How do we keep...

[Cordelier]

Is it really? Has the security of the free state been maintained with the current organization, arming and discipline of the militia as described in 10 USC 311?

Again, it's 10 USC §246. And no, it hasn't.... I'm willing to bet that not too many people at that concert in Las Vegas 1 year and 1 day ago were feeling all that secure.

 

[Rucker61]

Again, it's 10 USC §246. And no, it hasn't.... I'm willing to bet that not too many people at that concert in Las Vegas 1 year and 1 day ago were feeling all that secure.

It's also 10 USC 311:


"§311 . Militia: composition and classes
(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."

[USC03] 10 USC 311: Militia: composition and classes

No one has the right to feel secure at all times.

 

[Cordelier]

It's also 10 USC 311:


"§311 . Militia: composition and classes
(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."

[USC03] 10 USC 311: Militia: composition and classes

No one has the right to feel secure at all times.

It used to be §311. It was renumbered in 2016 by NDAA 17 (Pub. L 114-328).

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246

 

[Cordelier]

No one has the right to feel secure at all times.

Maybe. But I figure we've got a right to feel more secure than we presently do.

 

[Rucker61]

Maybe. But I figure we've got a right to feel more secure than we presently do.

Does the militia have law enforcement responsibilities?

 

[Cordelier]

Does the militia have law enforcement responsibilities?

Of course not... do members of a well Regulated militia typically shoot up movie theaters?

 

[TurtleDude]

Only when the militia is mustered - not 24/7. Congress can tell you what you must, can or cannot possess while the militia is mustered, but not what you can keep at home or use in your off time. A militia member under active muster could also lose the right of free speech, free association and freedom from unreasonable search - that right would still exist for that citizen elsewhen and elsewhere.

that's a point I made several times to him.

 

[Rucker61]

Of course not... do members of a well Regulated militia typically shoot up movie theaters?

You do know that the first mass shooting with an AR-15 occurred at the hands of a law enforcement officer, right? Do you really think that telling soldiers not to do something means that they won't do it?

 

[Cordelier]

You do know that the first mass shooting with an AR-15 occurred at the hands of a law enforcement officer, right? Do you really think that telling soldiers not to do something means that they won't do it?

Was it a service weapon?

 

[Rucker61]

Was it a service weapon?

If by service weapon you mean a rifle issued to the shooter by the law enforcement agency for which he worked, yes.

"Outside, Tyler walked up to his pickup and pulled out the AR-15 rifle issued to him as a member of the sheriff's tactical team."

What happened in Crandon on Oct. 7 - Los Angeles Times

Note that this shooting happened 43 years after the AR-15 first went on sale to civilians.

 

[Cordelier]

If by service weapon you mean a rifle issued to the shooter by the law enforcement agency for which he worked, yes.

"Outside, Tyler walked up to his pickup and pulled out the AR-15 rifle issued to him as a member of the sheriff's tactical team."

What happened in Crandon on Oct. 7 - Los Angeles Times

Note that this shooting happened 43 years after the AR-15 first went on sale to civilians.

Okay, the Crandon, WI shooting... I thought this was the one you were referring to. It was one of the 32 cases I cited in the FBI Study. Obviously, there's not much that can be done to keep a rogue law enforcement officer from turning a service rifle on the public. But I don't see why that's any reason to try and keep similar weaponry out of public hands. The shooter ended up killing 6 people in that incident... if he only had a handgun, 3-4 of them might have survived. So that's 3 lives right there in one incident... what's the trade-off for those 3 people? What do we, as a society, gain from having AR-15's - or any other semi-auto rifle - out there available to the public that makes the sacrifice of those 3 lives worthwhile?

 

[TurtleDude]

Okay, the Crandon, WI shooting... I thought this was the one you were referring to. It was one of the 32 cases I cited in the FBI Study. Obviously, there's not much that can be done to keep a rogue law enforcement officer from turning a service rifle on the public. But I don't see why that's any reason to try and keep similar weaponry out of public hands. The shooter ended up killing 6 people in that incident... if he only had a handgun, 3-4 of them might have survived. So that's 3 lives right there in one incident... what's the trade-off for those 3 people? What do we, as a society, gain from having AR-15's - or any other semi-auto rifle - out there available to the public that makes the sacrifice of those 3 lives worthwhile?

that's a moronic standard. apply it to skateboards, swimming pools, hang gliders, Beer, handguns, knives, baseball bats etc

you pretend there is no benefit to honest people being armed apparently

 

[Rucker61]

Okay, the Crandon, WI shooting... I thought this was the one you were referring to. It was one of the 32 cases I cited in the FBI Study. Obviously, there's not much that can be done to keep a rogue law enforcement officer from turning a service rifle on the public. But I don't see why that's any reason to try and keep similar weaponry out of public hands. The shooter ended up killing 6 people in that incident... if he only had a handgun, 3-4 of them might have survived. So that's 3 lives right there in one incident... what's the trade-off for those 3 people? What do we, as a society, gain from having AR-15's - or any other semi-auto rifle - out there available to the public that makes the sacrifice of those 3 lives worthwhile?

The record for handguns is 30. How many times has that been exceeded?

 

[Cordelier]

that's a moronic standard. apply it to skateboards, swimming pools, hang gliders, Beer, handguns, knives, baseball bats etc

you pretend there is no benefit to honest people being armed apparently

I don't have a problem with people being armed... what I do have a problem with is people being armed with semi-auto rifles. There are plenty of superior bolt-action and lever action rifles for hunting, and unless your house is being attacked by a squad of North Korean sappers, using a semi-auto rifle for self-defense is ridiculous.

 

[Rucker61]

I don't have a problem with people being armed... what I do have a problem with is people being armed with semi-auto rifles. There are plenty of superior bolt-action and lever action rifles for hunting, and unless your house is being attacked by a squad of North Korean sappers, using a semi-auto rifle for self-defense is ridiculous.

I don't care what you have a problem with. Semiauto rifles used in mass shootings are responsible for about 10 deaths per year on average since the introduction of the semiauto AR-15. More people are murdered with water every year.

 

[Cordelier]

The record for handguns is 30. How many times has that been exceeded?

Virginia Tech was an outlier case... 80% of active shooter incidents don't involve the use of semi-auto rifles - if there are four times more such cases, then that means there is a four times greater chance for similar outlier events. I'm not trying to reduce active shooter incidents - that's impossible without taking draconian measures. What I'm trying to do is to make them less deadly when they do occur... restricting semi-auto rifles is the way to do this.

 

[Cordelier]

I don't care what you have a problem with. Semiauto rifles used in mass shootings are responsible for about 10 deaths per year on average since the introduction of the semiauto AR-15. More people are murdered with water every year.

And if there were no semi-auto rifles, 4 out of those 10 would have probably been killed in the incidents anyway.

So you tell me... how many blasted up tin cans and shot-up paper targets are those 6 lives worth?

 

[Rucker61]

Virginia Tech was an outlier case... 80% of active shooter incidents don't involve the use of semi-auto rifles - if there are four times more such cases, then that means there is a four times greater chance for similar outlier events. I'm not trying to reduce active shooter incidents - that's impossible without taking draconian measures. What I'm trying to do is to make them less deadly when they do occur... restricting semi-auto rifles is the way to do this.

There have been two "assault weapon" mass shootings with a higher death toll than VT - both to those are outliers. Restricting semi-auto rifles, protected by both Miller and Heller, will take draconian measures. There are 15 million of them out there, and they average 13 deaths in mass shootings every year. You aren't concerned with the numbers of dead, or you'd want to restrict handguns. Or knives. Or blunt instruments.

 

[Rucker61]

And if there were no semi-auto rifles, 4 out of those 10 would have probably been killed in the incidents anyway.

So you tell me... how many blasted up tin cans and shot-up paper targets are those 6 lives worth?

Where do you get your numbers? You can't get rid of semiauto rifles. You can't even Constitutionally restrict them.

What is the modal number of deaths in mass shootings where an "assault weapon" is used?

 

[Cordelier]

There have been two "assault weapon" mass shootings with a higher death toll than VT - both to those are outliers. Restricting semi-auto rifles, protected by both Miller and Heller, will take draconian measures. There are 15 million of them out there, and they average 13 deaths in mass shootings every year. You aren't concerned with the numbers of dead, or you'd want to restrict handguns. Or knives. Or blunt instruments.

My solution would be to make semi-auto rifles with a muzzle energy greater than a .22 Hornet Title II weapons. Restrict them in the same way we restrict machine-guns and sawed-off shotguns. We can grandfather them in for people who already possess them. I don't think that's draconian.

 

[Cordelier]

Where do you get your numbers? You can't get rid of semiauto rifles. You can't even Constitutionally restrict them.

What is the modal number of deaths in mass shootings where an "assault weapon" is used?

I've told you where I get my numbers - from the FBI Active Shooter Study... I've already posted some of the numbers I've obtained from parsing this study earlier in this thread.

 

[Rucker61]

I've told you where I get my numbers - from the FBI Active Shooter Study... I've already posted some of the numbers I've obtained from parsing this study earlier in this thread.

I've seen that study. I still don't see where "4 of 10" comes from - that's pure conjecture on your part.

I would consider the Mother Jones Mass Shooting database to be more complete. Handguns are used more often than rifles; shotguns aren't that far behind rifles.

 

[Into the Night]

You're missing my point..

Inversion fallacy.

. the 2nd Amendment's prefatory clause

There is no prefatory clause to the 2nd amendment.

can't overshadow the right to keep and bear arms - but it does have an effect on the right.
That effect can be much smaller than the right, or it can be just as big as the right - but it can't be bigger than the right.

Unrelated. The 2nd amendment talks about TWO rights, not one.

If Congress passed a law limiting the militia to 20 men,

They do not have authority to. See Article 1 Section 8, and the 2nd, 9th, and 10th amendments.

then everyone else would still have the right to keep and bear arms - the right doesn't disappear for people who aren't in the militia just because they aren't in the militia.

Unrelated conclusion. Non-sequitur fallacy.

Similarly, those 20 men don't surrender their 2nd Amendment rights just because they have been chosen by the militia -they would still have the same right to keep and bear arms as everyone else.

Strawman fallacy.

That being said, what if Congress passed a law that says obtaining a firearm automatically makes you a militia member,

They do not have authority to.

The 2nd amendment is about TWO rights, not one.

It acknowledges the right of a State to defend itself (by forming militias).
It acknowledges the right of an individual to defend himself (by whatever personal arm he deems fit to use).

The 2nd amendment grants no right. It acknowledges rights, and prohibits the federal government from passing any law interfering with those rights, which was prohibited already by other areas of the Constitution of the United States.

The Federal government has NO authority other than what is specifically given by the Constitution of the United States.

 

[Into the Night]

Hokay then....how many sentences does it have?

One sentence, two concepts.

 

[Rucker61]

They do not have authority to. See Article 1 Section 8, and the 2nd, 9th, and 10th amendments.

Given the power of Congress enumerated in Article 1, Section 8, how does Congress not have the authority to limit who is in the militia?