Gun groups duel with polls on concealed carry

It appears that the Illinois State Rifle Association released some highly questionable poll results last week because top officials learned that a gun control group was doing its own polling. The Rifle Association decided it wanted to get ahead of the curve, I’m told.

The Rifle Association claimed its poll results showed broad support in a handful of legislative districts for the right to carry a concealed weapon in Illinois, even in two African-American Chicago Senate districts. But there are serious problems about the way the questions were asked, including the fact that the phrase “concealed carry” was never even mentioned in the poll, despite a Rifle Association press release claiming it was. Concealed carry is one of the hottest issues of the spring legislative session.

The poll asked three very leading, loaded questions before getting to the carry issue. Respondents were asked if they felt safe walking around their neighborhood, if they believed local police can protect them from being “robbed or assaulted” and whether they believed they have a “right to defend yourself and your family from murderers, robbers and rapists.”

Questions like that will obviously set a certain tone and then skew answers to the poll’s last question, which was millions of miles away from being neutral: “Would you support a law that would allow trained, law-abiding citizens like yourself to carry a firearm to protect yourself and your family from harm?” The word “concealed” is not mentioned – odd, considering that this is a fight over “concealed” carry. Yet, the Rifle Association claimed in a press release that the answers to the question showed support for concealed carry. Also, how did the Rifle Association know that the poll’s respondents were law-abiders?

All that being said, 48 percent of the 989 respondents in Sen. Mattie Hunter’s Chicago district said they’d support such a law, while just 35 percent were against. In Sen. Emil Jones’ Chicago district, 52 percent supported it while 33 percent were against. In Sen. AJ Wilhelmi’s Joliet-area district, 56 percent backed the plan and just 28 percent were against. And 49 percent in Sen. Mike Noland’s Elgin-area district said they’d support such a law, while 35 percent were against. The poll was taken by We Ask America on March 27.

The day after the Rifle Association released its numbers, the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence released its own poll that was taken by the same polling firm used by ISRA. The new poll showed far different results than the Rifle Association’s survey.

In the gun control group’s poll, taken five days before the Rifle Association’s, just 38 percent of respondents in state Sen. AJ Wilhelmi’s Joliet-area district said they agreed with the statement: “In general, Illinois citizens should be allowed to carry concealed handguns in most public places,” while a clear majority, 57 percent, were opposed.


http://www.illinoistimes.com/Springfield/article-8528-gun-groups-duel-with-polls-on-concealed-carry.html

We can see from this where the toters get their tactics from. The NRA and The Politics of Fear

The whole point of a poll is to make the wording as unbiased as possible.

Typical gun porn crowd - cheat at every opportunity.

In general, Illinois citizens............



Talk about a loaded question the anti's are way more out of line than the pro-freedom gang here. They won't even tell the truth about the proposed law. Of course if they did their poll numbers would bite the dust killing their agenda.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

http://www.icpgv.org/pdf/policy8.pdf

doesn't pass the sniff test to me

The use Texas 1996-2000 stats and Texas publishes fresh stats annually.

Both sides do that.

The poll you're slamming:

http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/media-center/pr012-09.shtml

How is that a push poll?

Hm?

that sponsored it. Do you have a link to the poll itself?

http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/downloads/pdf/luntz_poll_questionnaire_and_responses.pdf
Dealers should.. police should.. Dealers should..

They're very carefully ordered to get people thinking about dealers and police. Then they tack on "A proposal requiring all gun sellers at gun shows to conduct criminal background checks of the people buying guns."

How many do you think realized that question was about private sellers, not dealers? Hm?

And I love how MAIG misrepresents the results..

Here are questions and results that MAIG will never put in a press release..

http://ebookbrowse.com/maig-poll-presentation-1-18-11-pdf-d96237200

I ask again - where is the push poll?

and when it does, there will be few problems.

In the next couple years I predict that there will be no "no issue" states and some of the states that are currently "Restricted may issue" will become "shall issue".

Fear of people who like to carry them wherever they go is more than rational.
The desire to live in a world ridden with guns is irrational
The desire to live in a gun free environment is rational
The notion that carrying a concealed weapon is for the betterment of society as a whole is irrational.

You hardly ever even know about a law-abiding concealed-carry permit person unless he is forced to draw his gun to stop a crime in progress.

Guns already are everywhere, whether its legal or not. "Gun free zones" are anything but, the criminals pack anyway.

You can wish guns away all you want, but it won't make it come true.

There's nothing irrational about law-abiding citizens wanting to level the playing field.

For every Dem there'll be 50 Teabaggers strutting their stuff down main street. Can't wait.

"You hardly ever even know about a law-abiding concealed-carry permit person unless he is forced to draw his gun to stop a crime in progress."
That's why you hardly ever know because it hardly ever happens. Thanks again for making the argument for me.
I can just imagine one of these toters pulling a gun to save someone else's ass.

Because it rarely happens on Main Street at high noon. That's not really muggers favorite time/location of operation you know.

I know, for some it would feel like driving without a safety belt or having sex without a condom, but damn it feels good just to let loose and experience life once in a while.

How about you stop presuming to tell everyone they should go gunless.

Or did something indicate I was?


How about addressing what I actually said.

That by no means rules out other criminal mischief being less rare.

I can't handle too many overlapping conversations.

"I don't think I was ever lost, but I was a little bewildered for a few days, on occasion..."

Funny, not outdoors. I think it might be a door thing. They all start looking the same. Rented a house in the Ozarks a few years back and it took me almost a week to remember where the front door was. I kept walking into a closet that was right next to it. My wife thought I'd completely lost it.

Its all about preparedness, same as you should keep smoke detectors and fire extinguishers available in the house. Or do you also think people are just "paranoid" about fire danger as well?

only keeps one on his boat because it's mandated by law.

Must be nice in la-la-land, where he lives.

If I felt I needed one I'd stay home, which a lot of guys seem to do around here, unless they're using one of them nifty MiFi's like me.

Because usually the criminal runs away, no shots fired, no blood, no news media coverage. I personally know several ordinary people who have used guns in self-defense, none of them had to actually shoot the criminal(s). None of them were reported in the media. That includes my wife's two DGUs. But according to you they didn't happen because you didn't see it in the media.

I guess most people would run away if someone pointed a gun at them. Hard to get realistic figures on anecdotal claims isn't it. You say you know perfectly "ordinary people who have used guns in self defense", but none had to shoot the criminal. Well, first of all, I don't think too many ordinary people tote guns. I'd say about 2% of adults max, based on stats you and your toter buddies have claimed. Now if you hang out with that crowd, it's probably similar to hanging out with fishing buddies. And you know how many big ones they catch, don't you? Of course, fishing guys would probably exaggerate more, seeing as how fishin' is way more macho than gun totin'.

"For every Dem there'll be 50 Teabaggers strutting their stuff down main street. Can't wait."

You just want to oppress the rights of people with differing political values.

which does not include toting outside of a well organized militia. You toters have joined the ranks of some pretty freaky and unsavory people. Check this blog. Maybe more to your taste
http://www.xdtalk.com/forums/xdtalk-chatter-box/175524-poll-concealed-carry-wi-link.html

Good luck....

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.
Please note that nowhere does it say anything about anyone having the right to carry a concealed weapon about their person, or that a person has a right to keep and bear arms outside of a well regulated militia.

In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two Second Amendment decisions. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Additionally, the Court enumerated several longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession that it found were consistent with the Second Amendment. In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits State and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.

If SCOTUS had decided that toting was constitutional, we wouldn't be having this discussion. It left it in the hands of the states.
I think the best course of action would be to tear it up and start again and write it in language that is clear to one and all. Then, whichever way it ends up some of us are not going to like it, but it will be clear.

If the original intent had been adhered to, it wouldn't have come to this. But now it has and I trust that reason and civility will win in the end. If not, I'll have to live with it, as will we all.

Let's see what Justice Ginsberg has to say about 'bear' (as in 'keep and bear')-

Muscarello v US, 524 U. S. 125 (1998) -



Now on to the next inanity..



Both Heller and McDonald were about 'keep'- (own, possess). There hasn't been a case about 'bear' yet. Because there hasn't been a case yet doesn't mean that 'toting' isn't constitutionally protected. It just means that no SCOTUS case has addressed it.

You do understand that rights don't flow down from the government to the people, yes? The people retain all rights, and grants the government specific powers that may on occasion abrogate those rights, with very strict limits on that government's exercise of those rights.

This mirrors the ancient law concept- nulla poena sine lege- no punishment without law. That which is not proscribed is legal.

Now, about that bullshit re 'well-regulated'..

"well regulated" at the time, and in this context meant 'well functioning'-

http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/WellRegulatedinold%20literature.pdf



Secondly, let's look at the preamble to the Bill of Rights-



The Bill of Rights was intended as a 'the government shall not' document- "to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers"- not a 'the people can' document. Rights aren't limited by the bill of rights; rather the scope of protections of certain rights are set. If the Bill of Rights were a listing of all a person's rights, there would be no need for the ninth and tenth amendments ("The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." and "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." respectively.)

And finally, let's look at the second amendment itself-



Who does the right belong to? The militia? No, the people. See US v. Verdugo-Urquirdez for the salient definition of 'the people'.

Grammatically this can be broken down into two clauses- a prefatory clause and an operative clause. Similar wording can be found in other writing of the time, though it's fallen out of favor these days. For comparison, see Rhode Island's constitution, Article I, Section 20- "The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish sentiments on any subject..". That construction- '{reason}, {statement}' exists today, but we usually swap the clauses- "I'm going to the supermarket, I'm completely out of soda." or we add in a 'because' or 'since'- "Since I'm completely out of soda, I'm going to the supermarket." or "I'm going to the supermarket because I'm completely out of soda."

I know that complex English is lost in today's twitter-ful and facebook-y terseness, but it really does pay to read older documents when you want to analyze what a sentence from that era actually means.

So with the point from the first section, the second section in mind, and rearranging the clauses per the third would yield a modern restatement of the second amendment as-

"Because a well functioning militia is necessary to state security, the government shall not interfere with the right of the people to be armed."

or

"The government shall not interfere with the right of the people to be armed because a well functioning militia is necessary to state security."

Nothing in either of those statements says that arms are only for militia service, rather the ability to raise an effective militia is _why_ protecting the right to be armed is protected. Since we know from the preamble (and the 9th/10th amendment) that the bill of rights is not exhaustive, we have to look outside the bill of rights itself to see if the founding fathers expected this right to extend beyond militia service.

State analogues of the second amendment that were adopted in the same timeframe give a clue-

http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/WhatStateConstitutionsTeach.htm (sections rearranged by me)

(footnotes removed)

So from analagous documents created by many of the same founding fathers or their peers, the individual right unconnected to militia service is fairly well laid out.

* Admittedly, not analogous in time to the others, but still demonstrates the point.
** same

You should read other cases such as US v Cruikshank ("This right is not a right granted by the Constitution . . . neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.") or Presser v Illinois ("the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, as so to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government.")

Both the Heller and McDonald decision shed more light on the subject.

All that scholarly research to try to explain and interpret on sentence written in the 18th century.
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.

That's why we would be better off rewriting it in completely unambiguous terms and re-ratifying it.
Or is that another bad idea? What do you suggest? Leave it be and keep haggling over what a bunch of dead guys might have meant us to do if they'd lived to see the crazy world we live in today. Even Microsoft has updates.

I only listed the first five or so, plus a few more modern outliers.

If the original writers of the federal constitution didn't believe in an 'individual' right, why did those same people go home and write 'in defen(c)(s)e of themselves / self / himself / etc' so many times in their respective state constitutions?

I have a feeling you wouldn't like the wording if we had to get the approval of the people today..

http://www.gallup.com/poll/108394/americans-agreement-supreme-court-gun-rights.aspx


That percentage who agree with the SCOTUS decision in Heller? I doubt they'd 'modernize' it to be for a militia only.

Most, including me, are OK with ownership, in principle. I also hold that if it is a civil right, then any restrictions on ownership are violations of that civil right. That means everyone has that right, regardless of prior criminal behavior, unless that individual's right has been stripped or suspended by a court as part of his/her sentence.
The toting part is where it gets sticky, because this is where an individuals rights come into conflict with society's rights. When we elect to live in a community, then we must abide by the laws and conventions of that community. All rights have restrictions.

Nobody claimed that any right is unlimited. Just because you don't think that there are enough limits doesn't mean it's not restricted.

Again, if we were to 'start from scratch', I don't think you'd like the result.

And I don't see it as right or wrong. It isn't the path we follow, it's how we follow it that counts.
Neither gun toting nor gun banning is going to solve the problems of violence in our society. The freedoms we enjoy from our 2A rights are being co-opted by the Libertarian Right, Tea Baggers, RW survivalists, Neo-Nazis and various other loony RW groups. And the Dem toters are following these crazies like sheep. It's time to stop and think about what is really going down before it is too late. Despite all the distractions of the Middle East and Globalism and outsourcing and China moving into top dog position, the true enemies lie within.

Even after Heller and McDonald and multiple polls showing that a majority of americans agree with those cases and the opinions expressed therein, we still have folks whinging about how it was interpreted wrong.

The reality is, no appreciable change in the nature of the second amendment is likely in the foreseeable future. But that doesn't stop a vocal minority from trying.

Maybe one of these signs would help..




For all the dire predictions by various gun control proponents about how X will cause "blood in the {streets|clssroom|national park|ad nauseum}" we're at violent crime, murder, and robbery rates last seen in the 60's.

I don't credit that drop due to the relaxation of regulation of firearms, but it definitely disproves the tired meme about 'more guns = more crime'. Given that it seems to have no negative effect on crime rates, etc- I see it as an eminently liberal position to let people do what they will. As Jefferson put it, if it "neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg" then what justification do we use to curtail it? A moral position? Because it's "tacky" or "uncivilized"? I'll leave the "value judgement as basis for legislation" schtick to the rethuglicans, thanks.

I don't subscribe to the wild predictions of blood in the streets etc. or that "more guns=more crime".
But neither do I see it as a liberal issue to let people do what they will. Much more libertarian, than liberal. When any society finds itself threatened, or spinning out of control, then the rule of "applying a lesser evil to implement a greater good" invariably comes into play. Good examples would be our recent "Stimulus Package" and assorted bailouts, or the UK's draconian solution to gun violence. I think that the out of control proliferation of handguns and CC permits will eventually lead to similar legislation here. I sincerely hope it doesn't come to that, but there seems to be a spreading madness in the country right now. To those who really care about 2A, I would say "Be careful what you wish for". I don't like conspiracy theories, even concerning the NRA, but there is something afoot and it doesn't smell right.

I hope I misinterpreted that.



Then I wouldn't call you a social liberal..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism



Regarding the UK..



Except it wasn't a solution. Handgun crime went up after 1997, and violent crime in general is up, even today. Even before the UK had any form of gun control, NYC's murder rate was five times that of London.

Heck, our non-gun homicide rate is higher than many European nations' total murder rate.

It's not the tools, frankly.

Of course not, but it is the use of them. 30,000 gun deaths a year, half of them homicides. Something is seriously wrong. Less than 50 in the UK. Something is working there.

And gun control had little effect on what was already a rare event in the UK.

But even so, violent crime is quite high in the UK.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3419401.stm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712573/UK-is-violent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/violent-crime-underestimated-for-10-years-971489.html

There's always that last straw. Let's hope it doesn't happen here

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10214661



Did the rate go up or down after gun control was implemented?

Britain records 18% fall in gun deaths

By Nigel Morris, Deputy Political Editor

Thursday, 8 January 2009

The number of deaths in Britain from gunshot wounds has fallen to a 20-year low despite concerns about levels of violent crime.

Most of the 42 gun-related deaths last year took place in London, the West Midlands, Manchester or Merseyside, with swathes of the country recording no homicides, suicides or accidental deaths from firearms. One third of the victims were younger than 21 and four of them were female. The Gun Control Network, which campaigns for tougher restrictions on firearms, disclosed the figure, which was a sharp drop on 2007, when 51 gun-related deaths were recorded in England, Wales and Scotland.

The network said it was worried that "despite the fall in gun crime, disproportionate number of incidents involve teenagers as victims and/or perpetrators". Fifteen people, including six young men, were killed in 2008 in London, which has suffered a spate of gang-related murders.

There were six deaths in the West Midlands, four each in Manchester and Merseyside and two each in Kent, Shropshire and West Yorkshire. Other deaths were recorded in Cornwall, Derbyshire, Glasgow, Hertfordshire, Humberside, Northumberland and South Yorkshire.

The Centre for Crime and Justice Studies at King's College London said its research also suggested the number of gun-related deaths was falling since reaching a peak eight years ago.

The centre's director, Richard Garside, said: "Gun homicide in England and Wales is low compared with such countries as the United States, Australia, France and Italy."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/britain-records-18-fall-in-gun-deaths-1232069.html

Or are you going to claim that it takes 14 years for the effects to manifest?

The fall in the murder rate in the 12 months to September 2010 was accompanied by a 9% fall in gun crime and a 6% fall in knife offences. The 619 deaths recorded on the homicide index was the lowest since the 606 murders in 1997/98. In 2009/10 , 421 victims were male and 198 were female.

The murder rate in England and Wales over the past 50 years rose steadily from around 300 a year in the early 1960s to more than 1,000 in 2002/03 when 172 deaths were attributed to the activities of Dr Harold Shipman. They have declined sharply since that peak with the fall in domestic violence providing part of the explanation for the decline.

Murder Rates per 100,000
2000 US 5.5 UK 1.7
2009 US 5.0 UK 1.25

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

You can keep trying, but I'm sorry, you're never going to win this one.

During 2007, nine young people lost their lives in shootings, including the killing of 11-year-old Rhys Jones in Liverpool.

According to Home Office figures, there were 59 firearms-related homicides in 2006-07 compared with 49 in the previous year. That is an increase of 18% in just one year. There were 507 serious injuries from firearms - more than one incident a day.

But at the same time, the trend in gun crime overall has been going down.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6960431.stm

If gun control is the solution, why'd it take 14 years to get to the same level as it was when implemented?

And even if it did, what's the point of your question?

"The 619 deaths recorded on the homicide index was the lowest since the 606 murders in 1997/98."

That means that after the latest round of gun control in 1997, the homicide index *went up*.. then dropped back to 1997/8 levels.. in 2010.

There was a significant further fall in gun crime with the number of incidents involving a firearm down by 17% to 8,184. The number of fatal shootings fell from 53 to 38.

And even if it did, what's the point of your question?

If that "something" is gun control, then why did it take 14 years for the homicide rate to drop to the same level as when it was implemented?

After 1997's gun control, homicide, even by gun, continued to rise, only dropping to 1997/8 levels 14 years later.

You then said..



As though a very rare mass shooting is the measure by which gun control is to be judged.

Of course, then you had the Cumbria shootings. Which is it? Is gun control supposed to stop random, rare events, or not?

If so, it failed. If not, why did you cite that as (I presume) the reason for implementation?

I have many friends in the UK who are not happy with the ban on guns, but they are happy with the drastically lower crime rate there for homicide and violent crime. Like the NHS, you pay for what you get, but you do get universal healthcare and you do get public safety. Both at a price, which well over 90% feel is affordable.

"It was working until.."

First off, it wasn't actually working- the quote you provided gives lie to that statement-



1968, 1988, 1997 -- all saw increased gun control measures passed in the UK, yet the murder rate continued to rise until 2002/3.



I think you conflated two things there- the UK is the most violent member state in the EU, even outranking the US.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html



(Or at least it was in 2009.)

For the US-
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/violent_crime/index.html


As to homicide, they are smack dab in the middle of the EU(13th of 27 member states), but markedly lower than our rate. (1.49 v 5.2 per 100k)

So.. if spree killings aren't the reason for gun control, gun control doesn't stop spree killings, and gun control doesn't actually lower homicides, why should the US implement gun control?

which is a RW sensationalist tabloid. The Telegraph (also RW) is rarely more credible.

You can find these ridiculously skewed figures all over the web.

I mean, if you want to say that the British Crime Survey is shit, feel free. But don't then rely on it for your subsequent figures. :)

And I notice you completely ignored the rest of my post. Care to take another stab attempt at it? (eta: woops, those blokes in the UK take that a bit too seriously.)

March 1999 - March 2000 = 760

March 2000 - March 2001 = 792

March 2001 - March 2002 = 891

March 2002 - March 2003 = 1,048 - (876)
This includes 172 attributed to Harold Shipman

March 2003 - March 2004 = 853

March 2004 - March 2005 = 868

2005 - 2006 = 765

includes 54 victims of the July bombings in London

March 2006 - March 2007 = 759

March 2007 - March 2008 753

March 2008 - March 2009 651
(lowest for 20 years)


I don't think it is easy to extrapolate any useful evidence, either way, as to the effect of the gun ban. The numbers are so consistently low compared to the US.

In the UK (population c. 60.5m) there were 765 reported incidents of murder for 2005-6 (Home Office, undated) – a rate of about 1.1 per 100,000.

In the US (population c. 298.5m) there were an estimated 16,137 homicides in 2004 (FBI, 2006a) – a rate of about 5.4 per 100,000. Of these, 10,654 were carried out with guns (FBI, 2006b).

_________________________

I think it's fair to say that the 1968, 1988, and 1997 gun control measures did not decrease homicide and violent crime, wouldn't you agree?

And given that difficulty, the justification for more gun control becomes a bit moralistic.

I think it is hard to say when the numbers are so small to begin with.

and is only ambiguous now in the minds of those who want it to be ambiguous.

It seems quite clear to me, but then I learned to diagram sentances in school (about second or third grade), and my mother is an English teacher. Dad does math and science, so rational analysis is in my blood, y'see.

What causes the confusion and ambiguity is the first part "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State". So, does the individuals right to bear (not keep) extend beyond bearing as part of the militia. The word "militia" was appropriate in the 1700's, because there was no NG. Now SCOTUS has decided that they are not one and the same. So there is no militia anymore. Needs to be rewritten, so that the rest of us ignorami can understand it.

And there actually is a militia still. Mostly unorganized, and hasn't been called up in far too long, but it does still exist.

About this mostly "unorganized" militia. Where would that be and who calls it up?
Are you referring to the following?

On May 8, 1792, Congress passed "an act more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States" requiring:

Each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia... every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear, so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.

"What causes the confusion and ambiguity is the first part.." which I actually read incorrectly as a question. My bad. But it does explain it.

Unorganized Militia: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/311.html

TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 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.

So again, I suggest it be clarified, either by congress as a new Amendment or by SCOTUS continuing to decode the original, which doesn't seem to be going very well.

US Code Title 10, Sub A, Part 1, Chapter 13, Sec 311



Some just need to know where to look. Some pretend it doesn't say what it says. Individual members of the militia are still required to register with Selective Service when they reach the age if eighteen, despite the fact the Army of the United States was disbanded after 1974.

Those who are old enough to have had Service Numbers with a prefix of AUS or US will perhaps understand the distinction. Many of us whose service numbers began with RA most assuredly do.

anyone over 45 is excluded. So all us old fogies need to leave our guns at home.

Used briefly as an Army prefix by some enlisted members of the Army Reserve. Later used as an Air Force prefix for all officers and warrant officers of the Regular Air Force. After 1969, used as a suffix for Regular Air Force officers, written after the social security number.

Here's a handy dandy chart for them all: Service Number Prefix & Suffix Codes

That the carrying of arms was an individual right was never questioned until 1939. It was universally understood that all FREE MEN could arm themselves. You really should re-read Dred Scott and learn more about the rationale for the decision than you did in Ninth grade.

In Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856) the Supreme Court indicated that: "It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union ... the full liberty ... to keep and carry arms wherever they went."

That's important enough to repeat and show in context. The argument against granting Scott his freedom and citizenship were it would confer to blacks rights "everyone" took for granted were the province of citizens and listed several as examples.



Clearly this gives lie to the view that the Second Amendment not being understood as protecting an individual right to arms until recently. The right to arms was clearly and unquestionably considered an INDIVIDUAL right by the 1856 court. A position held almost universally until Homer Cummings pushed gun control under the "New Deal" as FDR's Attorney General. Unfortunately, the passage clearly shows the same thinking in the Dred Scott court that gun control activists now try to conceal. The bitter fights in DC and Chicago proved it. The "what works in Cheyenne may not work in Chicago" argument is simply new speak for, "Are you nuts? You want them darkies having guns?"

Can you show me your First, Fourth and Thirteenth Amendment Licences and proof of training?

Once they get their foot in the door , and the dire predictions of shit smeared murdering maniacs fail to materialize , the proselytizers quickly find it becomes increasingly harder and harder to demonize the targeted demographic .

Campus carry is like that in a big way . It eats at the base of people who think self defense is all about "GUNZ" .
Hell , look at the name of the forum .

...and am also on the Wisconsin Carry mailing list (as I support CCW in Wisconsin and was until just recently a resident there). While I don't agree with everything I have seen from either of those org's, I do agree with them when it comes to this one particular issue. And it turns out the majority of Americans do as well, to some degree at least. That being the case, I guess you are calling the majority of Americans "freaky and unsavory" then?

Fear of people who like to carry them wherever they go is more than rational. You are far more likely to be struck by lightning than to be illegally shot by a CCW holder.

The desire to live in a world ridden with guns is irrational. A world without guns is a world ruled by the physically strong. Guns give the weaker folk the ability to resist the strong.

The desire to live in a gun free environment is rational. See above.

The notion that carrying a concealed weapon is for the betterment of society as a whole is irrational. It make street crime a more dangerous game for the street criminals. They can no longer consider old folks as easy victims. That is an improvement.

:toast:

...is irrational.

yup

any time you choose.