Political blogging...

[marc]

Wow, an interesting point by CK. I have never thought of the 2nd Amendment as one being exercised collectively but then again I was rather naively taught that you only put it in to fend off wild bears etc. I guess at the time there was a worry of re-invasion by the English or indeed rebellion but such fears are surely not present nowadays especially as our invasion isn't planned until 2020 and the nearest thing you've got to a rebellion is Mr. Eastwood growing his own carrots. In all seriousness though we are perplexed by our trans-Atlantic cousins fascination with guns. CK points out two reasons for individual gun use; but in relation to self-defence is there really no faith in the police or other services? Panicking home-owners and rifles is surely a recipe for disaster. In general though I agree that guns may be used for sports especially as this is an Olympic discipline. This though takes place in a controlled environment and I emphasise the word discipline. We no longer even have guns for sport over here in the UK after the knee-jerk legislation passed after the Dunblane Massacre and consequential Snowdrop campaign. How many Dunblanes or Columbines will it take for America to drop their 18th century pretence?

I don't know a huge amount about your National Guard but it seems something like our Territorial Army. Perhaps linking owning a gun and actually having to serve on the frontline would be a deterrent.

Finally, thank you CK for quoting me earlier on, I haven't forgot that very interesting discussion. And also as this is called political blogging I hope you don't mind me plugging my own for if you've got a spare minute or two: http://marcuscleaver.blogspot.com/

[Mr.Eastwood]

I like carrots, but I'm more of a meat and potato kinda guy Marc 

I disagree with the notion that the 2nd Amendment is a collective right. I, however, agree that the founding fathers had a deep mistrust of standing armies and thought a well armed & trained citizen militia (the kind El Malo & myself, included, favor) would be enough to defend the country. The key to that being a well armed & trained citizen with a weapon. Ignoring the whole slavery deal, our country was founded on freedom from government interference and since so many early Americans made their lives with, & depended upon, a fire arm, I find it ludicrous that they would deny all a individual right to own & carry one, instead favoring a collective right via a militia.

I find fault with C.K.s assumption our founding fathers were at fault for not envisioning our involvement, militarily, in world affairs. I don't think they were short-sighed in the least, but were optimistic that we would cherish everything they bequeathed us and leave it all untarnished. Our founding fathers, Washington more than all, favored us staying out of the affairs of foreign powers, hence his famous "No entangling alliances" remark in his Farewell Address.

Also, there is a saying that when you call 9-1-1, the cops are minutes away (at best). A person meant to do me harm isn't going to stop when I ask him too & sit & wait for me to call 9-1-1 & then wait, further, for the cops to show up. That gun is all that stops that person from harming me and/or my friends/loved ones. Next lets talk about gun crime and other such misconceptions. Surely when a nation as populated as ours has 90 million guns owners in possession of roughly 200 million fire arms, crimes related to those fire arms will be high. But it is a common misconception that guns=crime. If that is true, then flies=garbage. I own several and carry one with me almost 24/7 and I have never shot anyone. The roughly 30,000 (that's an average) gun-related deaths in this country, when compared to the number of fire arm & fire arm owners in this country, is a paltry sum. Compare it to the 40,000 (again, an average) deaths related to automobiles and you'll see those are far more deadly than fire arms. Also, out of the 30,000 gun-related deaths, roughly half (15,000) are suicide by fire arm. So that original 30,000 gun-related deaths out of 90 million gun owners is now 15,000 out of 90 million.

And Marc I have to wonder, did you government report on the increasing amount of crime in your nation after your legislature enacted all those draconian gun laws? Has it ever admitted that you are safer in New York City than in London? How are you all enjoying those stab-proof back packs for children? You've succeeded in taking guns from criminals, so they have resorted to knives; bludgeoning instruments used in crimes have been on the rise too, last I checked. Meanwhile, it's a proven fact that states/cities that relax gun-control and it's following legislation have seen significant decreases in violent crimes.

These numbers & statistics come from the latest FBI Crime Statistics.

[Coconut Kid]

... Personally, I would not use the NG, as the vehicle to "organize" gun-owners.

I am old-fashion, and would prefer a Citizen's Militia, organized by precinct, county, state and national levels.

... I believe, that based upon previous militia statutes, this body is mandatory for all citizens, 16 to 55 years of age, and requires the "militiaman" to personally maintain a minimum level of lethal weaponry.

Title 10 of the US Code states:

(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.
Many states also maintain their own State Defense Forces. These forces are federally recognized militia but not as an armed force service. Because of this, they are separate from the National Guard and are not meant to be federalized. They serve the state exclusively, especially when the National Guard is deployed or otherwise unavailable.

State Defense Forces (SDF) (also known as State Guards, State Military Reserves, or State Militias) in the United States are military units that operate under the sole authority of a state government, although they are regulated by the National Guard Bureau through the Army National Guard of the United States. State Defense Forces are authorized by state and federal law and are under the command of the governor, as State Defense Forces are distinct from their state's National Guard in that they cannot become federal entities. The federal government recognizes State Defense Forces under 32 U.S.C. § 109 which provides that State Defense Forces as a whole may not be called, ordered, or drafted into the Armed Forces of the United States, thus preserving their separation from the National Guard. However, under the same law, individual members serving in the State Defense Force are not exempt from service in the Armed Forces (e.g., draft). NGR 10-4 further states: "State regulations should provide for immediate discharge of SDF members who have been appointed, inducted, enlisted, ordered, or called in the Armed forces [sic] of the U.S., or a Reserve component thereof."

Although nearly every state has laws authorizing State Defense Forces, approximately twenty-two states, to include Puerto Rico, currently have active State Defense Forces, each with different levels of activity, state support, and strength. SDFs generally operate with emergency management and homeland security missions. Most SDFs are organized as Army units, but Air and Naval units also exist.


I do not trust privately organized military units. They are likely to have ethnic, religious or political bases which undermine rather than support democratic government.

[Coconut Kid]

What is a citizen militia?
Who is Mark Pitcavage?

The creator of the Militia Watchdog website is Mark Pitcavage. Mark Pitcavage is a historian who has specialized in the history of right-wing extremism in contemporary America.

Pitcavage grew up in the border city of El Paso, Texas, and attended Trinity University in San Antonio, Texas. He later moved to Ohio in order to complete a Ph.D. in American military and social history at The Ohio State University. His dissertation studied the decline of state militias during the nineteenth century.  His areas of specialization were modern American right-wing extremism and American military history.

It was his research in the historical militia that first interested Pitcavage in the so-called militia movement. Initially only concerned with the particular image of the historical militia that militia groups held, Pitcavage gradually came to realize that the militias were a fascinating subject of study in their own right, and this led him to develop an expertise in modern right-wing extremists. He has been particularly interested in the group Posse Comitatus, active in the 1970s and 1980s, and the influence this group has had on the militia and sovereign citizen movements.

http://www.adl.org/MWD/shorttoc.asp

http://www.adl.org/MWD/faq1.asp

[Coconut Kid]

... I believe, that based upon previous militia statutes, this body ... requires the "militiaman" to personally maintain a minimum level of lethal weaponry.

I don't think so.

The historical militia, which starting in 1792 consisted of every able-bodied white male aged 18-45 except for those exempted (often reaching 50% or more), never was completely armed. In fact, most militiamen did not have guns; this is very clear from the surviving militia returns. In fact, the militia in some areas got the nickname "Cornstalk Militia" because so many of its members showed up for training with cornstalks instead of guns.

Basically what you will find is that New England states such as Massachusetts and Connecticut were very well-armed, with most militiamen having guns, but Southern and Western states were very poorly-armed, with only a fraction (sometimes a very small fraction) of the militia having weapons. This was due to several factors, but perhaps the most important such factor was that guns were very difficult to buy in those areas (poor availability and high prices).

http://www.adl.org/MWD/faq1.asp

The Massachusetts and Connecticut difference may be linked to the collective, social memory of the experience of military service in the Seven Years War and the Revolution. See A People's Army by Fred Anderson.

[Coconut Kid]

... I have never thought of the 2nd Amendment as one being exercised collectively but then again I was rather naively taught that you only put it in to fend off wild bears etc. ...

There is an enormous over-burden of distorted and inaccurate propaganda that substitutes for American history.

In all seriousness though we are perplexed by our trans-Atlantic cousins fascination with guns. CK points out two reasons for individual gun use; but in relation to self-defence is there really no faith in the police or other services? ...

If the "home-owners" (what excludes renters?) really wished to defend themselves, they would have shotguns with lethal loads. But on the contrary, it is the handgun (vs long-gun) which is promoted as the weapon of choice for "self-defense". The premier political lobby in the U.S. is The National Rifle Association which began as a quiet group promoting civilian marksmanship as a preparation for military service or as an improvement / counterbalance to the social event orientation of the National Guard. Today it spends more time and effort on handguns than on rifles. The military use of handguns is microscopic. The Hollywood use of them in the mythology of the "frontier" is overwhelming.

I'm sure it is upsetting to the police. It is a social issue that splits the population and is a cancer on society.

In general though I agree that guns may be used for sports especially as this is an Olympic discipline.

The "Olympic Sport" involving firearms has as much connection to longgun sport as ballancing a spoon on one's nose has to being an expert chef.

This though takes place in a controlled environment and I emphasise the word discipline. We no longer even have guns for sport over here in the UK after the knee-jerk legislation passed after the Dunblane Massacre and consequential Snowdrop campaign. How many Dunblanes or Columbines will it take for America to drop their 18th century pretence?

I suspect that many will disagree with what you said simply over the point that you no longer have legal firearms. You are becoming awash in illegal weapons. No number of horrible events carried out by insane persons allowed to run free will bring about a change in the gun laws. In a parallel with medicine, fiddling with the gun laws is only treating the symptoms. The greater issue is "mental health" as a public health issue.

I don't know a huge amount about your National Guard but it seems something like our Territorial Army. Perhaps linking owning a gun and actually having to serve on the frontline would be a deterrent. ...

I can't guess what you wish to deter -- owning a long-gun or owning a handgun? And where is this "frontline"?

That, of course, is not my point. I think we should quit thinking in the little boxes one set of propagandists issue to us. The folks who try to counter the NRA try to fight right there in the NRA provided boxes.

[Coconut Kid]

I disagree with the notion that the 2nd Amendment is a collective right. I, however, agree that the founding fathers had a deep mistrust of standing armies and thought a well armed & trained citizen militia (the kind El Malo & myself, included, favor) would be enough to defend the country.

You are incorrect. You are misusing the concept of a citizen militia. The well established concept from the colonial beginnings (and from before) was the whole body of the people as organized under the general law which obtained. It was not a private "club" to be formed like a "Mason's Lodge". Yes, it later became perverted so that this or that company "belonged" to some political or social group. That was more typical of the volunteer fire companies, but also unfortunately was represented in the militia. I would never suggest that the 2nd Amendment authorized such private associations.

The key to that being a well armed & trained citizen with a weapon.

You are really off-base. "Well Armed" had nothing to do with it. That is a figment of your imagination.

Ignoring the whole slavery deal, our country was founded on freedom from government interference and since so many early Americans made their lives with, & depended upon, a fire arm, I find it ludicrous that they would deny all a individual right to own & carry one, instead favoring a collective right via a militia.

That claim of the basis of the founding is ludicrous, an urban legend. The colonial governments were very intrusive. Only those who chose to live at the far fringes of the frontier were free of "government" -- but they also had to cope with the folks already living there.

The number who depended on a firearm was minimal as compared to those who depended on an ax and a hoe.

The national government was founded on an uneasy group of former colonies who really didn't get on well with each other.

I did not suggest that my interpretation of the 2nd Amendment was one that denied an individual the right to own a long-gun which could be used in a military formation. I suggested exactly the opposite. What I added is the concept that personal ownership of such a weapon carries the obligation of service in the organized, trained militia under the control of the government.

I find fault with C.K.s assumption our founding fathers were at fault for not envisioning our involvement, militarily, in world affairs. ...

Sarcasm, my friend.

... A person meant to do me harm isn't going to stop when I ask him too & sit & wait for me to call 9-1-1 & then wait, further, for the cops to show up. That gun is all that stops that person from harming me and/or my friends/loved ones. ...

All the statistics don't really mean much. That comment is the complete summary of the mentality that says no matter how good the police force is, My Family and I are constantly faced with an instant deadly threat which can't be foreseen. At any instant in my life I shall be confronted by an assassin who can be stopped only by the gun I have ready to hand.

It makes one understand how people feel safer under a feudal system of government.