Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire New angle of attack for anti gunners

Not much from the left actually makes sense, but you have to hand it to them when it comes to tenacity.

That little paper you fill out on your 18th birthday makes you a memeber of a militia, no?

This is what I have said. The Left understands power. And they will take it where they can get it.

Just look at Heller. I see it touted here and other places as a major victory. But was it? What has it done for us? Not much as a practical matter. It hasn’t stopped states and cities all over adopting harsh restrictions on so-called assault weapons, magazine limits, UBCs, and coming Red Flag laws. Why? Because these people don’t give up and they understand that if they control their local politicians, they can effectively nullify federal laws, implement laws they prefer, and control things. They’re doing it even more blatantly with immigration.

I really think we, as a movement, have made significant missteps since Heller in trying to implement that decision nationwide by trying to get it applied all over. Courts are a poor place to make laws. There will always be enough nuance and wiggle room that a determined legislature can sidestep decisions, prolong cases, and generally thwart someone trying to litigate that way. I think our fight needs to be more explicitly political and more focused at the state level.

But we should probably get more focused on our state firearms associations, get more explicitly political, and adopt some of the tactics of the left.

I’ll also add that the litigation strategy is a mistake because so many of the federal judges in these places are leftists themselves.

This angle makes sense. A free state requires a well regulated militia. An armed population is required to keep the militia from getting get out of hand. The 2nd amendment clearly states the right of the people not the right of the militia. The whole constitution is written with the purpose of constraining the government created by that constitution.

I thought regulated meant they had their sights zero'd.

But we did have a regular army.

They are going to take "well regulated" and apply background checks. Only problem is that the modern day concept of UBC's comes from the Marxist/Bolshevik/Socialist concepts from last century and leftists always conveniently have amnesia when it comes to the horrors that followed every single time it was tried!

I always took "well regulated" to mean adequately armed and supplied. That seems to be the case.....

They don’t have amnesia. They believe it was/is necessary. That stuff isn’t a bug in the system. It’s a feature.

Death, Destruction, and Mayhem follows the loss of the 2nd Amendment.

Absolutely.

The Militia Act of 1792, written in the same time frame as the 2nd Amendment, defines the militia as the all free males between the ages of 18 and 45 .
It is the right of the people (individuals) and not the state.

But that doesn't mean only people in that age group have a right to keep and bear arms. The right is the people's, not the militia's. The Second Amendment is a counterpoint between the well regulated militia and the people. The concern was that the militias (the only security force that was meant to exist during peacetime, apart from the navy) may impose tyranny unless the right of the people to keep and bear arms was guaranteed.

If this were not the case, it would say "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, its right to be armed shall not be infringed."

Being part of the militia has nothing to do with having the right to keep and bear arms, that belongs to “the people” which is everyone. Heller affirmed that though it should be obvious to anyone who can read.