Summations Only

Hi Rahvin, Something along this line might be the most viable solution. In Sweden IIRC each person is issued a gun and ammunition and have to account for any ammo used.Make hunting rifle ammo available in single shot mode, with license to purchase, background checks etc. with ammo to be marked and accounted for before next purchase.Pistols could be single shot mode and only one round at a time -- you don't need more for self protection.Enjoy

Hi hooah212002, et al, Connecticut is a small state, small enough that you can travel to New York, Massachusetts and Rhode Island all in one day.Obviously strict laws in one state do not protect anyone from people acquiring guns etc in neighboring states or any state that can be reached with a short drive.The issue is not the strictness in one area, but the universality of the laws in all areas.Enjoy.

Hi Rahvin, Make it illegal to own ammunition, and gun collectors can have their collections. Require a license and a special permit to posses up to 6 bullets (with background checks & make sure no-ones doubling up) and you can go hunting or have the illusion of "self-protection" ... not a complete solution, but better than now.Yes people will still be killed, but harder to go on a rampage with only 6 shots.Enjoy.

Hi Theodoric, Those militias are run by the individual states, who are responsible for setting\appointing the various ranks of individuals, with supplies from the feds for arms. Today these militias are the state run National Guard units.You want to bear arms? Join the National Guard. You want to play with big guns? Join the National Guard.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : subtitle

Hi PercySaw this on facebook another way to look at it ...Enjoy?

Hi Faith See peek for message as posted, see Message 197 for more complete version.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : duplicate post delayed by dinner party

Hi FaithThis is a more complete response than was posted prematurely in Message 143: And the constitution clearly states that the regulation, organization and training are functions for the states, not mobs of self-appointed people. Curiously, it does not matter what the founders "had in mind", as if that could honestly be perceived at this date: what matters is what the constitution and subsequent laws say. We trust the Constitution to state the consensus of what the founders had in mind, including the ability of the constitution to be amended.The state run National Guards today are the state run militias. They are currently doing the duties laid out in the constitution for the militias. I generally ignore the second hand opinions of people who try to revise things to suit their personal agendas, and rely instead on the original documents when forming my opinions ... in this case the constitution.For instance you can go to an on-line version of the current constitution (with amendments) at:http://congressionalconstitutioncaucus-garr.../...nstitutionand you can search the text for "militia" ... with these results:

quote:

---

Article I
Section 8. The Congress shall have Power ...
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Article II
Section 2. The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; ing to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Amendment II
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.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

---

This does not mean that people bearing arms are the Militia or that they will be accepted into a properly formed and designated militia according to the constitution.This does mean that the various self-styled "militias" that have formed in various states, but which are not operated or controlled by those states, are NOT militias as envisaged in the constitution (and thus by the founding fathers), and are more likely to have been regarded in much the same way as John Brown, as an insurrection (should they attempt any armed action), with the duty of the properly formed militias to "suppress Insurrections".The duties set for the Militia in the constitution are presently being performed by the National Guard, and there is no other body that does this, ergo the National Guard is de facto the Militia as envisaged by the founders.That is what the constitution tells me, in very simple words.Then, just for more completion of information, I look up the duties of the National Guard:National Guard (United States) - Wikipedia

quote:

---

The National Guard of the United States is a reserve military force composed of National Guard militia members or units of each state and the territories of Guam and the Virgin Islands plus the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia (54 organizations) under federally recognized active or inactive armed force service for the United States. National Guard members are a subset of the Militia as defined by 10 U.S.C. 311. ...
The National Guard was established as a federally funded reserve component of the nation's armed forces on 21 January 1903 with the Militia Act of 1903 under Title 10 and Title 32 of the U.S. Code. ...

​

Constitutional basis
The United States National Guard is authorized by the Constitution of the United States. As originally drafted, the Constitution recognized the existing state Militias, and gave them vital roles to fill: "to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasion." (Article I, Section 8, Clause 15). The Constitution distinguished "Militia(s)", which were state entities, from "Troops", which were unlawful for states to maintain under normal circumstances. (Article I, Section 10, Clause 3).

​

Though originally state entities, the Constitutional "Militia of the Several States" were not entirely independent, however, because they could be federalized. According to Article I, Section 8; Clause 14, the United States Congress is given the power to pass laws for "calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions." Congress is also empowered to come up with the guidelines "for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress" (clause 16). The President of the United States is the commander-in-chief of the state militias "when called into the actual Service of the United States". (Article II, Section 2).

​

The traditional state militias were redefined and recreated as the "organized militia" — the National Guard, via the Militia Act of 1903. They were now subject to an increasing amount of federal control, including having arms and accouterments supplied by the central government, federal funding, and numerous closer ties to the Regular Army.

---

Note the reference to "National Guard militia members" and that the "traditional state militias were redefined and recreated as the "organized militia" — the National Guard, via the Militia Act of 1903".This too, is easy to understand language: the state militias have become the National Guard, pure and simple, with additional duties to suit modern needs that were not envisaged\conceived\considered by the founding fathers (eg -- terrorism, etc) The constitution is a living document, imho, that has the flexibility to adapt to new times and issues, hence the inclusion of the process to amend it.The constitution also leaves the final voice on interpretation to the Supreme Court, which is why gun control issues get to that level in the process of making new laws.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : added link

Sorry Faith, but it seems you are wrong on this.See Message 197 for a more complete version of the post you replied to (Message 143), which includes information about the National Guard formation from the militias, in compliance\conformance\accordance with the constitution. Somebodies second hand opinion rather than the actual constitution statements or the statements of laws regarding the National Guard.I'll believe the actual documents over anyones opinion any day. So can your purported experts. Curiously, I'm rather certain that our founding fathers did not think women, children, elderly, infirm and insane people would be required to be part of the militias.Quite obviously this is a completely false and made up fabrication:

quote:

---

Article I
Section 8. The Congress shall have Power ...
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

---

There is no statement anywhere in the constitution that calls for the wholesale calling up of every individual citizen, rather the militia is referred to as a separate group\body of people where various individuals can rather obviously be excluded because of issues of involving organization, training and discipline, just for starters. OR, amusingly, it is NOT included because that is NOT what they thought. Wanting it to be there does not make it so.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : added link

Hi crashfrog, just a few points of order: The armed forces of the US are prohibited from action inside the US, as this function is set aside for the militia in the constitution, and has been taken over by the National Guard when they evolved out of the militias, as part of their duties.You will note that it is the Governor of the states that call out the National Guard to respond to riots, etc. ... because he is the one in charge of the state's militia. Not really ... orderly comes under "disciplined", while organized here clearly means set up in an organization, with levels of leadership, in a nested hierarchy of command and responsibility, etc. and where the officers etc are appointed by the various states, per the constitution.Such officers do NOT appear in self-appointed mob militias.Amendment II does NOT define what the militia is -- that is already covered within the constitution.Enjoy.

Hi again crashfrog ... and it does not specify what those arms are. It does not say machine guns or canons.And it does not prevent the states from passing gun control laws, a position upheld by the Supreme Court. And the constitution draws a line between military and militia (now the National Guard), and it says that the feds provide the arms for the militia.Obviously anyone in the militia (National Guard) has the right to bear and operate (under appropriate conditions) the arms provided by the federal government. This does not mean that the average citizen has a right to carry a bazooka into downtown New York city (intentional hyperbole). But not for just any purpose any individual happens to think up, for the specific purpose of being able to form a well regulated militia. You want to bear arms? Join the National Guard. And yet, curiously, in many states there are regulations that prohibit the possession of guns in or near schools (and other places). These laws have been passed through the Supreme Court, so obviously there is an error in your blanket statement\thinking: there can be restrictions established by the states.Enjoy.

Hi xongsmith, and yet ...Little Rock Nine - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Several segregationist councils threatened to hold protests at Central High and physically block the black students from entering the school. Governor Orval Faubus deployed the Arkansas National Guard to support the segregationists on September 4, 1957. ...
... Even President Dwight Eisenhower attempted to de-escalate the situation by summoning Faubus for a meeting, warning him not to defy the Supreme Court's ruling.[5]
Armed escort

​

Woodrow Wilson Mann, the Mayor of Little Rock, asked President Eisenhower to send federal troops to enforce integration and protect the nine students. On September 24, the President ordered the 101st Airborne Division of the United States Army to Little Rock and federalized the entire 10,000 member Arkansas National Guard, taking it out of the hands of Faubus.

---

and ...LBJ Sends Federal Troops to Alabama - HISTORY

quote:

---

... in 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson notifies Alabama's Governor George Wallace that he will use federal authority to call up the Alabama National Guard in order to supervise a planned civil rights march from Selma to Montgomery. ...
... Hours after promising Johnson--in telephone calls recorded by the White House--that he would call out the Alabama National Guard to maintain order, Wallace went on television and demanded that Johnson send in federal troops instead.

​

Furious, Johnson told Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach to write a press release stating that because Wallace refused to use the 10,000 available guardsmen to preserve order in his state, Johnson himself was calling the guard up and giving them all necessary support. ...

---

So it was the failure of the governors to call out the National Guard to preserve order that precipitated the federalization of the guard by the presidents.The National Guard units are under the jurisdiction of the states unless - and until - they are federalized.Federalization was intended to be a temporary thing, in a time of need.This basic process that separated the militia\guard units and federal military units has been woefully overreached with Schrubbia's calling up and using the guard for foreign invasions.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : clrty

Hi NoNukes,Just when I think it can't get more bizarre Out of curiosity, which ones? Texas? Arizona? Is ALEC\NRA involved?http://thearizonasentinel.com/...aw-will-other-states-followSounds like an ALEC\NRA kind of bill ... it will be interesting to see if this holds up. and the authority to appoint the officers that maintain order within the militias.Enjoy.

Hi Tempe 12ft Chicken,Just a point of clarification: The shell casing is not ammunition, what is put inside it is. That is what would be banned.Empty shells don't shoot anything.Enjoy.

Hi Kofh2u Ever heard of the Coincidental Correlation (post hoc ergo propter hoc) logical fallacy?

quote:

---

Definition:

​

The name in Latin means "after this therefore because of this". This describes the fallacy. An author commits the fallacy when it is assumed that because one thing follows another that the one thing was caused by the other.

---

What makes "inner city America" different from other parts of the city? Employment? Salaries? Would not poverty wages or less logically cause both and increase in welfare and crime?Further discussion should be a new topic. This is not related to gun control.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : off topic

Hi Rahvin, There is also the issue of the number of crimes\murders committed with Revolutionary guns for his argument to have a point in this debate.Else it is just more gish gallop.Enjoy.