On 1/25/2020 9:21 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 15:59:47 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 1/24/2020 8:54 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 13:58:40 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 1/24/2020 12:57 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:


The founders of this nation, thank God, were very powerful thinkers. But to you they were dopes and you know much better.

They were fairly sharp guys. Not gods, not saints, not infallible, but
sharp guys.

They believed in well-regulated militias. That was understood quite well
for about 200 years.

They believed in a militia quite simply because that is all that they
there was in the 1700's and yes, they tossed in the word "well
regulated", apparently in hope, as none of the state militias of the
1700's were what one might call "well regulated" and yes, there is
sufficient history available to realize this. Read up on the
Penobscot Expedition.

It was only in very recent times that the firearms industry and some gun
nuts got lawyers to convince activist judges that all precedents and all
previous legal thought should be thrown into a trash can and shot to
hell with an AR-15 fitted with a bump stock.

Read some history Frank. In the 1700's there was no standing army in
the colonies and the only armed defense available was the town/state
militia which by the mid 1700's were being viewed with some dismay by
the colonial governments. When Washington tried to mobilize the
Virginia Militia to fight against an Indian attack, in 1755, the
follow was written,
" he experienced all the evils of insubordination among the troups,
perverseness in the militia, inactivity in the officers, disregard of
orders, and reluctance in the civil authorities to render a proper
support."

Thus, I suggest, the term "well regulated" might well have more then a
cursory meaning.

As for AR-15's I might comment that contrary to popular belief the
bulk of the "continental Army, and the militia before them were armed
with smooth bore muskets - the rapid fire weapon of the era. From all
the records I can find there were in the neighborhood of 1,500
riflemen, in total, in the Colonial army during the war. However
rifles may have been a factor in the Colonial victory in the battle of
The Battle of King's Mountain.

I can only assume due to the rapid acceptance of fully automatic
weapons by various forces in modern times that had a weapon like the
AR-15 been available in 1775 that both sides would have adopted it :-)
Aft all both side had adopted cannon.

John, you haven't written anything new to me. And nothing that you've
written has rebutted what I said.

The Constitution was written in a time when militias with muskets were
the best insurance against an overseas power taking control of the
territory of the brand new United States. Those militias needed to be
well regulated, or they themselves could turn the place into 1990s
Mogadishu, but in slow motion, with at least 15 seconds between shots.

Actually a very well trained infantryman could fire 4 shots a minute,
but the standard in the British army was 3 rounds a minute, i.e. 20
seconds per shot, and other armies even slower... but the fact remains
that this was "rapid fire" in those days.

Yes. Exactly as I said.



We now have millions of fat Rambo wannabees buying guns not to keep
woodchucks out of the garden or put rabbits on the table. They're
choosing weapons with fantasy battles in mind, outfitting them with
magazines that have no practical use outside a firefight, and pretending
that they're going to use them against anyone who demands their
background be checked. With funding from the industry supplying their
toys, they've gotten the courts to twist away from true originalist
interpretations of the 2nd amendment.

What these Rambos do is not what your family did in New England. It's
not what the Founders imagined in the 1700s. It's not what happens in
other economically advanced countries. And our gun death stats and mass
shooting stats show the results.


Ah but Frank. The original meaning of the 2nd amendment was to ensure
an armed citizenry in order that a militia could be formed.

Right. A militia could be quickly organized by the U.S. government, or a
state's government, in case British battleships once again approached
the coast. Or, I suppose, Spaniards came marching up from the south.

Can you imagine what today's American Fat Rambos would do if that
unlikely situation occurred? Do you really think Gary Gun Nut would pack
his pistol and his modified AR-15 and leave his "Call of Duty" game to
actually do what he loves to pretend?

If such a crisis occurred, we'd have what Mogadishu had in its worst
years: Gangs of well-armed thugs roaming everywhere, blasting guns
constantly, killing anyone who they perceived to be from a rival group,
with the difinition of "rival group" constantly changing. We'd have a
society in ruins and a murder rate rising into the stratosphere.

It's not that a well regulated militia is impossible. Switzerland does
it reasonably well. They do it with gun laws over which the NRA would
call for open revolt. And their firearm murder rate and their mass
shooting rate prove that what we have is NOT what's mentioned in the 2nd
amendment.

--
- Frank Krygowski