Skip to comments.Time For Federal Gun Regulation
Posted on 12/19/2012 1:33:49 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVetEdited on 12/19/2012 3:06:11 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
Did a 12-year-old write this trash?
In reality, just looking at the last 20 mass killings, the NO GUN ZONES increased the probability of getting killed about 1900% as compared to any other spot.
The only law we need is one that requires anti-gun nuts to post a NO GUN ZONE sign on their homes!
“We must therefore institute reasonable gun regulation at the federal level”
As long as the “regulation” in no way infringes on the right to keep and bear arms, no problem.
Back then people referred to “well regulated clocks” and other references to accuracy and running properly. It did not mean “lots of rules and regulations”!
Ah. Now they want to kill me “for the children.” I’m impressed.
I heard the “well regulated militia argument” from a liberal Friday night. This could be the end of the second amendment folks, as the left has their we’ll rehearsed talking points and the community organizer in chief has made sure they understand it and are spreading the word through their well oiled network. An extension of election tactics.
Enables Federal gun CONFISCATION at a later date
drunk driving kills someone every 55 minutes...and no gun used in okc tragedy...the list goes on...how bout treating mental illness...we used to do that but now we just turn the mentally sick out on the street...no one in the obama administration wants to preserve 2nd amendment
no, just someone with a simplistic view of life as he/she knows it and too stupid to see the obvious.
Yeah, yeah. These were the same people sneering at the “paranoia” of people who were purchasing firearms because they thought 0bama would come after them. Well, guess what?
**** We must therefore institute reasonable gun regulation at the federal level,***
Yep. 1968 all over again.
“Today we begin to disarm the criminal and the careless and the insane. All of our people who are deeply concerned in this country about law and order should hail this day....”
“....Congress adopted most of our recommendations. But this bill—as big as this bill is—still falls short, because we just could not get the Congress to carry out the requests we made of them.
I asked for the national registration of all guns and the licensing of those who carry those guns. For the fact of life is that there are over 160 million guns in this country—more firearms than families.
If guns are to be kept out of the hands of the criminal, out of the hands of the insane, and out of the hands of the irresponsible, then we just must have licensing. If the criminal with a gun is to be tracked down quickly, then we must have registration in this country.
The voices that blocked these safeguards were not the voices of an aroused nation. They were the voices of a powerful lobby, a gun lobby, that has prevailed for the moment in an election year.”
—Comments by LYNDON B JOHNSON when he signed the 1968 gun control act into law.
Gun registration followed by confiscation is still the lib’s wet dream.
“The first problem is to slow down the number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered.
The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunitionexcept for the military, police, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectorstotally illegal.” —Nelson Pete Shields
Now they are also after rifles.
Roll out your own talking points.
The author of this garbage trots out easily shot down points.
Wal-Mart Stores Sell Out Of Guns (in five States)
Clinton, Reno and Holder conducted Waco.
Holder was the under the radar guy who pulled this off while Clinton skated and Reno bs’ed her way out of responsibilty.
obama and big sis are much more evil and vindictive than clinton or reno ever hoped to be.
Like the chinese say, interesting times.
I understand and thanks for the fine points. My concern is the liberal crowd mentality that follow the leader like the steeple they are. They are a very dedicated lot to their dear leader.
And for those unable to comprehend a COMPLETE paragraph in the English language...
THE power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy.
It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defense. It would enable them to discharge the duties of the camp and of the field with mutual intelligence and concert an advantage of peculiar moment in the operations of an army; and it would fit them much sooner to acquire the degree of proficiency in military functions which would be essential to their usefulness. This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union "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."
Of the different grounds which have been taken in opposition to the plan of the convention, there is none that was so little to have been expected, or is so untenable in itself, as the one from which this particular provision has been attacked. If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security. If standing armies are dangerous to liberty, an efficacious power over the militia, in the body to whose care the protection of the State is committed, ought, as far as possible, to take away the inducement and the pretext to such unfriendly institutions. If the federal government can command the aid of the militia in those emergencies which call for the military arm in support of the civil magistrate, it can the better dispense with the employment of a different kind of force. If it cannot avail itself of the former, it will be obliged to recur to the latter. To render an army unnecessary, will be a more certain method of preventing its existence than a thousand prohibitions upon paper.
In order to cast an odium upon the power of calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, it has been remarked that there is nowhere any provision in the proposed Constitution for calling out the POSSE COMITATUS, to assist the magistrate in the execution of his duty, whence it has been inferred, that military force was intended to be his only auxiliary. There is a striking incoherence in the objections which have appeared, and sometimes even from the same quarter, not much calculated to inspire a very favorable opinion of the sincerity or fair dealing of their authors. The same persons who tell us in one breath, that the powers of the federal government will be despotic and unlimited, inform us in the next, that it has not authority sufficient even to call out the POSSE COMITATUS. The latter, fortunately, is as much short of the truth as the former exceeds it. It would be as absurd to doubt, that a right to pass all laws necessary and proper to execute its declared powers, would include that of requiring the assistance of the citizens to the officers who may be intrusted with the execution of those laws, as it would be to believe, that a right to enact laws necessary and proper for the imposition and collection of taxes would involve that of varying the rules of descent and of the alienation of landed property, or of abolishing the trial by jury in cases relating to it. It being therefore evident that the supposition of a want of power to require the aid of the POSSE COMITATUS is entirely destitute of color, it will follow, that the conclusion which has been drawn from it, in its application to the authority of the federal government over the militia, is as uncandid as it is illogical. What reason could there be to infer, that force was intended to be the sole instrument of authority, merely because there is a power to make use of it when necessary? What shall we think of the motives which could induce men of sense to reason in this manner? How shall we prevent a conflict between charity and conviction?
By a curious refinement upon the spirit of republican jealousy, we are even taught to apprehend danger from the militia itself, in the hands of the federal government. It is observed that select corps may be formed, composed of the young and ardent, who may be rendered subservient to the views of arbitrary power. What plan for the regulation of the militia may be pursued by the national government, is impossible to be foreseen. But so far from viewing the matter in the same light with those who object to select corps as dangerous, were the Constitution ratified, and were I to deliver my sentiments to a member of the federal legislature from this State on the subject of a militia establishment, I should hold to him, in substance, the following discourse:
"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. 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 numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. 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 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.
"But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
Thus differently from the adversaries of the proposed Constitution should I reason on the same subject, deducing arguments of safety from the very sources which they represent as fraught with danger and perdition. But how the national legislature may reason on the point, is a thing which neither they nor I can foresee.
There is something so far-fetched and so extravagant in the idea of danger to liberty from the militia, that one is at a loss whether to treat it with gravity or with raillery; whether to consider it as a mere trial of skill, like the paradoxes of rhetoricians; as a disingenuous artifice to instil prejudices at any price; or as the serious offspring of political fanaticism. Where in the name of common-sense, are our fears to end if we may not trust our sons, our brothers, our neighbors, our fellow-citizens? What shadow of danger can there be from men who are daily mingling with the rest of their countrymen and who participate with them in the same feelings, sentiments, habits and interests? What reasonable cause of apprehension can be inferred from a power in the Union to prescribe regulations for the militia, and to command its services when necessary, while the particular States are to have the sole and exclusive appointment of the officers? If it were possible seriously to indulge a jealousy of the militia upon any conceivable establishment under the federal government, the circumstance of the officers being in the appointment of the States ought at once to extinguish it. There can be no doubt that this circumstance will always secure to them a preponderating influence over the militia.
In reading many of the publications against the Constitution, a man is apt to imagine that he is perusing some ill-written tale or romance, which instead of natural and agreeable images, exhibits to the mind nothing but frightful and distorted shapes --
"Gorgons, hydras, and chimeras dire";
discoloring and disfiguring whatever it represents, and transforming everything it touches into a monster.
A sample of this is to be observed in the exaggerated and improbable suggestions which have taken place respecting the power of calling for the services of the militia. That of New Hampshire is to be marched to Georgia, of Georgia to New Hampshire, of New York to Kentucky, and of Kentucky to Lake Champlain. Nay, the debts due to the French and Dutch are to be paid in militiamen instead of louis d'ors and ducats. At one moment there is to be a large army to lay prostrate the liberties of the people; at another moment the militia of Virginia are to be dragged from their homes five or six hundred miles, to tame the republican contumacy of Massachusetts; and that of Massachusetts is to be transported an equal distance to subdue the refractory haughtiness of the aristocratic Virginians. Do the persons who rave at this rate imagine that their art or their eloquence can impose any conceits or absurdities upon the people of America for infallible truths?
If there should be an army to be made use of as the engine of despotism, what need of the militia? If there should be no army, whither would the militia, irritated by being called upon to undertake a distant and hopeless expedition, for the purpose of riveting the chains of slavery upon a part of their countrymen, direct their course, but to the seat of the tyrants, who had meditated so foolish as well as so wicked a project, to crush them in their imagined intrenchments of power, and to make them an example of the just vengeance of an abused and incensed people? Is this the way in which usurpers stride to dominion over a numerous and enlightened nation? Do they begin by exciting the detestation of the very instruments of their intended usurpations? Do they usually commence their career by wanton and disgustful acts of power, calculated to answer no end, but to draw upon themselves universal hatred and execration? Are suppositions of this sort the sober admonitions of discerning patriots to a discerning people? Or are they the inflammatory ravings of incendiaries or distempered enthusiasts? If we were even to suppose the national rulers actuated by the most ungovernable ambition, it is impossible to believe that they would employ such preposterous means to accomplish their designs.
In times of insurrection, or invasion, it would be natural and proper that the militia of a neighboring State should be marched into another, to resist a common enemy, or to guard the republic against the violence of faction or sedition. This was frequently the case, in respect to the first object, in the course of the late war; and this mutual succor is, indeed, a principal end of our political association. If the power of affording it be placed under the direction of the Union, there will be no danger of a supine and listless inattention to the dangers of a neighbor, till its near approach had superadded the incitements of self-preservation to the too feeble impulses of duty and sympathy.
I think that quote is made up.
Define reasonable, and then well talk.
What is a “Peace Team”, and how gay do you have to be to join it?
They are totaly unconnected from reality. The rifles they talk about are involved in less than 5 percent of the murders in this country. Less than 300 murders a year, probably closer to 150. And they want to destroy the Constitution and start a civil war over that, when it will, in fact not reduce the murder rate one bit.
They do not care. They want what they want.
A combination of a state and the federal government, determines what are military grade weapons *in their relationship dedicated to our mutual defense,* and given that, both need for the able-bodied militia of that state, to be well trained to Arms. “Arms” (capital A) being those military grade weapons and implying being “well regulated.”
Once agreed upon, the states, indeed the counties *can* order a muster of the militia “with complete Arms” for inspection and training.
A whole lot of people who own semi-automatic rifles will be surprised to discover that the order to muster *applies to them,* and they *must* comply with “being called.”
The states *do* have the power to require the able-bodied to fulfill their militia duties; the militia of each state, is *not* an “all volunteer organization.” Yet, for the most part, orders to muster have been met over the years, sufficiently to complete a complement of men at Arms. (Though some times, officers have been empowered by their state legislature to take the necessary steps to complete their ranks.)
A lot of people don’t know this, because the old militia laws have languished. That has become something of a shame, because we need now to have these demonstrations, in order to show what are good weapons practices, in addition to making clear to the care-less liberal media, *who really are the militia.*
Largely this matter became an issue because some “religiously devoted” (18th and 19th centuries, when the country was young) did not want to be compelled to Arms” in conflict with their religious beliefs, merely because they were able-bodied and keeping and bearing a military grade weapon.
In fact, during the work that developed the wording of the 2nd Amendment, there was for a brief time, a clause about a religous exemption.
Guess what? And, this is important. The clause was removed from the wording, because it was feared that some tyrannical government force might order people to be disarmed because of their religous devotion - example: You claim that you are an objector on religious grounds, OK, but hand in your military grade weapons!
Well, the Founding Fathers did not want that to happen, so the wording was scrapped.
Yet here is what a lot of Americans do not know:
Even though the wording was scrapped, the history of its surfacing, is the basis of our laws about your having the right to object to military service because of your religious conviction!
Another possible clause spelled out “for the purpose of killing game”(submitted by Pennsylvania), but it too was removed, because the Founding Fathers did not want individuals to be restricted to only being allowed to keep and bear Arms in compliance with gaming laws. That practice, of abusing game laws in order to control Arms among the populace, was not to be, in these United States.
THERE WOULD BE NO NARROW DEFINITION OF, NOR ENUMERATION OF, WHY THERE IS AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT!
We simply have the right to keep and bear Arms, military grade and personal, affirmed by the 2nd Amendment, but if you bear the military grade, you must comply with militia laws.
It’s up to the people of a state, to make sure they have the militia laws in tune with their needs. Some may be restrictive at a personal level, while other states may not be so. Traveling thru a more restrictive state with your weapons, you may find that you have to store them within that state’ system of armories until you depart that state.
*That* is what New York should do, instead of throwing law-abiding American citizens in jail.
OK, back to the drill ...
Semi-automatic rifles *are* actually military grade *if* capable of using “standard issue” military ammunition. Same as the M1 Garand semi-automatic rifle used during WW-II and long after.
Almost always, the criteria are, that the weapon(s) be common, and the ammunition be common, enough, that they (weapon and ammo) fit into the state or national need.
Bolt action .30-06 rifles *are* military grade. Semi-automatic rifles that use ammunition that the U.S. military uses, *are* military grade (though the current definition of “assault weapon” may not apply to either).
As a resident in any state of these United States of American, if you own a military grade rifle and are able-bodied (though, with some exceptions that your state legislature may apply) you *can be ordered to comply with an order to muster* because you keep and bear such an Arm (unless you object to military service on the grounds of your religious conviction).
It is very revealing, going thru the old militia laws of England, France, the Dutch and German/Roman principalities, and of old Spain, and then the militia laws of the colonies and the young uniting states, then the early United States ... to find the consolidation of militia practices thence standard principles.
Military grade weapons ownership, keeping, and bearing, *do include* a duty to participate in the militia and meanwhile maintain a practice of Arms that responds to lawful authority at all times.
The people of any state, thru their legislators in assembly, do have the right to know what is the military strength and where is it, across their state, of the able-bodied who may be ordered to the muster.
The left is now very close “at university” to demanding that the militia law be *strictly* enforced.
I know of one professor “at university” in my state, who has been researching this for years. He’s a left-wing-nut angling for *strict enforcement.* Meaning, that you will be ordered to answer the call to muster and register your military grade rifle.
As vague as this may seem on anybody’s radar now, I expect this path, because it is the nature of the left to seek avenues thru the courts -— they will try to get a judge to request a governor or even a county sheriff to order the muster.
I personally think that we should beat the left to the punch, so we can wisely perform our duties instead of being dictated to by left-wing-nuts’ inventions.
About the history of all this
I stumbled onto one of the books about the development of the militia, 30 years ago. I was floored, because I had thought until then, what lot of people think simply from the wording of the 2nd Amendment.
I was on quest. It was not easy to find information while avoiding the N.R.A. I wanted to be able to honestly say that I found this without that organization’s help - because I expected to often be confronted by: “Oh, you’re an N.R.A. member.” (I’d like to be.) But I want to be able to say “No.” and thus disarm our opponents.
I’m posting this here as my own opinion, leaving the research to the reader. I spent a lot of time and money to find out about our 2nd Amendment. I wanted originally to find what was in law schools about the 2nd Amendment. I had imagined that there would be major sections; but I did not get far, as the law books I did find in stores, were practically devoid of any mention of the 2nd Amendment, except where the liberal law school would try to bash the 2nd Amendment into the being the left’s narrow-minded anti-individual-rights contrivance.
I had better luck spending time in university libraries in the old history collections, than in any legal section.
*After* I had hunted around, then I went to the N.R.A. and was happy to find, that it actually has a lot of good information about the historical record.
One thing I found, was that the states have a lot of power to say, what happens to military grade weapons. For example, under an emergency, a state can order you to ship your military grade weapons to the nearest armory, to satisfy the state’s need to be better organized (logistics).
On the other hand, the federal government never needed to step into the business of gun control laws; all along, the states - Illinois - could have strictly enforced the keeping and bearing Arms.
The overall problem was, back then, during the early years of machine guns and organized crime *together,* the federal government was already a trough to which states were lined up for handouts, thus handing power to the federal government “to solve local problems.”
The federal government does have a lot of clout in regard to military grade weapons, but the federal government must still be in agreement with a state, for the final decision on what the weapons will be so ... and *that* became easier on the federal government, as a state would be expecting federal largesse (and state representatives were too afraid to confront organized crime *or were part of it*).
The National Rifle Association, would surprise many, by the books that it has on its shelves, which go into great detail about the granular development of the militia of Europe, then the militia of North American colonies, then uniting states, then the early United States. A period of a few hundred years over which militia law and principles grew along with our natural rights, both for the purpose of our gaining our freedom from serfdom, and then maintaining it.
If you’re interested in old research, here is an example of what to look for:
Military Obligation: The American Tradition. A Compilation of the Enactments of Compulsion From the Earliest Settlements of the Original Thirteen Colonies in 1607 Through the Articles of Confederation, 1789. Compiled by Arthur Vollmer. Volume II of United States Selective Service System, Special Monograph No. 1: Backgrounds of Selective Service. 14 parts. Washington, 1947.
Franco-Gallia: or, an Account of the Ancient Free State of France, and Most other Parts of Europe, before the Loss of their Liberties. Written Originally in Latin by the Famous Civilian Francis Hotoman, In the Year 1574. 2nd edition. London, 1721.
You get the picture.
The history behind our 2nd Amendment, is tremendous.
My passion for all this, is that I do not want for our country to suffer thru the horrendous tragedies of nationalizing socialism, which is a leftist excuse to create a police state immediately in the wake of parading “social justice” as the bait.
The leftists are obsessed with defining who people are, what people need, and controlling every step.
That is a proven path to Auschwitz, Dachau, Bergen Belsen and others.
Our fathers fought *against that.*
It is almost as if we are mounted in pursuit of an intersection at which we plan to intercept the dreadful ambitions of the socialists and attempt to get them to see some light before going any further.
Great source; thanks for these details. If we, as conservatives, are unwilling to stand tall against this administration and their socialist/radical agenda, our cause will be forever lost.
Up until about 1 century ago, it was common for the local militia to muster and drill, demonstrate and practice the arts of being well-trained to Arms, on a community or county green.
The use of fake drill “arms” by high school and college bands, until these later years, were a vestage of the old practice.
You rarely see now at the high school and college level, the left and right members of a flag drill team carrying these traditional arms.
I’m suggesting that return to the practice of mustering on the green.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.