Clinton had a push to get females in as well. Let's hope it doesn't get under qualified people killed. Kara Hultgren: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
You mean that there are qualifications to getting killed??? Does having black skin make you more qualified to get killed, like in Vietnam and today's urban US centers?
In this and so many other things people conflate "being black" with "being poor". Its poverty, not race.
Wow, using ignorance to defend intolerance, interesting strategy. Your understanding of history is generously described as superficial. "God" was often a stated motivation, a facade for most, but in reality things were more often in fact motivated by "Glory" (power) and "Gold".
True fanatical believers are a rarity in both Christianity and Islam. What it different about ISIS compared to the other things you mention is that a very small group of fanatics has power in proportion far beyond their numbers. Mostly due to the inaction of major powers. Groups comprised of large numbers of people need that Glory and/or Gold motivation due to most of their members not being fanatical believers.
It's not directed as ISIS, but at their potential recruits. You want to stop the flow of people joining, not affect those whose minds are already made up.
As I said, this would also affect likely recruits. It destroys the cool jihadi image, the victorious image, the notion of being powerful given their defeat by those they would subjugate. Images such as I described are entirely motivated by mindf*cking the living, the dead themselves are irrelevant.
Muslims who are moderate is like saying the US Christians who are moderate. If your faith matters to you, you're no longer a moderate. There are several sects of Islam as there are of Christianity, taking the side of the Kurds over the Syrians because of their faith is 'more advanced' is like taking the side of the Jehovah's Witnesses over the Westboro Baptist Church. Both are relatively harmless in their "small delusional group" positions but give them the political power and their internal delusions would become enforced law pretty quickly.
You do realize that you sound very much like the Westboro folks, very intolerant and convinced that your way is the only way.
By the way, its not Kurds vs Syrians. Its Kurds vs ISIS. Some Kurds are Syrians, Many non-Kurdish Syrians are also moderates - that's why ISIS murders them too,...
Clinton had a push to get females in as well. Let's hope it doesn't get under qualified people killed.
Yeah but if I recall correctly they were opening up combat roles where anatomical differences were not really important. And yes, of course, standards should not be lowered to get politically correct percentages. Its possible that some women could pass current infantry standards but they will be a far far smaller percentage of the female population than the percentage of the male population who could pass. If the politically correct people can accept that then we may be OK.
...dead ISIS fighters on the ground with Kurdish female fighters standing over them posing victoriously with their weapons, the ISIS fighter's weapons, eating pulled pork sandwiches, drinking Budweiser, and smoking Marlboros.
TFTFY.:D
Lets not be disrespectful of the Kurds who are mostly muslims, muslims who are moderate, friendly to others with different faiths, who do not subjugate women and whose mindset is otherwise in the 21st century and not stuck in the 14th century like ISIS.
Basically Obama is not a fan of the first nor the second amendment. Can those student's who attended his Constitutional Law class when he was teaching get a refund?
Everyone likes contests with prizes. Simply have awards for the best parodies, photoshopped terrorist photos, and terrorist videos that make ISIS look stupid. Recruits that find out the reality is 72 virgin sheep (after all, that's where virgin wool comes from), stuff like "Achmed, the 'Stop! I kill you!' dead terrorist", etc. Translate the best into as many languages as possible.
Everyone likes contests with prizes. Simply have awards for the best parodies, photoshopped terrorist photos, and terrorist videos that make ISIS look stupid. Recruits that find out the reality is 72 virgin sheep (after all, that's where virgin wool comes from), stuff like "Achmed, the 'Stop! I kill you!' dead terrorist", etc. Translate the best into as many languages as possible.
ISIS probably would not care. You know what ISIS would care about, what would frighten likely recruits... dead ISIS fighters on the ground with Kurdish female fighters standing over them posing victoriously with their weapons, the ISIS fighter's weapons.
Hey we have the much publicized female grads of the US Army Ranger school (*). Perhaps its time to have some night raids by Rangers and photos in the morning too. Female Rangers a much publicized part of the team. Keep in mind that there need be no quagmire. The quagmires do not come about from military raids and attacks and even invasions, they come about from the attempts at nation building. So just raids, kill ISIS, pose for photos, leave. Repeat as necessary.
(*) Yes I'm very well aware of the fact that men and women are anatomically different and ground combat is a rare area where such anatomical differences matter. But if these women really did complete Ranger school successfully so be it. The anatomical differences don't make it impossible, just very rare. While a male may need to be at the good college athlete level, a female may need to be at the olympic athlete level. And if the women got extra training and conditioning prior to Ranger school unavailable to male candidate, the fact remains that they finished the program. If properly fit, trained and wearing the tab they should go into harms way against ISIS due to the psychological value of their presence.
The problem is that the damage can largely be avoided by methods other than removing the right to private firearms. Proper background checks, proper safe storage, proper safety training... it seems to work quite well in Switzerland. OK, maybe a good educational system and social safety net has something to do with it as well.
It won't end at remote disabling. What will follow will be default disabled, enabled only on licensed shooting ranges. I'm not paranoid, I live in California and I am subject to its legislature. That is a path the CA legislature would go down.
I understand the practical reasons why peoppe object, as smart guns nowadays still have a long way to go before being as reliable as what we have now. But why do people object to the principle behind it?
Because it is inevitable that once smart gun technology is ubiquitous modern liberals will want yet another step, the ability for government to remotely disable guns. Which will probably be followed by a default disabled state, where the gun only gets enabled on a licensed shooting range. I realize this may seem paranoid to some but I live in California. This is the sort of path that the CA legislature would go down.
They don't care about a criminal who is invading their house shooting them with their own gun, or their children blowing off their heads with it?
Various locking methods exist. Something as simple as a cable lock run though an open breach keeps it secure.
Spouse gets into confrontation with her, she pulls gun out, abusive spouse takes gun from her grip and shoots her with it. Smart guns would ABSOLUTELY have prevented her from getting shot there.
But not preventing her from being killed. He would simply have beat her to death with the gun. But that is OK, its a victory to liberals when a death moves from the gun column to another column. Like Australia where guns related suicides are replaced by hangings, overdoses, etc.
If there's any way to have the GOP disagree with something, all it takes is for Obama to support it and they'll find a reason to hate and reject it.
Right, because there is no opportunity for the idea to be inherently bad. A smart gun is not needed. All one needs is a damn cable padlock to run through an open breach. Gun is now securely stored.
The problem with smart guns, apart from their failure when needed, is that democrats are never satisfied with gun control. No I am not a republican, but I am a citizen of California. No matter how many laws they have already passed the CA legislature always wants more. In the 1990s they banned "assault weapons", basically banned rifles based on cosmetic appearance, there was no shortage of functionally equivalent ordinary hunting and target shooting rifles, a total placebo of a move. Yet one they view as a great success. Existing owners were allowed to register their rifles. A minority did. There is no evidence of this minority being part of any widespread problem. Yet a couple of years ago in another banning hysteria the legislature proposed revoking those old registrations and forcing owners to hand the rifles in. Yeah, registration became a vehicle for confiscations. Fortunately this bill was defeated, died in committee... it will probably reappear some day and the CA legislature may very well pass it.
So what will such unbridled democrats probably do with smart guns? Probably require the ability for government officials to remotely disable a gun, once one is misused. Jihadist kills someone in San Bernardino, disable all guns in the county. When it happens again, make disabled the default state of civilian smart guns. Only allow them to be enabled on licensed ranges. If you think the preceding is far fetched you don't know the California legislature, an example of where modern democrats will go when there is no restraint, no chance of losing at the polls.
First, police already use level 2 or level 3 retention holsters. They should also have retention training. Yes, sometimes their guns still are grabbed, but it is it enough of a problem to mandate so-called smart guns for all? That's the end-game here as New Jersey's law has shown.
Not quite. The real endgame is government controlled remote disabling. Eventually default off, enabled only on approved shooting ranges. Look at California and where and when registered "assault weapons" may be used.
Then you talk about a program that isn't run by the military,...
The paperwork for the rifle goes to the Army. The rifle ships from the Army to the civilian. The matches, at least for the higher level rounds of the tournament system, often occur on military bases.
... formed at a time when there was not a large standing army,...
We had a standing Army in 1903 when this program started, it may have been small by post WW2 standards but it was unthinkably large by founding father standards. It was started because of disappointing marksmanship skills of those who participated in the Spanish American war. It was started to directly benefit the Army: "provide civilians an opportunity to learn and practice marksmanship skills so they would be skilled marksmen if later called on to serve in the U.S. military"
... and has no relation to the point you are disagreeing with...
The point I was disagreeing with was your: "With a standing army, the only listed reason for the right to bear arms is void." This program shows that is clearly not true. The program's goal clearly states improving civilian marksmanship so as to improve military marksmanship.
Plus there is the legal fact that US military is composed of (on the Army branch) the regular Army, active reserve Army, inactive reserve Army, the National Guard (aka organized militia) and the reserve militia (aka unorganized militia). The later roughly being male civilians of military age with no connection to the military. To this day, by federal law updated in 1970s, both the standing army and the unorganized militia exist. The 2nd amendment is not void.
When the civilians are called into service, there's a need for them to be trained, and in 1903 when that program was started, there were frequent call-ups, and stand-downs, so the ready population being ready for the draft made it easier training people as they were drafted. As the draft was (permenantly?) ended, the need for such a program ended, and so has the military's participation in it.
The draft, conscription, has not been abolished. It is merely inactive. That can be changed with a presidential request and an act of congress. Young men are technically still required to register for the draft. However no one is prosecuted for failing to do so. Some states will not issue a drivers license, a personal may be ineligible for federal jobs and some student loans.
Recruits who excel in marksmanship training often had prior experience. These higher performing recruits help coach lower performing recruits. To this day civilian experience benefits the US military. Plus military training is sometimes abbreviated during the height of a war. You are assuming contemporary style wars where a reserve or national guard unit can get activated well in advance of an overseas deployment and have an extended refresher training period. There is no guarantee that we will not see another war where troops go from civilian to the front lines in 90 or even 60 days. A family member fought at Bastogne, he was an extremely well trained paratrooper. While manning the defensive positions around Bastogne the paratroopers were spread very thin. They were reinforced with anyone available in an act of desperation. The man he shared his fighting position with was a truck driver only in the Army for 6 months and who had not fired a weapon since basic training. Many of the actual combat troops fresh from the US and defending the Ardennes section at the start of this battle had very minimal abbreviated training. History shows you can not assume troops in front line combat are "properly" trained. Even if properly trained prior experience can manifest in an individual being even more capable. Marksmanship is not a pass/fail skill, it is a range of pe
I'm not disagreeing with what you said. I'm saying that the unorganized militia was not, for practical purposes, a militia. It was a legal status. As a member, I was not required to do any specific training, and was never required to be anywhere in particular.
That is the definition of "unorganized" isn't it. Also note that when one complete's military service there is often a time period where one is classified as "inactive reserve" and is not required to train or be anywhere, yet they may immediately be recalled to the military in an emergency. And in an even greater emergency the unorganized militia can be activated and ordered into federal service, in other words conscripted, drafted.
Also unorganized is not merely a legal status. Today the US Army considers it useful for civilians, essentially the unorganized part of the federal militia, to have experience with target shooting. To this end they sponsor tournaments and matches, host them, and even sell rifles (WW2 M1 Garand) to interested participants (after an FBI background check). The stated motivation is "to provide civilians an opportunity to learn and practice marksmanship skills so they would be skilled marksmen if later called on to serve in the U.S. military." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Given that at the time the "military" was nearly 100% militia, in the US and other places, the Amendment is archaic. With a standing army, the only listed reason for the right to bear arms is void.
Wrong. Today the US Army considers it useful for civilians, essentially the "unorganized" part of the federal militia, to have experience with target shooting. To this end they sponsor tournaments and matches, host them, and even sell rifles (WW2 M1 Garand) to interested participants (after an FBI background check). The stated motivation is "to provide civilians an opportunity to learn and practice marksmanship skills so they would be skilled marksmen if later called on to serve in the U.S. military." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
... read the 2nd Amendment in any reasonable manner, and pretend the first clause doesn't exist...
"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." The unorganized part of the militia is essentially the people, and being that they are unorganized and not provided with firearms by the government they have the right to keep and bear firearms themselves. The organized part of the militia, the National Guard and Naval Militia are equipped by the government and have no need for this right. Only the unorganized need this right.
I drove through the Central Valley recently, the trees look very happy with the water they've been getting.
In the mountains of Southern California a lot of the tree loss is due to various insect species, some foreign invasive. Not sure about Northern California. It's not just from drought.
Actually its not me, its the US Army saying that ordinary civilians, the "unorganized militia" in other words, being familiar with target shooting is of value to the military. Hence the US Army's support of a national tournament system. This support not only includes hosting matches on military bases, open military rifles ranges to local shooters to practice occasionally, it also includes selling interested shooters who pass an FBI background check a WWII era rifle, an M-1 Garand. These matches are heavily influenced by basic military marksmanship training, 100 and 300 yard courses of fire in standing, sitting/kneeling and prone positions and using only iron sights (no scopes).
"The Civilian Marksmanship Program (CMP) is a U.S. government-chartered program that promotes firearm safety training and rifle practice for all qualified U.S. citizens with special emphasis on youth. Any U.S. citizen who is not legally prohibited from owning a firearm may purchase a military surplus rifle from the CMP, provided they are a member of a CMP affiliated club The Office of the Director of Civilian Marksmanship (DCM) was created by the U.S. Congress as part of the 1903 War Department Appropriations Act. The original purpose was to provide civilians an opportunity to learn and practice marksmanship skills so they would be skilled marksmen if later called on to serve in the U.S. military." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The NRA feels forced into political advocacy because they fear private ownership of firearms will be banned to some large degree without such advocacy. That is not an unfounded fear. If there was no need for such advocacy they would continue on with safety training, tournament organization, etc. Don't confuse being extremely successful at their advocacy with wanting to perform that task in the first place. The NRA's power is derived from its membership, people willing to show up on election day and vote single issue. These members are overwhelmingly motivated to be a part of the NRA to prevent banning of firearms to some degree. Without the fear of such bans NRA members would drop to a very small fraction of what it is today. Its members would be mostly those participating in matches and tournaments and other activities where NRA membership is necessary. There would be no large mass of single issue voters and the NRA's influence would evaporate, they would useless at political advocacy.
Federal law says the militia has both organized and unorganized components.
... operating quite well, not an individual who can shoot well or a gun in good condition - the militia itself.
Actually US history shows that unorganized militia with their own personal firearms in good condition, and sometimes superior to military issued firearms, and who were good shots from their own personal experience were in fact quite useful auxiliaries. Read up on the backwoodsmen with Kentucky and Pennsylvania rifles.
Today the US Army itself considers ordinary civilians, i.e. unorganized militia, who can shoot well to be an asset. And to promote such civilian marksmanship the US Army sponsor tournaments and even equips shooters with obsolete surplus rifles, after an FBI background check.
"The Office of the Director of Civilian Marksmanship (DCM) was created by the U.S. Congress as part of the 1903 War Department Appropriations Act. The original purpose was to provide civilians an opportunity to learn and practice marksmanship skills so they would be skilled marksmen if later called on to serve in the U.S. military." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
To this day the 2nd amendment right to personal firearms is considered an asset by the US Army.
Yes, I know that, but it only tells half the story doesn't it? If I actually was ignorant I probably would not see that spamming me with this is more fluff and smokescreen to avoid having to answer to the "well regulated" bit.
Actually if anyone is telling only a fragment of the "story" it is you. Lets examine the entire amendment: "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." The unorganized part is the people, and being that they are unorganized and not provided with firearms by the government they have the right to keep and bear firearms themselves. The organized part of the militia, the National Guard and Naval Militia are equipped by the government and have no need for this right. Only the unorganized need this right.
You are depending on both the drafters of the constitution being stupid and the readers of your arguments about everyone being an actual soldier instead of a potential one as stupid. It's very insulting both ways.
Not at all. No one is claiming the unorganized militia consists of actual soldiers. That is your manufactured straw man.
That said, unorganized militia of the 18th century often proved useful auxiliaries. In particular the backwoodsman with their Kentucky and Pennsylvania rifles since their personal firearms were superior to that issued to soldiers by the government.
For current times prior experience with firearms is a somewhat common factor with recruits who excel at marksmanship training. These higher performing recruits help coach the lower performing recruits during such training. The Army in fact promotes civilian marksmanship because of such benefits. It supports interested civilian shooters by providing obsolete surplus rifles, after an FBI background check, and sponsors tournaments where both military and civilian shooters compete. The civilian shooting expertise enabled by the second amendment among the general US population, that unorganized part of the militia, is considered an asset to the Army.
meaning operating at an expected level of performance
Thus something as well put together as the National Guard and not a bunch of losers that fail at even promoting basic gun safety like the NRA.
Wow, your ignorance seems to be boundless. The NRA is the premier organization in the US promoting firearms safety training. That is their primary goal. The political advocacy is a secondary thing they feel forced upon them by those wishing to ban firearms.
Regarding expected level of performance, no one is expecting fully trained soldiers. That is just your straw man. What was expected in the 18th century was someone who was familiar and proficient with their rifle. And to this day such personal experience still benefits the military. Those who excel in marksmanship training often had prior experience before joining the military, these more capable trainees help coach the less capable during basic training. So the 2nd amendment right to personal firearms benefits the military to this day.
The Second Amendment says "well regulated militia", and I assure you the unorganized militia is not well regulated by any definition.
Try reading the entire amendment: "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."
The unorganized part is the people, and being that they are unorganized and not provided with firearms by the government they have the right to keep and bear firearms themselves. The organized part of the militia, the National Guard and Naval Militia are equipped by the government.
It parallels the 18th century practice of townsfolk having an armory and periodically drilling while folks in a more rural setting owned their own firearms and were considered familiar and practiced enough through their normal activities such as hunting. "Well regulated" meaning operating at an expected level of performance, not seeking government permission to own firearms. Also this is a current definition, not just an 18th century one. For example see devices that regulate the flow of a gas, named regulators. The deliver a gas at a certain desired pressure or pressure range.
Slashdot Mirror
Clinton had a push to get females in as well. Let's hope it doesn't get under qualified people killed. Kara Hultgren: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
You mean that there are qualifications to getting killed??? Does having black skin make you more qualified to get killed, like in Vietnam and today's urban US centers?
In this and so many other things people conflate "being black" with "being poor". Its poverty, not race.
Wow, using ignorance to defend intolerance, interesting strategy. Your understanding of history is generously described as superficial. "God" was often a stated motivation, a facade for most, but in reality things were more often in fact motivated by "Glory" (power) and "Gold".
True fanatical believers are a rarity in both Christianity and Islam. What it different about ISIS compared to the other things you mention is that a very small group of fanatics has power in proportion far beyond their numbers. Mostly due to the inaction of major powers. Groups comprised of large numbers of people need that Glory and/or Gold motivation due to most of their members not being fanatical believers.
It's not directed as ISIS, but at their potential recruits. You want to stop the flow of people joining, not affect those whose minds are already made up.
As I said, this would also affect likely recruits. It destroys the cool jihadi image, the victorious image, the notion of being powerful given their defeat by those they would subjugate. Images such as I described are entirely motivated by mindf*cking the living, the dead themselves are irrelevant.
Muslims who are moderate is like saying the US Christians who are moderate. If your faith matters to you, you're no longer a moderate. There are several sects of Islam as there are of Christianity, taking the side of the Kurds over the Syrians because of their faith is 'more advanced' is like taking the side of the Jehovah's Witnesses over the Westboro Baptist Church. Both are relatively harmless in their "small delusional group" positions but give them the political power and their internal delusions would become enforced law pretty quickly.
You do realize that you sound very much like the Westboro folks, very intolerant and convinced that your way is the only way.
...
By the way, its not Kurds vs Syrians. Its Kurds vs ISIS. Some Kurds are Syrians, Many non-Kurdish Syrians are also moderates - that's why ISIS murders them too,
Clinton had a push to get females in as well. Let's hope it doesn't get under qualified people killed.
Yeah but if I recall correctly they were opening up combat roles where anatomical differences were not really important. And yes, of course, standards should not be lowered to get politically correct percentages. Its possible that some women could pass current infantry standards but they will be a far far smaller percentage of the female population than the percentage of the male population who could pass. If the politically correct people can accept that then we may be OK.
...dead ISIS fighters on the ground with Kurdish female fighters standing over them posing victoriously with their weapons, the ISIS fighter's weapons, eating pulled pork sandwiches, drinking Budweiser, and smoking Marlboros.
TFTFY. :D
Lets not be disrespectful of the Kurds who are mostly muslims, muslims who are moderate, friendly to others with different faiths, who do not subjugate women and whose mindset is otherwise in the 21st century and not stuck in the 14th century like ISIS.
Basically Obama is not a fan of the first nor the second amendment. Can those student's who attended his Constitutional Law class when he was teaching get a refund?
Everyone likes contests with prizes. Simply have awards for the best parodies, photoshopped terrorist photos, and terrorist videos that make ISIS look stupid. Recruits that find out the reality is 72 virgin sheep (after all, that's where virgin wool comes from), stuff like "Achmed, the 'Stop! I kill you!' dead terrorist", etc. Translate the best into as many languages as possible.
Everyone likes contests with prizes. Simply have awards for the best parodies, photoshopped terrorist photos, and terrorist videos that make ISIS look stupid. Recruits that find out the reality is 72 virgin sheep (after all, that's where virgin wool comes from), stuff like "Achmed, the 'Stop! I kill you!' dead terrorist", etc. Translate the best into as many languages as possible.
ISIS probably would not care. You know what ISIS would care about, what would frighten likely recruits ... dead ISIS fighters on the ground with Kurdish female fighters standing over them posing victoriously with their weapons, the ISIS fighter's weapons.
Hey we have the much publicized female grads of the US Army Ranger school (*). Perhaps its time to have some night raids by Rangers and photos in the morning too. Female Rangers a much publicized part of the team. Keep in mind that there need be no quagmire. The quagmires do not come about from military raids and attacks and even invasions, they come about from the attempts at nation building. So just raids, kill ISIS, pose for photos, leave. Repeat as necessary.
(*) Yes I'm very well aware of the fact that men and women are anatomically different and ground combat is a rare area where such anatomical differences matter. But if these women really did complete Ranger school successfully so be it. The anatomical differences don't make it impossible, just very rare. While a male may need to be at the good college athlete level, a female may need to be at the olympic athlete level. And if the women got extra training and conditioning prior to Ranger school unavailable to male candidate, the fact remains that they finished the program. If properly fit, trained and wearing the tab they should go into harms way against ISIS due to the psychological value of their presence.
The problem is that the damage can largely be avoided by methods other than removing the right to private firearms. Proper background checks, proper safe storage, proper safety training ... it seems to work quite well in Switzerland. OK, maybe a good educational system and social safety net has something to do with it as well.
It won't end at remote disabling. What will follow will be default disabled, enabled only on licensed shooting ranges. I'm not paranoid, I live in California and I am subject to its legislature. That is a path the CA legislature would go down.
I understand the practical reasons why peoppe object, as smart guns nowadays still have a long way to go before being as reliable as what we have now. But why do people object to the principle behind it?
Because it is inevitable that once smart gun technology is ubiquitous modern liberals will want yet another step, the ability for government to remotely disable guns. Which will probably be followed by a default disabled state, where the gun only gets enabled on a licensed shooting range. I realize this may seem paranoid to some but I live in California. This is the sort of path that the CA legislature would go down.
They don't care about a criminal who is invading their house shooting them with their own gun, or their children blowing off their heads with it?
Various locking methods exist. Something as simple as a cable lock run though an open breach keeps it secure.
Spouse gets into confrontation with her, she pulls gun out, abusive spouse takes gun from her grip and shoots her with it. Smart guns would ABSOLUTELY have prevented her from getting shot there.
But not preventing her from being killed. He would simply have beat her to death with the gun. But that is OK, its a victory to liberals when a death moves from the gun column to another column. Like Australia where guns related suicides are replaced by hangings, overdoses, etc.
If there's any way to have the GOP disagree with something, all it takes is for Obama to support it and they'll find a reason to hate and reject it.
Right, because there is no opportunity for the idea to be inherently bad. A smart gun is not needed. All one needs is a damn cable padlock to run through an open breach. Gun is now securely stored.
... it will probably reappear some day and the CA legislature may very well pass it.
The problem with smart guns, apart from their failure when needed, is that democrats are never satisfied with gun control. No I am not a republican, but I am a citizen of California. No matter how many laws they have already passed the CA legislature always wants more. In the 1990s they banned "assault weapons", basically banned rifles based on cosmetic appearance, there was no shortage of functionally equivalent ordinary hunting and target shooting rifles, a total placebo of a move. Yet one they view as a great success. Existing owners were allowed to register their rifles. A minority did. There is no evidence of this minority being part of any widespread problem. Yet a couple of years ago in another banning hysteria the legislature proposed revoking those old registrations and forcing owners to hand the rifles in. Yeah, registration became a vehicle for confiscations. Fortunately this bill was defeated, died in committee
So what will such unbridled democrats probably do with smart guns? Probably require the ability for government officials to remotely disable a gun, once one is misused. Jihadist kills someone in San Bernardino, disable all guns in the county. When it happens again, make disabled the default state of civilian smart guns. Only allow them to be enabled on licensed ranges. If you think the preceding is far fetched you don't know the California legislature, an example of where modern democrats will go when there is no restraint, no chance of losing at the polls.
First, police already use level 2 or level 3 retention holsters. They should also have retention training. Yes, sometimes their guns still are grabbed, but it is it enough of a problem to mandate so-called smart guns for all? That's the end-game here as New Jersey's law has shown.
Not quite. The real endgame is government controlled remote disabling. Eventually default off, enabled only on approved shooting ranges. Look at California and where and when registered "assault weapons" may be used.
Wrong.
Then you talk about a program that isn't run by the military, ...
The paperwork for the rifle goes to the Army. The rifle ships from the Army to the civilian. The matches, at least for the higher level rounds of the tournament system, often occur on military bases.
... formed at a time when there was not a large standing army, ...
We had a standing Army in 1903 when this program started, it may have been small by post WW2 standards but it was unthinkably large by founding father standards. It was started because of disappointing marksmanship skills of those who participated in the Spanish American war. It was started to directly benefit the Army: "provide civilians an opportunity to learn and practice marksmanship skills so they would be skilled marksmen if later called on to serve in the U.S. military"
... and has no relation to the point you are disagreeing with ...
The point I was disagreeing with was your: "With a standing army, the only listed reason for the right to bear arms is void." This program shows that is clearly not true. The program's goal clearly states improving civilian marksmanship so as to improve military marksmanship.
Plus there is the legal fact that US military is composed of (on the Army branch) the regular Army, active reserve Army, inactive reserve Army, the National Guard (aka organized militia) and the reserve militia (aka unorganized militia). The later roughly being male civilians of military age with no connection to the military. To this day, by federal law updated in 1970s, both the standing army and the unorganized militia exist. The 2nd amendment is not void.
When the civilians are called into service, there's a need for them to be trained, and in 1903 when that program was started, there were frequent call-ups, and stand-downs, so the ready population being ready for the draft made it easier training people as they were drafted. As the draft was (permenantly?) ended, the need for such a program ended, and so has the military's participation in it.
The draft, conscription, has not been abolished. It is merely inactive. That can be changed with a presidential request and an act of congress. Young men are technically still required to register for the draft. However no one is prosecuted for failing to do so. Some states will not issue a drivers license, a personal may be ineligible for federal jobs and some student loans.
Recruits who excel in marksmanship training often had prior experience. These higher performing recruits help coach lower performing recruits. To this day civilian experience benefits the US military. Plus military training is sometimes abbreviated during the height of a war. You are assuming contemporary style wars where a reserve or national guard unit can get activated well in advance of an overseas deployment and have an extended refresher training period. There is no guarantee that we will not see another war where troops go from civilian to the front lines in 90 or even 60 days. A family member fought at Bastogne, he was an extremely well trained paratrooper. While manning the defensive positions around Bastogne the paratroopers were spread very thin. They were reinforced with anyone available in an act of desperation. The man he shared his fighting position with was a truck driver only in the Army for 6 months and who had not fired a weapon since basic training. Many of the actual combat troops fresh from the US and defending the Ardennes section at the start of this battle had very minimal abbreviated training. History shows you can not assume troops in front line combat are "properly" trained. Even if properly trained prior experience can manifest in an individual being even more capable. Marksmanship is not a pass/fail skill, it is a range of pe
I'm not disagreeing with what you said. I'm saying that the unorganized militia was not, for practical purposes, a militia. It was a legal status. As a member, I was not required to do any specific training, and was never required to be anywhere in particular.
That is the definition of "unorganized" isn't it. Also note that when one complete's military service there is often a time period where one is classified as "inactive reserve" and is not required to train or be anywhere, yet they may immediately be recalled to the military in an emergency. And in an even greater emergency the unorganized militia can be activated and ordered into federal service, in other words conscripted, drafted.
Also unorganized is not merely a legal status. Today the US Army considers it useful for civilians, essentially the unorganized part of the federal militia, to have experience with target shooting. To this end they sponsor tournaments and matches, host them, and even sell rifles (WW2 M1 Garand) to interested participants (after an FBI background check). The stated motivation is "to provide civilians an opportunity to learn and practice marksmanship skills so they would be skilled marksmen if later called on to serve in the U.S. military."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Given that at the time the "military" was nearly 100% militia, in the US and other places, the Amendment is archaic. With a standing army, the only listed reason for the right to bear arms is void.
Wrong. Today the US Army considers it useful for civilians, essentially the "unorganized" part of the federal militia, to have experience with target shooting. To this end they sponsor tournaments and matches, host them, and even sell rifles (WW2 M1 Garand) to interested participants (after an FBI background check). The stated motivation is "to provide civilians an opportunity to learn and practice marksmanship skills so they would be skilled marksmen if later called on to serve in the U.S. military."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
... read the 2nd Amendment in any reasonable manner, and pretend the first clause doesn't exist ...
"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." The unorganized part of the militia is essentially the people, and being that they are unorganized and not provided with firearms by the government they have the right to keep and bear firearms themselves. The organized part of the militia, the National Guard and Naval Militia are equipped by the government and have no need for this right. Only the unorganized need this right.
I drove through the Central Valley recently, the trees look very happy with the water they've been getting.
In the mountains of Southern California a lot of the tree loss is due to various insect species, some foreign invasive. Not sure about Northern California. It's not just from drought.
Actually its not me, its the US Army saying that ordinary civilians, the "unorganized militia" in other words, being familiar with target shooting is of value to the military. Hence the US Army's support of a national tournament system. This support not only includes hosting matches on military bases, open military rifles ranges to local shooters to practice occasionally, it also includes selling interested shooters who pass an FBI background check a WWII era rifle, an M-1 Garand. These matches are heavily influenced by basic military marksmanship training, 100 and 300 yard courses of fire in standing, sitting/kneeling and prone positions and using only iron sights (no scopes).
"The Civilian Marksmanship Program (CMP) is a U.S. government-chartered program that promotes firearm safety training and rifle practice for all qualified U.S. citizens with special emphasis on youth. Any U.S. citizen who is not legally prohibited from owning a firearm may purchase a military surplus rifle from the CMP, provided they are a member of a CMP affiliated club The Office of the Director of Civilian Marksmanship (DCM) was created by the U.S. Congress as part of the 1903 War Department Appropriations Act. The original purpose was to provide civilians an opportunity to learn and practice marksmanship skills so they would be skilled marksmen if later called on to serve in the U.S. military."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The NRA feels forced into political advocacy because they fear private ownership of firearms will be banned to some large degree without such advocacy. That is not an unfounded fear. If there was no need for such advocacy they would continue on with safety training, tournament organization, etc. Don't confuse being extremely successful at their advocacy with wanting to perform that task in the first place. The NRA's power is derived from its membership, people willing to show up on election day and vote single issue. These members are overwhelmingly motivated to be a part of the NRA to prevent banning of firearms to some degree. Without the fear of such bans NRA members would drop to a very small fraction of what it is today. Its members would be mostly those participating in matches and tournaments and other activities where NRA membership is necessary. There would be no large mass of single issue voters and the NRA's influence would evaporate, they would useless at political advocacy.
Thus a militia, as an organized body, ...
Federal law says the militia has both organized and unorganized components.
... operating quite well, not an individual who can shoot well or a gun in good condition - the militia itself.
Actually US history shows that unorganized militia with their own personal firearms in good condition, and sometimes superior to military issued firearms, and who were good shots from their own personal experience were in fact quite useful auxiliaries. Read up on the backwoodsmen with Kentucky and Pennsylvania rifles.
Today the US Army itself considers ordinary civilians, i.e. unorganized militia, who can shoot well to be an asset. And to promote such civilian marksmanship the US Army sponsor tournaments and even equips shooters with obsolete surplus rifles, after an FBI background check.
"The Office of the Director of Civilian Marksmanship (DCM) was created by the U.S. Congress as part of the 1903 War Department Appropriations Act. The original purpose was to provide civilians an opportunity to learn and practice marksmanship skills so they would be skilled marksmen if later called on to serve in the U.S. military."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
To this day the 2nd amendment right to personal firearms is considered an asset by the US Army.
Yes, I know that, but it only tells half the story doesn't it? If I actually was ignorant I probably would not see that spamming me with this is more fluff and smokescreen to avoid having to answer to the "well regulated" bit.
Actually if anyone is telling only a fragment of the "story" it is you. Lets examine the entire amendment: "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." The unorganized part is the people, and being that they are unorganized and not provided with firearms by the government they have the right to keep and bear firearms themselves. The organized part of the militia, the National Guard and Naval Militia are equipped by the government and have no need for this right. Only the unorganized need this right.
You are depending on both the drafters of the constitution being stupid and the readers of your arguments about everyone being an actual soldier instead of a potential one as stupid. It's very insulting both ways.
Not at all. No one is claiming the unorganized militia consists of actual soldiers. That is your manufactured straw man.
That said, unorganized militia of the 18th century often proved useful auxiliaries. In particular the backwoodsman with their Kentucky and Pennsylvania rifles since their personal firearms were superior to that issued to soldiers by the government.
For current times prior experience with firearms is a somewhat common factor with recruits who excel at marksmanship training. These higher performing recruits help coach the lower performing recruits during such training. The Army in fact promotes civilian marksmanship because of such benefits. It supports interested civilian shooters by providing obsolete surplus rifles, after an FBI background check, and sponsors tournaments where both military and civilian shooters compete. The civilian shooting expertise enabled by the second amendment among the general US population, that unorganized part of the militia, is considered an asset to the Army.
Thus something as well put together as the National Guard and not a bunch of losers that fail at even promoting basic gun safety like the NRA.
Wow, your ignorance seems to be boundless. The NRA is the premier organization in the US promoting firearms safety training. That is their primary goal. The political advocacy is a secondary thing they feel forced upon them by those wishing to ban firearms.
Regarding expected level of performance, no one is expecting fully trained soldiers. That is just your straw man. What was expected in the 18th century was someone who was familiar and proficient with their rifle. And to this day such personal experience still benefits the military. Those who excel in marksmanship training often had prior experience before joining the military, these more capable trainees help coach the less capable during basic training. So the 2nd amendment right to personal firearms benefits the military to this day.
The Second Amendment says "well regulated militia", and I assure you the unorganized militia is not well regulated by any definition.
Try reading the entire amendment: "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."
The unorganized part is the people, and being that they are unorganized and not provided with firearms by the government they have the right to keep and bear firearms themselves. The organized part of the militia, the National Guard and Naval Militia are equipped by the government.
It parallels the 18th century practice of townsfolk having an armory and periodically drilling while folks in a more rural setting owned their own firearms and were considered familiar and practiced enough through their normal activities such as hunting. "Well regulated" meaning operating at an expected level of performance, not seeking government permission to own firearms. Also this is a current definition, not just an 18th century one. For example see devices that regulate the flow of a gas, named regulators. The deliver a gas at a certain desired pressure or pressure range.