Obama and the Munitions Industry: Perfect Together

You're right. These guys are rather buffoonish with their attempts to squash their 'gun violence' issue. Every time gun and ammo purchases slow, they say or do something to create another buying frenzy. The concealed carry argument was pretty silly and was obviously intended for an audience of folks with little knowledge and/or an hollywood understanding of guns and ammo. We still hear folks call ARs assault weapons... what I carried in Viet Nam is not what is on most guns store shelves for sale. They look the same from a distance but they are NOT the same. Neither is the ammo. The 'real' things are very very expensive and the permits to own are almost impossible to obtain in most places. oh well... fear mongering at the master level.

When I was a youngin' I shot skeet competitively...and sorry, I can't say that no skeet were harmed. I shot pistol semi-competitively and really enjoyed long gun long range shooting (above 600 yards) but never competed. I did hand load my own ammo for accuracy and recoil management for quite some time... It was fun and what most folks will never know is that it is also very relaxing... as you know, if you're tense, you can't hit the damned target. A lot like meditation.

AF

Rocky, I worked for Mossberg's in North Haven and Wilson Firearms in Branford for several years and summers in college and seminary. My family worked for Mossberg's for three generations. So no you are far from the only one.

Or why gun violence went down in Chicago and elsewhere, when concealed carry was allowed due to court rulings in support of the Constitutional right to bear arms kicked in.

Yup, reloading follows closely in the wake of finished load prices.  My local dealer said prices of cases, primers, powders went through the roof 2 days into the ATF fiasco and that everything for 308 went there 2 days later 'cuz the word was out that 308 was next for the ATF.  Then some d'wad (I figure that is allowed right?) Democrat congressman dropped the final bomb, with his introduction of a bill, without regard to what is firing it, to ban all body armor piercing bullets ...everything but BBs and .17 pellets.  It will no nowhere of course, but I wanna really no where have all the 22 LRs have gone, long time passing, where have all the plinkers gone, long time ago, where have all the 22 LRs have gone, gone to AR 223s everyone, go figure, the hole going in is the same...the result, not so much.

Yours is an all too common misunderstanding of the 2nd amendment. You mistake comes in your application of today's meaning and understanding of a militia. The concept of the militia at the time the constitution was written was a volunteer citizen armed service temporarily manned and armed which each person bringing his own arms and munitions(powder and ball) at a time of the individuals choosing.

Calls for men went out and those who could break away from their home duties would leave home to join the war... sometimes for a few days, a few weeks, or sometimes a few months. Many of my ancestors did exactly that.

Towns loosely formed groups which were at times partially outfitted by the townspeople but this was not commonly successful or in the cases when it was done, not commonly sufficient without the arms and munitions primarily supplied by the individuals joining up for their short stints with the war effort. This was a bit of problem in conducting the revolutionary war as it meant that there would be a severe supply flow problem in terms of men, munitions, and the needs of life(food, etc...). Read the minutes of the various congresses and the works of those who wrote constitution and argued for the revisions and amendments to our constitution.... SCOTUS's opinions upholding the original intent of the constitution will become clearer to you.

AF

Your most recent post highlights your misunderstanding as it takes a particular political point of view to make the argument that you've made. You’ve unwittingly made my point. In the old English case you described the arms[club, bow, arrow, quiver, knife, sword, axe, etc) were owned by and brought to the fight by the individual, not the state. Did the state(towns, villages, etc) store supplies at times and in places where it was possible? Yes at times and in places where that capability existed, the state did do a bit of that, but so did the wealthy… The very concept of a militia separates the supply of men and arms from the state’s assets and organizational structures.

This is the most important difference between a militia and an army. Armies are raised by the state, armed by the state, directed under a state defined hierarchy, and supplied by the state. Militias rank and file are staffed by volunteers who decide when and where to report, if and only if, the individual does decide to join the effort at the time, individuals arm themselves, often find themselves self directed, and for the most part are fully supplied with the necessities of life by the individuals themselves. Armies have a distinct & rigorously defined membership roll… militias were variably staffed with no requirement of membership to join with in a fight.

And the issue of ‘well regulated’ was a responsibility placed upon the state, not upon the individual that may or may not choose to join the effort. Some towns in Connecticut and Massachusetts did form a structure and hierarchy in naming a commander and sergeants…. My ancestors in the Pittsfield Massachusetts area, the western Connecticut area, and the southern Vermont area did have towns that defined militia structures and leadership hierarchies… but that had no effect upon the ownership of the arms brought by the individuals or the rank and file who fought with the militia. The arms were owned by the individual prior to the formation of the militia and remained the property of the individual long after the militia was disbanded.

But many towns did not organized a ‘well regulated’ militias or a militia of any sort for that matter… My ancestors in northern Vermont and Maine had no such organized structure but still served and are recognized by DAR, SAR and the other revolutionary war organizations. These men that lived in those areas still formed their own groups on the highway while on the way to fighting General Burgoyne’s army. They brought their own arms, their own bedroll, their own food and medicines. The meaning of militia that you hold is a modern one and has only a distant relationship to the meaning of militia as understood by the founders.

One thing to consider is the fact the after the hostilities had come to a close, the organization of our new nation discussed, debated and decided, the Constitution ratified, there was NO recall of arms, NO regulation enforced, NO effort whatsoever to remove arms from folks who did not belong to a ‘well regulated’ militia. It’s always a mistake to insist upon modern understandings and definitions of issues and items of long ago.

Over the 40 or so years that the 2nd amendment has been under serious attack by our boomer generation, the meaning and definition of ‘militia’ has been ever so slightly but constantly redefined. It’s true that the definition of ‘militia’ has changed partially through the natural effects of time but for the most part the change has come through the effort of those who seek to redefine the 2nd amendment to an impossibly restrictive and narrow definition in order to meet their political beliefs.

1. Good. I am glad we agree.

2. Reread Federalist 46. It is of particular interest here in that Madison was responding to the fear the Central government would raise a national army and thereby have the power to subordinate the states. This was the driver the 2nd amendment as it placated those fears.

3. Militias were indeed led by volunteers but more to the point they were staffed rank and file by volunteers who not only chose when to serve but when to leave.

4. They did not make such rules during the lifetimes of the folks who created our constitution. It would be a mistake to confuse the safety issues of storage of large quantities of black powder with rules governing firearms. Hunting had little to do with the issue of firearms during that time, outside of the most remote trapper sites, the colonies had built a sustainable food source in livestock, vegetables and fruits(when available) outside of hunting... the recent experience of the revolt against the king's armies drove the need for arms home with vigor.

5. I am a direct father to son descendant of Dr Samuel Fuller of the Mayflower. I am also a direct descendent of Francis Cooke, Peter Browne, John Howland, John Tilley, Joan Hurst, and Elizabeth Tilley... all of the Mayflower. It was my DNA that provided the Mayflower DNA project the ability to distinguish between the descendants of Dr. Samuel Fuller and the descendants of his brother, Edward Fuller.

IHere's an excerpt of Federalist 46 for you consider with respect to your item number 2.

Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.


So we take from this that the issue of a national army was not only a fear of those who debated and created the Constitution it was the issue that drove the creation of the 2nd amendment.

Waldman's book has been widely criticized as a work of advocacy masquerading as scholarship. The Washington Post did a scathing review of his book. I prefer to leave references to the advocates on both sides out of my responses.

AF

Well howdy cousin.

The importance of the Federalist papers is obviously in that it shares creators with the Constitution. It's hard to beat the original original sources.

Of course it is possible that I am boxing with shadows but I doubt it. We have significant differences in our understanding of the constitution and specifically the 2nd amendment given you original post about SCOTUS's take on the subject of the individual right to bear arms as opposed to the states power to regulate arms via a regulated militia structure.

 Well got to go... I have an early business call to take and my ol' body needs every bit of beauty sleep it can get.

AF

Absolutely, but that does not mean nor has it ever meant that it is undesirable for registration and other forms of legislation to be created nor that when groups wielding those arms in conflict with the laws of the nation they should not be put down with force. See the various rebellions such as the Bacon Rebellion.

Why would we ever have to register a right with any government.  If you don't register it its a crime?  Or you cannot  exercise it?  Why does the government have to know I'm exercising a right.  The government is the servant of the people; unfortunately that has been pretty much turned around by those who feel they have the right to be the government.

Your citation proves my point. We live in an age of redefinition of already defined law. Instead of changing the constitution and/or it's amendments it seems there will always be those who chose to short circuit the process by adopting a scholarly version of new speak in order to accomplish their goals of removing a hard won right.  I continue to be a bit surprised by how willing many are to work to destroy their rights and protections. We are a curious species. 


BTW, the ninth circuit appeals court opinion Silveira v. Lockyer was nullified by the Supreme Court of the United States. The SCOTUS held in Heller that the right to keep and bear arms is in fact a right of individuals.

Like I posted above.... there will always be those who work to undermine and/or remove our rights. It's not surprising that the Ninth behaved as they did. There is a long history of bending law via contorted interpretation.


AF

When the original meaning is supported by a bountiful abundance of documents produced by the originators of the text, to force additional meanings upon the text is less than an honest evaluation. To quote ol' Groucho.... sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. This addition of new choices is little more than a different version of 'new speak' as it dilutes the original intent in order to make room for a new meaning that decays the right.

No one is denying a gun owners personal responsibility for his/her actions with respect to safety, but to take that further to the point of removing the 'personal' decision making and replacing it with a government's decision making is to remove the right as it becomes a right in name only when the government can mold and modify the 'right' as it sees fit. In other words, at that point it's not a right, it's just a privilege. 

AF