Memorial Day Weekend: Chicago Body Count

Disclaimer:

I understand that the 2nd was argued and found to involve personal protection, but it has been argued from the militia point of view as well. I think it covers both and I am not trying to push any agenda supporting one view or the other, just that I believe that nuclear arms (or any WMDs ) are not the type of weaponry addressed in the Bill of Rights.

Perhaps if it could be proven that nuclear weapons are necessary for every US citizen for the protection of self and state, then we should all have the right to bear such arms. However, if that were the case, we'd be able to own personal nukes already.

Also, a well regulated militia implies a regulatory body calling the shots and that right is reserved to the individual states or to the people. So I believe that technically a militia can be organized and regulated by the people if it is supports a State militia. IMO the National Guard is not a militia regulated by the individual states or the people and doesn't count as such.

originally posted by: MichiganSwampBuck
...

Also, a well regulated militia implies a regulatory body calling the shots and that right is reserved to the individual states or to the people. So I believe that technically a militia can be organized and regulated by the people if it is supports a State militia. IMO the National Guard is not a militia regulated by the individual states or the people and doesn't count as such.

Again, you are wrong and misinformed. In the period, the term "well regulated" meant well ordered, trained,. in good order. In fact. the British solders were called "regulars" for that exact reason. They were well regulated soldiers, well trained and in good order. The definition of the word "regulated" today is not the same as it was when the U.S. Constitution was written. Meanings of words change over time, and the best way to understand them is to read and interpret them IN CONTEXT of the time they were written. Anything else is either being ignorant of the definition or pushing an agenda.

Oh, and BTW, "arms" is also defined during that period to be a gun, a firearm, a weapon that could be carried and fired a projectile. You nuke example is hyperbole and a strawman that frequently is used when the former definition is shown to be incorrect.

Please. educate yourself, it does a body good.





Again, education is your friend. I've done numerous posts on this topic here at ATS using period dictionaries and sources.

This is NOT the Mud Pit!!!

All rules for polite political debate will be enforced.
Reaffirming Our Desire For Productive Political Debate (REVISED)

You are responsible for your own posts.....those who ignore that responsibility will face mod actions.


and, as always:

Do NOT reply to this post!!

a reply to: Krakatoa

So, am I wrong in believing that the order of, or the that the types of training used in a well regulated militia is to come from the individual states or the people? Or are you saying that each individual citizen is responsible for their own order and training with respect to a militia protecting the state, their rights and safety? If so, please show me the error of my ways as I would rather be accused of ignorance than having an agenda of some kind (esp. one that subverts the constitution). I have no problem with my personal ignorance as long as I correct that with factual information. I do have a problem of being accused of some agenda that subverts individual rights though.

Also, I was posting my opinion on the right to bear nukes is in response to chr0naut's post that seemed to be advocating that such a right exists. I don't believe that such a right exists, perhaps I'm totally wrong. I tend to agree that firearms are the arms in question. Do you believe in all your research that the founding fathers believed that the right to bear arms includes WMDs?

a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

This quote should cover well-regulated militia in the terms of the day.

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

originally posted by: MichiganSwampBuck
a reply to: Krakatoa

So, am I wrong in believing that the order of, or the that the types of training used in a well regulated militia is to come from the individual states or the people? Or are you saying that each individual citizen is responsible for their own order and training with respect to a militia protecting the state, their rights and safety? If so, please show me the error of my ways as I would rather be accused of ignorance than having an agenda of some kind (esp. one that subverts the constitution). I have no problem with my personal ignorance as long as I correct that with factual information. I do have a problem of being accused of some agenda that subverts individual rights though.

Also, I was posting my opinion on the right to bear nukes is in response to chr0naut's post that seemed to be advocating that such a right exists. I don't believe that such a right exists, perhaps I'm totally wrong. I tend to agree that firearms are the arms in question. Do you believe in all your research that the founding fathers believed that the right to bear arms includes WMDs?

Yes, you are mistaken in that first premise. The training is not state related. It was town and individual related. It was the duty of all able bodied men of the time to not only own firearms, but also to learn how to properly use and maintain them. It was so ingrained into their society at the time that men were REQUIRED by law to assemble once per month in the town for regular training and drilling. This is the reason the towns in New England all have "town greens" of one form or another. It was at the time the sole purpose for those greens.

As for WMDs, if you consider a cannon a WMD, then those were within the role of the town to own and manage, but for the civilians to train to load and fire. The town/government did not "regulate" with laws on the personal ownership of firearms, suffice that it was required by law to train monthly (so owning one was part of that requirement).

I applaud your openness to educate yourself, because being ignorant on a topic is not an insult, but merely a statement of lack of education. However, if you strive to educate and become less ignorant, that is laudable and the proper approach. Many here fail to grasp that concept, and consider that word an insult. If true, it cannot be an unjust or insulting observation. Only when it becomes a willful ignorance does it cross over into being an insult.

I hope this has been taken in the spirit upon which it is given, to educate on the period definition of the 2nd Amendment and what it means to us today.

Thanks.

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: BrianFlanders

originally posted by: mtnshredder
a reply to: Edumakated
I hate hearing the casualty numbers that come out of Chicago or anywhere for that matter. It's all so senseless to me that some have no regards for life whatsoever. Society is broken and there's not a gun law that could ever be written to fix it.

Actually, statistically, most areas are safer than they've been in decades. I live less than 50 miles from Chicago and hardly anyone gets murdered here. Move away from the damn place. Problem solved.

"Hey Martha! I've got a brilliant plan! The city we work and live in has the highest murder rate on the planet! Let's start a family and have kids here! Yay us! We're such geniuses!"

Chicago is quite safe and a beautiful city.

The reality is that practically all of the violence people read about is contained to the south and west sides of the city; areas no normal "civilian" would ever go unless they are a drug addict or gang banger. These areas are a good 7 to 10 miles away from the center city that people think of when you say "Chicago".

The violence is really unfortunate. Chicago really isn't the most violent city on a per capita basis. Many smaller cities are far more violent. Chicago just has a lot of shootings in raw numbers because it is a very large city. Small backwaters like Baton Rouge, Baltimore, St. Louis, etc are far more violent on a per capita basis.

c'mon really?...the people that care about reporting Chicago deaths on various right-wing websites do it because it's a democratic stronghold with a large black population...they want that linked up in your mind the more that you hear it mentioned (blacks=crime)......

a reply to: Krakatoa

Thanks for your consideration.

So then, you believe that a well regulated militia is one of the rights reserved to the people and not the state back in the day the Bill of Rights was ratified?

In such a case I imagine that such locally formed militias were primarily for the protection of the towns and individuals that participated in the training. I'd also imagine that if it was voted on and made into law that the individual states (or even the federal government) could take up the job of managing the local militias unless that was shown to be unconstitutional to do so.

Damn! The dreaded double post. Sorry.

a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

I'd also imagine that if it was voted on and made into law that the individual states (or even the federal government) could take up the job of managing the local militias unless that was shown to be unconstitutional to do so.

Pretty sure the founding fathers would be horrified with that interpretation. I am sure they would be horrified at the state of the country and the erosion of rights we have allowed.

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
- Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

originally posted by: MichiganSwampBuck
a reply to: Krakatoa

Thanks for your consideration.

So then, you believe that a well regulated militia is one of the rights reserved to the people and not the state back in the day the Bill of Rights was ratified?

In such a case I imagine that such locally formed militias were primarily for the protection of the towns and individuals that participated in the training. I'd also imagine that if it was voted on and made into law that the individual states (or even the federal government) could take up the job of managing the local militias unless that was shown to be unconstitutional to do so.

Yes, reserved for the people, yet required as part of being a citizen. It was to protect their town. Each town, in unison would assemble and muster if called upon to defend the state. The founders HATED the idea of a standing army. As that eventually leads to an overbearing government that puts in place the idea that citizens would no longer need to be armed, and, therefore disarmed by the government. That is why the amendment was worded as it was, stating right of the people, not government, specifically.

The logistics and scheduling of the public green was managed by the government. But that was merely to ensure a proper area was maintained as a suitable training ground and the people were "regulated"....as is meeting regularly to drill. It was in the best interest of the town to see that they had that protection in place, and they were trained. A very symbiotic arrangement actually.

The town depended upon the people, and the people depended upon the town.

Chicago Memorial Day weekend: At least 7 killed and 32 others wounded☹

Memorial Day is the traditional start of summer but sadly it's also when the shootings in Chicago increase.

Chicago has a new mayor, Lori Lightfoot, who promised "flooding the zone" with additional police officers. Still, at least seven people were killed and another 32 others were wounded. Heavy rain several times over the weekend, had it been dry, the carnage may have been worse.

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: BrianFlanders

originally posted by: mtnshredder
a reply to: Edumakated
I hate hearing the casualty numbers that come out of Chicago or anywhere for that matter. It's all so senseless to me that some have no regards for life whatsoever. Society is broken and there's not a gun law that could ever be written to fix it.

Actually, statistically, most areas are safer than they've been in decades. I live less than 50 miles from Chicago and hardly anyone gets murdered here. Move away from the damn place. Problem solved.

"Hey Martha! I've got a brilliant plan! The city we work and live in has the highest murder rate on the planet! Let's start a family and have kids here! Yay us! We're such geniuses!"

Chicago is quite safe and a beautiful city.

The reality is that practically all of the violence people read about is contained to the south and west sides of the city; areas no normal "civilian" would ever go unless they are a drug addict or gang banger. These areas are a good 7 to 10 miles away from the center city that people think of when you say "Chicago".

The violence is really unfortunate. Chicago really isn't the most violent city on a per capita basis. Many smaller cities are far more violent. Chicago just has a lot of shootings in raw numbers because it is a very large city. Small backwaters like Baton Rouge, Baltimore, St. Louis, etc are far more violent on a per capita basis.

c'mon really?...the people that care about reporting Chicago deaths on various right-wing websites do it because it's a democratic stronghold with a large black population...they want that linked up in your mind the more that you hear it mentioned (blacks=crime)......

In other words, facts and data are racist.

Democrat policies are absolutely leading to this carnage and you see it not just in chicago but every major city.

If it isn't the black on black crime it is turning cities into an armpit like San Fran, Portland, and seattle.

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: rickymouse
It's Chicago.....I thought the weekend was going to be much worse than that actually.

Yeah, the numbers were down. We had on and off rain, so that probably kept people inside.

Maybe people are happier now that there is an African American female lesbian mayor running the city?

I don't think the average person cares one way or the other.

Unless she has some very specific policies that are going to improve the education and job prospects of those on the south and west sides of Chicago, she will just be another failed leader for the dustbin like those before here. Given her politics, I doubt she will make a dent in the crime.

The problem is you have leftist politicians talking out of both sides of their mouths. On the one hand they want to cry about all the gun violence, but then they refuse to actually prosecute those that get caught with weapons. Once you start locking up the savages, they then start crying about the racial inequities of the justice system, etc.

Gun charges in Chicago are a dime a dozen.

Gangs are terrorists but we don't treat them as such.

originally posted by: MichiganSwampBuck

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Edumakated

How can anyone defend themselves and their families without nuclear weapons?

It does say "right to bear arms" it wasn't specific about just guns. Nukes are arms.

I understand that the terms arms and armed generally mean you have non-specific weapon(s) in your possession. The Declaration of Independence states, " . . . unalienable Rights, that among these are Life" implies we have a right to protect our lives. The connotation with the statement "bear arms" esp. in connection to personal protection seems to indicate a weapon that is meant to be carried and held when used. An extension of your actual human arms more or less. So if it is light enough to carry and small enough to fire while held, then it should be covered.

Then again, arms used in a "well regulated militia" could be almost anything, but would have to be related to a citizen's service in a "regulated militia" and not for personal use and carried around for personal protection. In either case, a nuclear weapon is beyond what would be used in a militia or for personal protection, so I'd say that isn't a right protected by the constitution.

But surely the amendment ONLY refers to arming "a well regulated militia". Clearly, the application of the amendment to the general public is a misreading of its intent.

And 'personal arms' could also encompass chemical and biological weapons as well as incendiaries and explosives.

Why for instance would a German WW2 grenade with a handle not be a personal 'arm' allowed under the Constitution?

a reply to: jimmyx

Of America's 20 most dangerous metro areas, 18 of them are controlled by Democrats. I wonder if the majority of the crimes are committed by Blacks and/or Hispanics in those 18 metro areas?

a reply to: Krakatoa

Thanks for the reply. I think I better understand where you are coming from now.

It's such a small percentage committing these shootings. could be a quick and easy fix without political correctness