10 U.S. Code § 246 - 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.
While it's an absolute oh-shit scenario... it's still law. When you further look at when the amendments were written, private citizens had repeating rifles (while not as good as we have it today), flat out warships, field artillery, and private armies.
The latter still holds true, as basically everyone of note and high net worth has a security contingent even if they are not in public office.
Don't like me shooting where it's legal to do so (ignoring that said Jane D. Citizen moved there well after the range was made) then let me throw a can on my rifle without overbearing requirements on par with owning a gordamn beltfed party pewer.
Don't like people shooting up places? Attack the people doing the shooting. My rifle has, and will not, commit crime. Neither have thousands of other people with similar rifles. The statistics show, and including ALL rifles, that the amount of crime committed (either assault or homicide) with rifles is barely a drop in the bucket versus pretty much any other method. Handguns dwarf them, yet people seem to want to allow the weapon that actually requires the most training, is the least accurate, and is most used in crime.... versus the evil black wargun and it's friends that our nation sends off as the best/most economical tool of force application when diplomacy fails.
I want mine because I know diplomacy fails. Some people are just that stupid, that they think they are not beholden to the social constructs we have collectively built over the years. They've been out there since day 1 of this nation and they aren't going away.
Some of them, like a good portion of the high profile incident perpetrators recently, had people going "something is wrong with this guy". I know that Boy Scouts doesn't teach Sephamore much and/or at all anymore, but exactly what do we need to do to build the tower so the waving red flags can be seen by those that can do something about it?
I mean, my mom worked 12-14 hour shifts and my dad was a mean fucking drunk. I was bullied all the way up until my junior year in HS (at which point my size plus fuck-it switch had become flipped and I went offensive with fists like a fucking badger as soon as someone squared up and cocked back). I was flat out assaulted repeatedly as well up until that same timeframe. I had free, easy access to firearms then, as I do now. How come I didn't shoot up the school?
Zero tolerance environments don't equate zero defects. Back then, administrations made investigations with teachers and other students as witnesses to the event and would act accordingly... even in California where I grew up. Back then, they still did some level of instilling personal responsibility for your own safety. Get out of the area, get somewhere public, get some attention to try to get intervention... and if that didn't work, get down to business because it's your ass on the line till someone steps in.
The same applies with being an adult. I have been in non-military situations where even with all of my best efforts with regards to personal safety, having a weapon on my person and competently leveraging it when my civilian ROE (written out in law as per use of force, justifiable defense for use of force, etc) was exceeded and I was cleared hot to draw down and drop the douches. Thankfully, drawing down was all that was necessary.
@medicchick also had a couple instances when I was working shift work and her carrying most likely kept her alive/intact/unsullied, as in one case the guy she drew down on who then retreated, was picked up by Alaska Troopers as a parole violating rapist. This was in the middle of town, just having gotten done with grocery shopping. Thankfully she had been heeding some of the thought matrixes and methods I had instilled into her, and my wedding present to her was the big fucking barrel that got aimed at his brain housing group, causing him to rethink his life choices (or choice to retain life, really) at that instant.
That's the other thing. There's also no good tracking on UOF from victims that doesn't result in a shot fired. I know my instances aren't outliers, as friends I have talked to have had similar instances where carrying saved their ass but they came home with all the ammo they left with. Concealed Nation on Facebook has pretty much daily "one time on the news and then fades" self defense uses, as do other groups. These are all referenced published by verified news sources and police releases, yet they get no attention nor weight in the discussion, it seems.
Disdain for the .223/5.56 also doesn't take into account that it's been shown to actually be safer for the public at large when it comes to home defense, as it doesn't have the common building construction penetration and lethality once through 2 exterior walls, as a shotgun, carbine in pistol caliber, or pistol.
Ignorance of the realities while cranking the television amplifier to 11 with a solid power chord strummed on the heartstrings does not, should not, and if I have any say, will not have any effect on my individual enumerated rights and privileges as a citizen in good standing.
If someone's showing red flags, they need to get checked out. There's a 72hr psych hold to confirm/deny hazard to self or others. Following that, due diligence and proper paperwork on the DA's part can have someone's ability to keep/bear restricted. It's already in the books. Someone who shouldn't have a gun due to prior legal precedent shouldn't be able to purchase a gun, and shouldn't have any from prior to conviction. This is already in the books.
Sad to say, both of these cases, as well as straw purchases and lying on the 4473 are rarely prosecuted by the powers we put in place to enforce these laws and uphold the at-large public safety.
Why is that?
