 October 1775 as the date of its official establishment, when the Second Continental Congress passed a resolution creating the Continental Navy. With the end of the American Revolutionary War, the Continental Navy was DISBANDED [EMPHASIS added]. Under President John Adams threats to American merchant shipping by pirates in the Mediterranean led to the Naval Act of 1794, which created a permanent standing U.S. Navy.”
          ~https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_Navy

          Meanwhile:

          United States Army
          Active 14 June 1775 – present (240 years, 3 months)
          ~https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army

          So, Paul; as usual, you are wrong on the Army being “disbanded” and the Navy _not_ being “disbanded”….then being ‘re-established’ in 1794..

          And _that_ is why the Navy flag follows both the Army and Marines flags in importance.

          “Somebody has to carry the flags.”

          Which I did, Paul…with distinction: as ‘NCT’, as well as ‘Colors Bearer’ and ‘Rifle Guard’ (and have the awards to prove it!).

          So, Paul: “What did _you_ do in ‘The Global War on Terrorism’???”

        22. avatar Paul G says:

          You need a few classes in reading comprehension. You twist what I said into what you decided I said, and then tell me that the words you put into my mouth are wrong.
          Then you post a bunch of irrelevant statements and claim to have schooled me?
          I had kinda guessed what you did for a living. I was right, too. The bad ones are easy to spot. All mouth, no brain.

        23. avatar Juanito ''Johnnie'' Ibañez says:

          No miscomprehension here, Paul; you wrote this on 16 September, 2015 at 06:16 hours:

          “You forget that back then no standing army was envisioned or desired, the militia was expected to suffice. That is why the Army was limited to 2 year budgets. When needed it would be formed, and when finished, disbanded. Not so the Navy.”

          No one “put those words in your mouth”, Paul: you typed them your very own self!

          The Continental (now ‘U.S.’) Army was _never_ “disbanded”; while the Continental Navy most assuredly was:

          “The Revolutionary War was ended by the Treaty of Paris in 1783, and by 1785 the Continental Navy was disbanded and the remaining ships were sold.”
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_Navy#End_of_the_Continental_Navy

          There wasn’t a Navy serving the United States from 1785 to 1794, when the U.S. Navy was created by the ‘Naval Act of 1794’.
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Act_of_1794

          In the interum the ‘naval’ operations were carried out by the ‘Revenue-Marine/Revenue Cutter Service’ of the Treasury Department; which ultimately became the U.S. Coast Guard; a part of the Department of Transportation (the USCG is now with the Department of Homeland Security).
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Revenue_Cutter_Service

          BTW, Paul: it’s known as ‘National Defense Authorization Act’ (for all four services and the NGB); not ‘U.S. Army Bi-Annual Appropriations Act’; and it’s reworked and re-authorized every two years by the Congress.

          In closing: go peddle your ‘bovine excrement’ elsewhere: we’ve got your number here.

          And with that, I bid you “Good Night, and Good Luck” (getting _anyone_ to believe you!) and Auf Wiedersehen!

          “Paul G is ‘stuck on stupid’.”
          ~Lt.Gen. Russell Honoré, ‘The Ragin’ Cajun’ commander of Joint Task Force Katrina, 2005

        24. avatar Paul G says:

          More shoddy research and irrelevant information. Your trademarks.
          Congress fully intended to disband the Colonial Army, but the militia proved inadequate for handling the frontier problems(Indians). Actually the Colonial Army was reformed into a legion, so to your rhetoric the army was disbanded.
          Nothing in those facts runs counter to my statements. Nor does the part about two year appropriations.
          The Navy was disbanded as a budgetary matter.
          Again, we see the Constitution provided for its return, and did not limit it to two year appropriations.
          It seems you have real problems with comprehension. Maybe that is why you add so much irrelevant information to your posts, if you put in enough BS, you hope some of it may be relevant.

        25. avatar Juanito ''Johnnie'' Ibañez says:

          “Congress fully intended to disband the Colonial Army, but the militia proved inadequate for handling the frontier problems (Indians).”

          But that is _not_ what you wrote.

          “Actually the Colonial Army was reformed into a legion, so to your rhetoric the army was disbanded.”

          More side-stepping in an attempt to rewrite your posting history.

          Feel free to annotate where a “reputable source” stated that “the Colonial Army was reformed into a legion.”

          More on point, you just admitted that, unlike the Navy, the “ground forces” of the United States military never went away. 🙂

          “Nothing in those facts runs counter to my statements. Nor does the part about two year appropriations. The Navy was disbanded as a budgetary matter.”

          However, that’s _not_ what you claimed.

          “Again, we see the Constitution provided for its return, and did not limit it to two year appropriations.”

          More weasel words, Paul.

          “It seems you have real problems with comprehension. Maybe that is why you add so much irrelevant information to your posts, if you put in enough BS, you hope some of it may be relevant.”

          Yet another back-handed ad hominem, Paul.

          What you do is throw out snippets of so-called “facts” without any supporting “relevant information.”

          My information was never “irrelevant”, Paul; and it fully supports my position that you have been caught “misspeaking;” and like both Nixon, Bush 41 and both Clintons before you, your attempted cover up of those “misspeakings” is far worse than you merely stating: “Well, maybe I wasn’t completely clear in what I originally wrote.”

          And this conversation is at an end, Paul; though I’m well aware that you will attempt yet again to “cover your ass” and get in “the last word.”

          I will not respond; therefore, you _will_ get in “the last word.”

          Nevertheless, Paul; I bid you adieu and sine die.

        26. avatar Paul G says:

          Johnny, you are like!e a juvenile with a learning disability and ADHD. No comprehension whatsoever. It matters not if any force was changed or not, before the writing of the Constitutrion. Even after, actually. Nor that a!l services get reappropriated every two years. Only one service is Constitutionally limited as such. Get it? Such a small mind you have.
          I am now fairly certain that all you do is look up buzzwords and topics on google and post hoping it is somehow relevant.
          Based on the Constitution, the Navy is ABLE to be provided for with long term allocations of funds. Not so the Army. That is the law, and reflects the thoughts of the time. That the budget constraints and needs of the nation immediately after the revolution seem to support a different view is belayed by actual research.
          No wonder tby put you on flag duty.
          Nothing I said is amiss, it is just your comprehension that is inadequate.

        27. avatar Paul G says:

          Nope. I did not misspeak on anything. If you cannot understand that, it is your lack of brain function. Maybe find an adult to explain it all.
          Problem is, I actually know the intents, not just the events. Anyone can look up dates and acts on google. Understanding what was desired, and what transpired, and WHY those things were different requires reasoning ability. Something you have made clear you are short on.

        28. avatar Roymond@ says:

          I’ve gotten tired of wading through the filth of your posts, Paul. Could you please take a step back and take a few days to turn back into a civilized human being?

        29. avatar Paul G says:

          I respond in kind with the treatment afforded me.

        30. avatar Juanito ''Johnnie'' Ibañez says:

          Roymond@: The thing about poor old Paul here is that he believes that everyone should be able to ‘know’ what he means w/o his having to be clear in his assertions. He has shown himself to be incapable of saying he’s wrong, or that what he posted wasn’t _exactly_ what he meant to say.

          Paul G is operating under the mistaken belief that he’s ‘The Smartist Guy in the Room™’, and that everyone _must_ bow down and not challenge him in any way…even if it’s with the facts against his claims.

          So be it: that’s the reason I will no longer respond to _anything_ he posts; either correct or incorrect, clear or murky…and most especially ad hominem-laced!

          Meanwhile, I’ll just “go play with my flags…”; ignoring ‘Paul of the NPD‘! 😉

        31. avatar Paul G says:

          The problem really is that I haven’t made any wrong statements. You on the other hand, have only made a few correct statements in regard to relating abstract data.
          That you have no clue about the sentiments of the founders or the populace at the time of the penning of the Constitution is obvious. Reading of a number i

        32. avatar Paul G says:

          The problem really is that I haven’t made any wrong statements. You on the other hand, have only made a few correct statements in regard to relating abstract data.
          That you have no clue about the sentiments of the founders or the populace at the time of the penning of the Constitution is obvious. Reading of a number of writings could have given you insight, but you didn’t.
          You claimed Congress ceded the very power it relies on to justify funding and equipment to the guard units
          Yet you deride me, for actually knowing what I am talking about. You are terribly uneducated about the Constitution. No badge or authoritative voice and posture can make you smart.
          Take a few classes, read about the subject, maybe then you will not look like such a moron on the subject.

        33. avatar Paul G says:

          By the way, when the Navy was disbanded, so were the Marines. Oops again, your mistake.

        34. avatar Juanito ''Johnnie'' Ibañez says:

          Just shows what happens when I trust what a Gyrene on our Combined Services Colors Team told me, rather than checking it out on my own. 😉

          Nevertheless, the order of presentation of the flags in a colors team is _still_ USA/S&S, Army, Marines, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard; and it’s that way because the Navy Historical Center says so:

          “The Marine Corps has had precedence over the Navy since 1921 because the Marine Corps has been very consistent in citing its origins as the legislation of the Continental Congress that established the Continental Marines on 10 November 1775. In contrast, the United States Navy until 1972 gave various responses to the question of when it was founded, often citing legislation dating from its reestablishment in the 1790s. At the time the order of precedence of the U.S. services was established, the Navy was using the dates from the 1790s, as its founding, and hence was viewed as a younger service than the Marine Corps. Despite several efforts to reverse the Marine Corps/Navy order of precedence in recent years, it has not occurred.”

          So, Pauli; _please_ stop with all the baiting, as I won’t play your “I’m the smartest guy in the room” game; and all you are doing here now is wasting even more bandwidth.

          Q.E.D.

        35. avatar Paul G says:

          Seems to me you are just tired of being proven mistaken, over and over and over.

        36. avatar Juanito ''Johnnie'' Ibañez says:

          OK, Pauli: I’ve tried being nice to you; however, since you cannot take a subtle hint, I’ll spell it out for you:

          SHÙT THE FÙCK ÙP & GO THE FÙCK AWAY!!!

          Get it now, you Narcissistic Personality Disorder-afflicted A$$HOLE???

        37. avatar Paul G says:

          Lol. So when you were calling me a weasel and asserting I was, wrong…..but it was you who was mistaken…that was not a waste of bandwidth. When your posts were about trivial and irrelevant acts that in no way changed the facts, that was good usage. I am certain my posting of the truth in those matters is much better use of space.
          You should have stopped digging long ago. You were warned. Spewing blatantly wrong info will get you noticed. You haven’t the authority to detain people here who check you on your lack of knowledge. It is you who is the problem here.

        38. avatar Juanito ''Johnnie'' Ibañez says:

          You fell right into my trap, Pauli: thanks for proving my point. 🙂

          AMF! 😀

        39. avatar Paul G says:

          Trap? You trapped me into reiterating how much you have wrong? Oh my!

        40. avatar Juanito ''Johnnie'' Ibañez says:

          No, Pauli: the trap was set to get you to provide proof positive of your afflicition with Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD):

          “Narcissistic Personality Disorder is a mental disorder in which people have an inflated sense of their own importance, a deep need for admiration and a lack of empathy for others. But behind this mask of ultraconfidence lies a fragile self-esteem that’s vulnerable to the slightest criticism.”

          “A narcissistic personality disorder causes problems in many areas of life, such as relationships, work, school or financial affairs. You may be generally unhappy and disappointed when you’re not given the special favors or admiration you believe you deserve. Others may not enjoy being around you, and you may find your relationships unfulfilling.”

          Symptoms

          “If you have narcissistic personality disorder, you may come across as conceited, boastful or pretentious. You often monopolize conversations. You may belittle or look down on people you perceive as inferior. You may feel a sense of entitlement — and when you don’t receive special treatment, you may become impatient or angry. You may insist on having “the best” of everything — for instance, the best car, athletic club or medical care.”

          “At the same time, you have trouble handling anything that may be perceived as criticism. You may have secret feelings of insecurity, shame, vulnerability and humiliation. To feel better, you may react with rage or contempt and try to belittle the other person to make yourself appear superior. Or you may feel depressed and moody because you fall short of perfection.”

          When to see a doctor

          “When you have narcissistic personality disorder, you may not want to think that anything could be wrong — doing so wouldn’t fit with your self-image of power and perfection. People with narcissistic personality disorder are most likely to seek treatment when they develop symptoms of depression — often because of perceived criticisms or rejections.”

          “If you recognize aspects of your personality that are common to narcissistic personality disorder or you’re feeling overwhelmed by sadness, consider reaching out to a trusted doctor or mental health provider. Getting the right treatment can help make your life more rewarding and enjoyable.”

          ~Mayo Clinic Staff

          And as the Mayo Clinic prescribes, the “right treatment” is psychotherapy!

          Seek it soon, as you are in dire need!!!

          [Note to Lurkers: Watch as Paul G adds even further proof of his NPD: he just cannot escape it! 🙂 ]

        41. avatar Paul G says:

          Hahaha. Odd that my wife, who would be qualified to diagnose such a disorder, has never mentioned this problem of mune. So what your qualifications to diagnose? Since when have psychologists diagnosed such disorders based on Internet chats?
          Sounds to me like that problem may belong to you instead. False claims of knowing things about the Constitution, and psychology as well. Of course, isn’t narcissistic behavior relatively common in your profession? Seems you are now saying anything to draw attention away from your failures in our discussion. More evidence.
          You just won’t stop digging.

        42. avatar Paul G says:

          Congress did not give the power to provide to arm, organize or train away to state commands. Lots of state equipment and training hours are paid for (provided for) through federal funds allocated by……Congress.

        43. avatar Juanito ''Johnnie'' Ibañez says:

          “Congress did not give the power to provide to arm, organize or train away to state commands.”

          Texas Governor Gregg Abbot, Commanding Generals John Nichols (Texas Adjutant General), Len Smith (Texas Army Guard), Ken Weisen (Texas Air Guard) and Charlie Miller (Texas State Guard) probably disagree with you, Paul.

          But, then again: what do _they_ know against such a ‘military expert’ as yourself… . :p

        44. avatar Paul G says:

          You might want to go ask them how much funding they get from the federal government. You know, funding provided by Congressional power to organize, arm and discipline the militia. Go ahead, ask them.

        45. avatar Juanito ''Johnnie'' Ibañez says:

          Nice ‘switching horses midstream’ move there, Paul. 🙂

          I stated early on that the Congress established the National Guard Bureau to carry out the constitutional duties under Art.I,Sec.8,Cl16, and that NGB passed that onto the states; which is all true. Never said that NGB didn’t pay the states to carry out that duty.

          Are you aware that most of the equipment used by the Guards are passed down to them from the ‘regular’ military when they upgrade? Therefore, with limited exceptions, the Guard units are operating with older equipment and technology: the main exceptions is when DOD assigns Guard units tasks that are mostly (or all) removed from the duties of the ‘active’ military. Even then, most guardsmen who perform these tasks remain in Title 32 state military status, under the command of their governor(s), as ‘Active Guard and Reserve’ (AGR), working a 40-hour week instead of being a ‘weekend-warrior’.

          FYI: It was 2 F-15s from MAANG, flown by two ‘AGRs’ from the 101st AOS, which made the initial CAP response to the 9/11 attack.

        46. avatar Paul G says:

          Switching horses? Not I. You alluded that Texas NG commanders would tell me that Congress has ceded its power to provide for training, arming, and disciplining the militia. I told you to go ask them. I know they would laugh at you. Congress funds quite a lot of militia materials and training.
          You get to be proven mistakes yet again.

        47. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Paul, North Korea receives hundreds of millions of dollars from our Congress every year. Does that make them subject to discipline or whatever? EVERYBODY has their hand out for free money, that proves nothing.

        48. avatar Paul G says:

          FLAME DELETED
          N Korea does not receive funds under congressional powers to provide for the militia. State guard units do. Try and focus.

        49. avatar Juanito ''Johnnie'' Ibañez says:

          🙂

        50. avatar Roymond@ says:

          You’re both right.

          George Washington wrote to Congress complaining that there were militia units appearing for service that weren’t well-regulated, and his specific complaint was that they did not bring their own arms; thus, under the meaning of “well-regulated” at the time, it was supposed to be “BYOW”. So he urged Congress to provide for arming those militia who couldn’t provide their own arms, as such a poorly-regulated militia was not of much use to him.

          Both sides of his issue made it into the Constitution: “well-regulated” still means each having his own weapons, but Congress was assigned the authority to make sure everyone did.

        51. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

          OK, but in their defense, they didn’t have “Schoolhouse Rock” back then. So they weren’t clued in on the whole “Take your powder, take your gun, report to General Washington” scene.

      2. avatar tdiinva (Now in Wisconsin) says:

        Paul:

        Great job in explaining the Constitution. Johnnie is make a great case for the Progressive interpretation of the Second Amendment. The fact that Militia is defined in Article I should leave no doubt that the Second Amendment was meant to protect the individual right to bear arms.

        The idea that the Constitution forbids a standing Army is a fiction. The Constitution only says it must be reauthorized every two years. In fact, it is reauthorized by Congress every year through the National Defense Authorization Act. This meets the Constitutional requirement.

        The Military is an arm of the government normally under day to day control of the individual states. The idea that the militia is seperately from the government is false. The reason that private citizens can form their own militia units in certain states is because those state specifically places all its citizen in the militia. The private units still fall under government control.

        1. avatar Paul G says:

          Thanks. I never meant to imply that the Constitution forbids a standing army, just that sentiment at the time was against them.

        2. avatar Juanito ''Johnnie'' Ibañez says:

          See “Vietnamese Fishermen’s Assoc. v. Knights of Ku Klux Klan, 518 F. Supp. 993 (S.D. Tex. 1981)”
          http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/gunviol/docs/vietnamese.authcheckdam.pdf

  25. avatar Edward Jaffe says:

    SOME of what this person is asking for — re: armed civilians — is MORE TRAINING.

    *WE* must make sure this goal is accomplished or someone else will take over for us.

  26. avatar Rick says:

    I think a fundamental point has been missed, the Swiss referred to are reservists, not militia. A militia is a local force and is not a government controlled body.

    1. avatar Paul G says:

      Try again. See my reference above to the powers of Congress regarding the Militia.

    2. avatar Juanito ''Johnnie'' Ibañez says:

      “I think a fundamental point has been missed, the Swiss referred to are reservists, not militia.”

      Actually, Rick: “No.”

      Those who are performing active military duties are ‘militia’: those who have completed their required military service become ‘reservists.’

      See: Military of Switzerland

      Under the country’s militia system, professional soldiers constitute about 5 percent of military personnel; the rest are male citizen conscripts 19 to 34 (in some cases up to 50) years old.
      […]
      The reform “Army XXI” was adopted by popular vote in 2003. It replaced the previous model “Army 95”, reducing manpower from 400,000 to about 200,000 personnel, 120,000 receiving periodic military training and 80,000 reservists who have completed their total military training requirements.

      http://military.wikia.com/wiki/Military_of_Switzerland

  27. avatar Mk10108 says:

    More ink on paper expressing what ought to be. When he writer wants to move his thoughts into action by removing the people’s natural right, I’ll introduce myself and my rifle, her name is Brenda, and she likes to meet people.

  28. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

    Various aspects of Switzerland’s republican political culture are now in doubt. Switzerland has taken in far too many worthless “refugees” and “asylum seekers” in the last 10 years. I think only Sweden has been more stupid than Switzerland in their acceptance of “refugees.” The Swiss voted (by the slimmest of margins 50.3%) to cause their government to come up with regulations restricting the crossing of their borders and reducing the numbers of asylum seekers, but the vote also gave the government three years to do this.

    I’ve said it before, and I’ll keep saying it: the rights we enjoy are the invention of northern white European Protestant males. Everyone else who claims to want to live in our system of government appears to “not get it.” They either want free handouts, increased access to success beyond their competence to achieve it on their own, or special considerations for perceived slights, etc. Switzerland’s gun rights (as well as many of their other rights) are going to suffer for the same reasons ours are: as a result of their having taken in so many third worlders. If you want to see what the mentality of the third world looks like, look to the current occupant of the Oval Office: highly educated, but still possessed of a third world outlook,

  29. avatar Desert Ranger says:

    I agree with her.. It’s about time our tax money supported safe gun and blade handling for every student. It would be the most popular class in school and achieve the holophobes stated goal of gun safety. It’s only common sense after all.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Let’s do it for the children! If it saves one life!

  30. avatar CarlosT says:

    It’s been established that the vast majority of violent crime is perpetrated by a small group of people in each community. Communities that don’t have these bad seeds don’t have crime problems, regardless of what the local laws are. The “low crime” European countries aren’t that way because of particular laws. They’re that way because the catalysts for crime are missing, mostly through historical accident and good fortune. If that changes, then their rates will rise to match ours.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      AND! They seem to have in excess of 6 million “bad seeds” on the way, to be welcomed and coddled. Wait a few years and see how happy they are!

  31. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

    Wait a minute. Wasn’t Hamilton himself a fatal victim of gun violence? Had he the opportunity to comment now, might Hamilton reconsider the arming of citizens in general? Or at least, might he be in favor of gun-confiscating restraining orders for violence-threatening specific individuals, like Aaron Burr?

    #Federalistlivesmatter

  32. avatar Rusty Chains says:

    Actually Hamilton was a statist and wanted a far stronger Federal system than we got. Mr. Burr may well have saved us an even earlier slide into tyranny than we have experienced.

    1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

      Wrong. Hamilton was a federalist which, unless one’s personal political spectrum centers on anarchy, is nowhere near the same thing as a statist.

      If he were such a statist, he would not as he did skip participation in the crafting of the federal Constitution. In so doing, he forfeited all opportunity to imbue it with the statist ambitions you claim he sheltered.

      Seems unlikely from a principled man who fought and risked his life in the Revolution against the British, but who also postwar represented in court Loyalists seeking to reclaim property of which they were dispossessed during the war.

      Seems even less likely out of a man who would also go on to join Madison (the “Father of the Constitution”) and Jay (the nation’s first Chief Justice) in writing the “Federalist Papers” urging ratification of the Constitution.

      That would be the same Constitution serving as a system of checks and balances, with a clear delineation of the powers of the federal government (few, limited, and defined, per Madison), protecting states’ rights and individual rights.

      I’m just not seeing a Monarchist 2.0 or similar in Hamilton. (In Burr? Yes.)

  33. avatar Rusty Chains says:

    Hamilton, by the way, furnished the pistols and per historical accounts knew about the set trigger function. He may only have missed Burr when he shot first because of how light the trigger was if set. Since the witnesses had their backs to the two men, no one would know if he did use the set trigger.

    1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

      True, but Burr’s the one who made the challenge. That’s the all important point. Besides, those two pistols had symbolic importance, too. They were the same two pistols used in a duel several years earlier, resulting then in Burr’s coat button being shot off. The reminder of the close call, and the general practice of firing into the ground, plus Hamilton likely having fired only by accident, suggest to me Hamilton was in this only for the tradition and not for anyone to be injured.

      It’s not 100% clear what happened that day. Dueling was illegal in both NY and NJ and considered passe, which is why the parties had to row across a river to a secluded location to conduct it. The night before, Hamilton wrote of going through with it only out of honor, not bloodlust. Even four years later,by contrast, Burr was still saying he shot him dead and meant it, regretting only that he hadn’t hit his heart. (At the end of Burr’s life, he supposedly regretted the entire feud with Hamilton, but that could just be for posterity’s sake and nit genuine.)

  34. avatar Marcus (Aurelius) Payne says:

    “Why would the founders put that militia stuff in there like that if they were simply creating a fundamental right to bear arms?”

    To illustrate that the purpose for protecting the right was not for hunting for food or stopping criminals but so that the citizenry could form a fighting force on par with any infantry, and to make clear that the arms we are allowed to own are indeed military “grade”.

    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.

    Because an optimized militia may be necessary to form to keep a state free, the government has no authority to limit the rights of people to own arms.

    And a diagram of the sentence showing no dependency of arms ownership on membership in the militia.
    http://www.libertygunrights.com/2-A_Meaning_pg2.gif

    1. avatar Yellow Devil says:

      Like I say, the first portion of the 2a is the clarify-er, not the qualify-er for the rest of the amendment.

  35. avatar Justsomeguy says:

    Robert, you let her go far to easily on the crime thing. Her statement on the subject was disingenuous at best and really closer to an outright lie. She used the term “rate” as did the document she linked to, but the document actually shows raw numbers. Using the study that underlies that document, we do have a larger number of crimes than the other countries shown, but our rate is actually way down the list.

    JSG

  36. avatar Jim S. says:

    “I’m all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools. Let’s start with typewriters.”
    ― Frank Lloyd Wright

    1. avatar Juanito ''Johnnie'' Ibañez says:

      🙂

  37. avatar Bob102 says:

    It always frustrates me to see the lies that come out of the anti-2nd amendment crowd. They know full well that these supposed “gun control” havens in Europe almost always have more crime per capita than the US. And, if you remove the statistics from the Progressive strongholds (Chicago, NY, LA, etc.) that have these strict gun control laws from the overall US averages, the US has a very small fraction of the violent crime that Europe experiences. Also, I spent 7 years as a military LEO in Europe often working with local police, and I know for a fact that the Polzei cooked the books to make their communities look safer.

    1. avatar Juanito ''Johnnie'' Ibañez says:

      “I spent 7 years as a military LEO in Europe often working with local police, and I know for a fact that the Polzei cooked the books to make their communities look safer.”

      It’s not just there, Bob: it’s here, too. 😐

      In addition to being a military LEO (AFSC 3P051B), I was a civilian LEO and CLEO for 22 years, where I found that fellow LEOs in other departments would “cook the books” when they filed their data with the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports (UCR).

      I recently was a ‘victim’ of such “book cooking” when my storage unit was burglarized; along with about 40 others.

      Quite some time after the burglaries I was notified by the storage facility management that the burglaries had occurred. And I was _never_ contacted by FWPD!

      I learned that the patrol officer who responded to the incident filed it as a _single_ burglary instead of the 40+ individual storage units broken into at the same time.

      You see, ONE ‘unsolved felony’ looks better in the UCR than 40+ ‘unsolved felonies’ do.

  38. avatar Joe R. says:

    Time for the big FU

    All gun-grabbing is a declaration of war, every declaration unanswered is on you.

  39. avatar TeeJaw says:

    The ant-gun position is so useful to those with a psychic need to feel superior to others they will never give it up. Notice that she calls anyone who disagrees with her a “yahoo,” a term invented byJonathan Swift to describe a subhuman being that was filthy and with unpleasant habits.

    1. avatar Juanito ''Johnnie'' Ibañez says:

      Of course, WRT the web search engine, YAHOO, it means “Yet Another Hierarchically Organized Oracle” 🙂

  40. avatar Tommy Knocker says:

    Tell me that ain’t Dana Carvey in a wig !

  41. avatar teebonicus says:

    No, the main thing she missed is that the founders didn’t CREATE a right to arms, the 2A declares the right as already existing.

    As the SCOTUS noted in U.S. v. Cruikshank (1875), “The right there specified is that of ‘bearing arms for a lawful purpose’. This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.”

    This principle is THE critical factor – it is our right as humans, endowed by our Creator, not “created” by our founders.

  42. avatar GenghisQuan says:

    Guns only for militia in exchange for everyone is conscripted into the militia and thus everyone has a gun.

    Compromise I can believe in.

  43. avatar Anonymous says:

    You forgot this little tidbit:

    But this difference in the way we see guns and the relationship of the citizen to the government is stark. And it has something to do with the fact that we ignore that first part of the 2nd Amendment and fetishize the second.

    Fetishize? Seriously? I apparently then fetishize my guns like I do my tools, my musical instruments, my vehicle, my home, etc. I feel for them no different then my guns and would like them not to be taken away or regulated. This was the moment I stopped reading her bullshit opinion piece and lost all respect for any future work she may publish. She’s just another anti endlessly and mindlessly spouting their perceived penis analogies.

    1. avatar GenghisQuan says:

      Speak for yourself.

      Raifu is love.

      Raifu is life.

  44. avatar Dave says:

    I have to say that I have never witnessed : “…untrained American yahoos who hang around Starbucks with loaded AR-15s leaning dangerously against the table top while they sip their mocha frappucino.” I’m not sure where Ms. Parton lives, but this would be a sight. I guess, if this is true, Starbucks aught to put in some gun racks. I kind of just have this feeling that most Starbucks customers are not gun toatin’ American yahoos. Maybe I’m wrong.

  45. The 2nd Amendment was put into the Constitution so the people could protect themselves from a corrupt government. That is why it says “shall not infringe” so we can have what the government has to prevent a Holocaust. I believe the people should have what the government has including machine guns. The only gun control law there should be is that criminals can’t have any firearms. Thanks for your vote, pass the word. mrpresident2016.com

    1. avatar Juanito ''Johnnie'' Ibañez says:

      Donald Brian Lehoux wrote:

      “I believe the people should have what the government has including machine guns. The only gun control law there should be is that criminals can’t have any firearms.”

      For the most part, even the Supreme Court ‘believes’ the same thing. 🙂

      Taking the SCOTUS decisions in the ‘Miller’, ‘Heller’ and ‘McDonald’ into account, each and every U.S. citizen who has not yet had his 2nd Amendment rights abrogated through ‘due process’ _should_ be able to own each and every ‘arm’ of ‘the Militia of the United States’; to-wit: the National Guard; as the Guard is but one ‘class’ of ‘the militia’ recognized by the Congress in 10 U.S. Code § 311.

      Taking this thought further, based upon the holding in ‘Miller’:

      “And further, that ordinarily, when called for service [with the militia] these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.”¹

      and as documented by the US Army in its history:

      “Each member of the militia was obligated to appear for training at his county or town seat a certain number of days each year, to provide himself with weapons, and to hold himself in readiness for call in case of Indian attack or other emergency.”²

      each citizen has every right to own, at the minimum, an M9A1 9mm pistol, an HK MP5SD# 9mm submachine gun, an M16A# 5.56mm assault rifle, an M4A# 5.56mm assault carbine, an M39 7.62mm enhanced marksman rifle, and an M249 SAW LMG. And maybe, with a couple of buddies as ‘ammo bearers’, an M240 GPMG. 🙂

      More importantly, ‘Miller’ also established a precident most everyone overlooked: that the government itself is obligated to provide these arms to citizens too poor to provide themselves with them:

      “If any private shall make it appear to the satisfaction of the court hereafter to be appointed for trying delinquencies under this act that he is so poor that he cannot purchase the arms herein required, such court shall cause them to be purchased out of the money arising from delinquents.”³

      Interesting thoughts; aren’t they? 🙂

      ¹ http://rkba.org/research/miller/Miller.html
      ² http://www.history.army.mil/books/AMH/AMH-02.htm
      ³ https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/307/174

      1. avatar Roymond@ says:

        That would definitely be more like Switzerland….

        It’s a sad state of affairs when citizens have to go to court against their own government just to get that government to follow its own actual rules.

        1. avatar Juanito ''Johnnie'' Ibañez says:

          “It’s a sad state of affairs when citizens have to go to court against their own government just to get that government to follow its own actual rules.”

          One needs only remember what Lord Acton wrote:

          “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
          ~ John Emerich Edward Dalberg-Acton, 1st Baron Acton

  46. avatar Rick the Bear says:

    “…if they were simply creating a fundamental right to bear arms?”

    Did anyone else catch this little faux pas? Our Founders didn’t CREATE any rights.

  47. avatar Juanito ''Johnnie'' Ibañez says:

    @PaulG wrote on September 16, 2015 at 17:46 hours:

    “The populace in general was never the well-regulated militia. Unorganized militia, perhaps. Big difference.”

    http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Meme.jpg

    1. avatar Paul G says:

      “The most original part of Washington’s “Sentiments,” echoed by Generals Steuben and Knox in later pamphlets, called for institutional change in the militia. The generals never questioned the basic premise that every individual owed society military service. On the contrary, they argued that the lessons of the Revolutionary campaigns showed that national defense depended heavily on the contribution of the citizen-soldier and that a “well-regulated” militia would eliminate the need for a large peacetime force. At the same time they considered the existing system defective and proposed reforms to enable the militia to serve more effectively with the regulars on the battlefield. Specifically, they called for the establishment of uniform organization and training, and the creation of a select force, composed of men between the ages of 18 and 25 who would receive special advanced training beyond that received by the average militiaman. This was not a radical change; it simply formalized the old idea of the Minutemen, bringing them under supervision of the national government rather than the individual states.”

      http://www.history.army.mil/books/revwar/ss/ch3.htm

      “but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.”

      http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/artconf.asp

      Obviously well-regulated and sufficiently armed were not synonymous. At least back in time when the Articles of Confederation were written.

      1. avatar Juanito ''Johnnie'' Ibañez says:

        Move to strike answer as non-responsive.

        As usual, PauliG attempts to misdirect, rather than to answer the question:

        “A well-balanced breakfast being necessary to the start of a healthy day, the right of the People to keep and eat food shall not be infringed.”

        Who has the right to food?

        “A well-balanced breakfast” or “the People”?

        The five wise men of the SCOTUS; Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, & Alito; could answer the question…but apparently not PauliG. 😐

        Meanwhile:

        “Each individual militiamen was expected to provide his own weapon, usually a smoothbore musket, and ammunition, clothing, and food for a short expedition, just as the British knight had been required to provide his own horse, armor, and suitable weapons for feudal warfare. Local authorities maintained reserve supplies of muskets to arm those too poor to buy them and collected stores of ammunition, and sometimes small cannon that could be dragged along through the wilderness. For really long campaigns, the colonial government had to take charge, the assembly appropriating the money for supplies and designating the supply officers or contractors to handle purchasing and distribution.”

        http://www.history.army.mil/books/AMH/AMH-02.htm

        However, PauliG has earlier on adamently claimed there was no “BYOW” (bring your own weapon) in the militia of early America.

        So; here’s another “loaded question” for PauliG:

        “Do you believe that a citizen of the United States has the right to own as many firearms as they want, without having to be in the National Guard; unless their 2nd Amendment RKBA has been restricted via an act of judicial ‘due process’?”

        Answer with a simple “Yes” or “No” (none of your usual self-serving pontification is allowed).

        NOTE: members of today’s National Guard are routinely _prohibited_ from using their own weapons while serving on duty, so any claim that a person must be in the National Guard to have a RK&B _their_own_ arms there is moot on its face.

        1. avatar Paul G says:

          Johnny, you poor sad little boy. You have no power to tell me, nor anyone else, how to answer anything here. You have no power here.
          You also either cannot comprehend simple terms or you need to lie to make yourself look good. I said that welll-regulated most certainly did not mean BYOW, and have sufficiently proven that point.
          I have also shown that the populace is not the welll-regulated militia. They are the unorganized militia. Huge difference.
          I never said nor implied that the 2A requires the people to participate in a militia in order to have a right to bear arms. Stop trying to put words into my mouth
          The 2A enumerates an individual right, same as all the other BoR enumerated rights.
          I hope maybe being shown how wrong you are about so much may have taught you something.
          With all your attempts to tell others what to do, your need to give us the highlights of your life (playing with flags), and your wanting to diagnose others as sick by viewing their posts here, you might want to see a shrink. Especially given your claimed employment.

        2. avatar Juanito ''Johnnie'' Ibañez says:

          BUSTED!

          We KNEW ol’ “NPD PaulieG” here couldn’t do it! It is _impossible_ for him to make a simple one-word answer!

          He just HAD to pontificate in order to demonstrate his “superiority” and to “monopolize the conversation.”

          So, PauliG; tell us exactly how many years have you served “under arms” in the military: either Guard or Regular. How many times have you “gone in harm’s way” to protect others you didn’t even know?

          I predict a big, fat “ZERO” in re both questions! [I also predict a non-answer from PauliG; along with yet another round of his bandwidth-wasting pontification.]

          BTW: “see(ing) a shrink” is an integral part of the employment process for law enforcement, so I’ve seen several throughout my rise in rank during my civilian LEO career. Been found quite sane each and every time.

          Can _you_ say the same?

          Not likely; given your conduct is this Thread alone.

        3. avatar Paul G says:

          Busted? Oooooh, failure to heed to orders of a wannabes internet cop. One who thinks he is also a psychologist. You realize that in your need to “entrap” someone, you are proving your own sick mind, right?

        4. avatar Roymond@ says:

          “Well-regulated” most certainly did mean BYOW, or General Washington would not have included it as a reason he considered some militia groups coming to serve under him as NOT well-regulated.

        5. avatar Juanito ''Johnnie'' Ibañez says:

          1st off: you’re not going to get ol’ “NPD Pauli G” to admit he’s wrong about _anything_: most especially about “BYOW”, despite his having been provided evidence of same from both the US Army and the SCOTUS in ‘Miller’.

          2nd: George Washington was both “For” and “Against” the militia troops who fought alongside his Colonial/US Army Regulars.

          He complained to his nephew Lund about them and blamed their performance in his failure to retain control of Manhattan & Long Island, then turned around after the war & agreed with Patrick Henry in that the militia was necessary to “oppose the introduction to tyranny” and endorsed the 2nd Amendment.

          It should be noted, though, that it took the efforts of von Steuben to whip Washington’s Regulars into a genuine fighting force.

        6. avatar Paul G says:

          Having already posted contrary data, including from Gen. Washington, I can tell you you are mistaken. Even the Articles of Confederation state otherwise, as I have posted.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email