PDA

View Full Version : idea for extreme 2A excercise


Ryan in SD
07-05-2012, 3:23 PM
Not that I think its time for such a thing, but if guns, components, and ammo continue to get strife or banned, I would like to see the 2A get tried to its complete extent.

Ie.
A list of people formaly identifiable as a militia by most acceptable definition.
"a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government."

And all in possession of otherwise illegal arms (ie sbr, full auto, etc etc). You know, common military arms. The kind that rights can be guaranteed with.

-If the 2nd amendment is written so clearly, you would think such a thing would be fool proof. Not that I would want to be the test case, but you see my point.

-Look how broad the 1st amendment is exercised?

Clearly the more reasonable people would want to move to a free state, but if you love what this country was founded on enough, you would potentially stay to oppose the unconstitutional legislation and politicians. Doubtful, but, again...you see my point.

-Another question, do you think the states would fall like dominoes? Or do you think California would just alienate itself and have thick borders?

I love what this country was founded on and above all I love freedom. Humans should know by nature what is right and wrong and know there are consequences for their actions.

POLICESTATE
07-05-2012, 3:30 PM
In this state you would land in some serious trouble, you'd literally be putting everything on the line for your test.

#1 Obviously the SBR/SBS/FA and other NFA items are big felonies here. If you really want to test 2A you might as well not get the NFA stamps so you can violate some big federal laws as well.

#2 Establishing a militia and training in CA is illegal for the most part. I can't recall the exact PC right now but essentially establishing a militia AND training as such is verbotten.

#3 Combine those two things together and you're basically going to be villified as another Waco or Ruby Ridge nut.

#4 I'm sure it would cost a fortune to try and defend and of course the likelihood that you would succeed and overturn all of those unconstitutional laws both state and federal is slim to none.

I would expect it would end badly, you would lose and we'd never see you again since you'd be in a federal supermax dungeon in Colorado or something for the rest of your life.

That would be my expectation.

The fallout for the rest of the country would be tighter restrictions than we know now, but more pervasive across the country and would be upheld by SCOTUS sans a complete bad on firearms.

Although the COTUS doesn't specifically mention FIREARMS but simply arms so in effect the courts could at some point ban firearms but allow things like... pocket knives.

Dreaded Claymore
07-05-2012, 3:33 PM
Your post is rambling and vague. I'm not quite sure what you're asking or saying. The only thing I can really make out is this:

A list of people formerly identifiable as a militia by most acceptable definition.
"a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government."
I'll tell you right now, that's NOT the most acceptable definition. Read Heller and McDonald.

Ryan in SD
07-05-2012, 3:42 PM
Your post is rambling and vague. I'm not quite sure what you're asking or saying. The only thing I can really make out is this:

I'll tell you right now, that's NOT the most acceptable definition. Read Heller and McDonald.

I tried to make it sweet and to the point.
I thought I'd get more responses if i kept the post short so people could breeze through it.

Ryan in SD
07-05-2012, 3:55 PM
#3 Combine those two things together and you're basically going to be villified as another Waco or Ruby Ridge nut.

Those guys at waco actually were nuts. The waco leader thought he was a prophet.

Not sure about ruby ridge, just know that the government slaughtered his wife and kid.



Although the COTUS doesn't specifically mention FIREARMS but simply arms so in effect the courts could at some point ban firearms but allow things like... pocket knives.

Also, it doesn't 'dis'mention firearms. In fact, it could be any and all 'arms'.

Doesn't say you can have these 'arms' but not those 'arms'.
So where's my mk19??

I'm pretty sure banning firearms outright would trigger something big and bad.

Mesa Tactical
07-05-2012, 3:59 PM
Those guys at waco actually were nuts. The waco leader thought he was a prophet.

How do you know he wasn't?

Less time has gone by since his death than the years that passed between the death of Jesus and the first publication of the gospels that make up the core of the New Testament.

Wouldn't it be a really big funny joke if he really was the Second Coming, done to death by the ambient authority of the day (just as happened to Jesus)?

Ryan in SD
07-05-2012, 4:06 PM
How do you know he wasn't?

Less time has gone by since his death than the years that passed between the death of Jesus and the first publication of the gospels that make up the core of the New Testament.

Wouldn't it be a really big funny joke if he really was the Second Coming, done to death by the ambient authority of the day (just as happened to Jesus)?

Hahaha, yeah good point, that is hilarious.

Damn government might have killed jebus! :p

-

Also, wanted to ask. How is it possible that CA outlawed militias? Wouldn't that too be considered unconstitutional?

The reading comprehension of our politicians making these bad laws is scary.

Mesa Tactical
07-05-2012, 4:09 PM
Damn government might have killed jebus! :p

Well, they did the first time!

erik_26
07-05-2012, 4:41 PM
Not that I think its time for such a thing, but if guns, components, and ammo continue to get strife or banned, I would like to see the 2A get tried to its complete extent.

Ie.
A list of people formaly identifiable as a militia by most acceptable definition.
"a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government."

And all in possession of otherwise illegal arms (ie sbr, full auto, etc etc). You know, common military arms. The kind that rights can be guaranteed with.

-If the 2nd amendment is written so clearly, you would think such a thing would be fool proof. Not that I would want to be the test case, but you see my point.

-Look how broad the 1st amendment is exercised?

Clearly the more reasonable people would want to move to a free state, but if you love what this country was founded on enough, you would potentially stay to oppose the unconstitutional legislation and politicians. Doubtful, but, again...you see my point.

-Another question, do you think the states would fall like dominoes? Or do you think California would just alienate itself and have thick borders?

I love what this country was founded on and above all I love freedom. Humans should know by nature what is right and wrong and know there are consequences for their actions.


I have thought about that too. It is called taking the government back.


People post that video of the corrupt town where the sheriff is running the show and the soldiers come home, fought the law and took the town back. Everyone on Calguns cheers and applauds that.

You post a theoretically the same thing in modern times and they call you a waco texas ranger.


The only problem I see with your idea, I don't think anyone wants to be the test case. No one wants to die or give up their day to day life. Everyone is content (for the most part) with the little freedom they have and their day to day lives.

Fact is, the overwhelming people of California don't know the laws (not even just gun laws). People probably break laws they had no idea where laws on a daily basis. The mass of the people really are blind or sheep.

They can name the full cast of the Jersey Shore, but couldn't name an equal number of presidents. They couldn't list the 1st 5 amendments. The worst part is, they just don't care.

True patriots are very far and few between.

dustoff31
07-05-2012, 4:55 PM
Also, wanted to ask. How is it possible that CA outlawed militias? Wouldn't that too be considered unconstitutional?

CA didn't outlaw the militia. They, like the federal government and every other state government define and regulate it.

00Medic
07-05-2012, 5:16 PM
Seems to me that if you did this you would be labled as a domestic terrorist in the eyes of the gov.

Librarian
07-05-2012, 5:26 PM
CA didn't outlaw the militia. They, like the federal government and every other state government define and regulate it.

Yes, that's about right.

PC 11460 (a) Any two or more persons who assemble as a paramilitary
organization for the purpose of practicing with weapons shall be
punished by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year
or by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by
both that fine and imprisonment.
As used in this subdivision, "paramilitary organization" means an
organization which is not an agency of the United States government
or of the State of California, or which is not a private school
meeting the requirements set forth in Section 48222 of the Education
Code, but which engages in instruction or training in guerrilla
warfare or sabotage, or which, as an organization, engages in rioting
or the violent disruption of, or the violent interference with,
school activities.
(b) (1) Any person who teaches or demonstrates to any other person
the use, application, or making of any firearm, explosive, or
destructive device, or technique capable of causing injury or death
to persons, knowing or having reason to know or intending that these
objects or techniques will be unlawfully employed for use in, or in
the furtherance of a civil disorder, or any person who assembles with
one or more other persons for the purpose of training with,
practicing with, or being instructed in the use of any firearm,
explosive, or destructive device, or technique capable of causing
injury or death to persons, with the intent to cause or further a
civil disorder, shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail
for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than one thousand
dollars ($1,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment.
Nothing in this subdivision shall make unlawful any act of any
peace officer or a member of the military forces of this state or of
the United States, performed in the lawful course of his or her
official duties.
(2) As used in this section:
(A) "Civil disorder" means any disturbance involving acts of
violence which cause an immediate danger of or results in damage or
injury to the property or person of any other individual.
(B) "Destructive device" has the same meaning as in Section 16460.
(C) "Explosive" has the same meaning as in Section 12000 of the
Health and Safety Code.
(D) "Firearm" means any device designed to be used as a weapon, or
which may readily be converted to a weapon, from which is expelled a
projectile by the force of any explosion or other form of
combustion, or the frame or receiver of this weapon.
(E) "Peace officer" means any peace officer or other officer
having the powers of arrest of a peace officer, specified in Chapter
4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2.

a1c
07-05-2012, 5:30 PM
I think you need to read Heller and MacDonald, and that you need to remember that no right is absolute.

JON KARGATHALON
07-05-2012, 5:41 PM
So even though we have the right to form a militia by the constitution, Its illegal to do so says the Government??? wow... Talk about trying to control the masses huh guys? I dont care uncle sam:)

Audredger
07-05-2012, 5:55 PM
I think you mis interpret the 2nd amendment!!! Malitia simply meant citizens willing to come to the aid of the state when called upon not, paramilitary nor national guard. Well regulated men well supplied, not well disciplined!

littlejake
07-05-2012, 5:59 PM
Why do people keep bring up the militia? For decades the antis used the first clause of the 2A (the militia clause) to limit the second clause of the 2A. Heller settled that forever. The first clause does not limit the 2nd clause. So, let it lie.

Turning it around and then trying to infer the militia clause adds some extra dimension to the 2A is a hollow argument post Heller.

dustoff31
07-05-2012, 6:06 PM
I think you mis interpret the 2nd amendment!!! Malitia simply meant citizens willing to come to the aid of the state when called upon not, paramilitary nor national guard. Well regulated men well supplied, not well disciplined!

No, It meant that all able bodied males were required to serve in the militia, whether they were willing or not. They were also required to equip themselves as prescribed and to turn out for service or training when ordered to do so. There were prescribed punishments, anything from a simple fine to so many lashes (depending on the state) for failure to do so.



So even though we have the right to form a militia by the constitution, Its illegal to do so says the Government??? wow... Talk about trying to control the masses huh guys? I dont care uncle sam:)

Would you mind posting up that part of the Constitution? Where it says you and your friends have a right to form your own personal militia? I'll wait. All I can find is this:

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;

mrrsquared79
07-05-2012, 6:26 PM
People post that video of the corrupt town where the sheriff is running the show and the soldiers come home, fought the law and took the town back. Everyone on Calguns cheers and applauds that.

Battle of Athens(1946) or An American Story(1992)

JON KARGATHALON
07-05-2012, 7:19 PM
I never said "me and my friends" i said WE. And correct me if im wrong, but isn't there a clause in the constitution that states our right to rise up and form a militia of the people to combat an oppresive and controlling government should the need arise? Thats what im talking about.

Highsaw
07-05-2012, 7:23 PM
Just tell me when and where brother

Librarian
07-05-2012, 7:33 PM
I never said "me and my friends" i said WE. And correct me if im wrong, but isn't there a clause in the constitution that states our right to rise up and form a militia of the people to combat an oppresive and controlling government should the need arise? Thats what im talking about.

Not in the US or California constitutions.

There's something like that in the New Hampshire constitution (http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html) - [Art.] 10. [Right of Revolution.] Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

June 2, 1784and I believe a couple other New England states have something similar.

dustoff31
07-05-2012, 7:45 PM
I never said "me and my friends" i said WE. And correct me if im wrong, but isn't there a clause in the constitution that states our right to rise up and form a militia of the people to combat an oppresive and controlling government should the need arise? Thats what im talking about.

Nope. It isn't there.

There is however a provision for the government to call forth the militia to supress rebellion and insurrection.

As one member suggested let's stop with all this militia stuff. It just isn't necessary. You don't need to be called the militia to own a gun or to defend the Constitution.

Another member mentioned the "Battle of Athens". Those people didn't claim to be the militia. They didn't look around for some additional justification, or obscure statute authorizing what they were about to do. They were just men who saw what needed to be done and did it.

unusedusername
07-05-2012, 11:31 PM
Are you serious about changing this law?

You don't change laws with criminal cases. You change laws with civil cases. The criminal court system technically should be set up to challenge laws, but if you look real close at how it really works, it isn't. Basically nobody overturns laws with criminal cases. Use the civil courts and you stand a chance.

Sue the state because you want to form a militia and it is illegal. You need not form one in order to be able to sue, you just have to have standing. Be able to prove that you want to form one, with a paper trail and documentation, but do absolutely nothing illegal.

Get a really good lawyer before you do anything. The state will send the best highest paid lawyers in to defend the law. You need the very best in order to even stand a chance. You don't want the lawyers that your buddies say are good. You want the lawyers that other lawyers say are good.

Have enough funding for about 3-5 years of lawyer time, as that is probably the minimum these kinds of things take. Alan Gura just won ~1.5ish million for one supreme court case, that is a bit on the low side of how much these things cost. The nice thing is that if you win you probably get to keep the money as you win it back in damages. If you lose though you better be able to pay the lawyers.

Be prepared for huge amounts of legwork as you may need several file-boxes full of documentation proving you have standing before you can even start.

I'll say it again: if you want to stand a chance do absolutely nothing that is currently illegal.

Ryan in SD
07-06-2012, 1:48 AM
I'll have to read up on some of the stuff you guys posted. Good input so far.

Upstanding Black Citizen
07-06-2012, 5:03 PM
This is my first actual post on this website. I've been lurking for about the past two years. Here's my two cents on this issue.
======================
Rights are not secured by laws and rulings alone, you must also win in the court of public opinion. This is something that seems to be consistently overlooked.

The majority of Californians don't want us (gun owners) integrated into their schools. They do not want us shopping in their stores. They do not want us walking up and down their streets. They do not even want us to live in the same neighborhoods as they do. They see us as uncivilized, violent, irrational dangers to society that belong in prisons.

Until this changes, California will do the absolute bare minimum to comply with whatever court rulings that are in our favor, if even that much. The Civil Rights movement predicted this much, and the legislature has been fulfilling the prophecy.

unusedusername
07-06-2012, 8:35 PM
The majority of Californians don't want us (gun owners) integrated into their schools. They do not want us shopping in their stores. They do not want us walking up and down their streets. They do not even want us to live in the same neighborhoods as they do. They see us as uncivilized, violent, irrational dangers to society that belong in prisons.


This actually isn't true at all. The Brady bunch has been putting out propaganda to this extent for a loooooong time.

Even here in San Francisco, on a Friday night the ranges are full with hour+ long waits. The gun stores are constantly out of guns because people are buying them all, and the gun show has a long that goes nearly all the way around the building.

The elite want people to think that not many like guns, but the truth is that while a very small number of people really hate them, a lager portion of people like them, and the vast majority of people just plain don't care about about the issue.

Upstanding Black Citizen
07-06-2012, 9:56 PM
While the situation has improved somewhat as of late, I wouldn't go as far as saying that we're welcome here.

I've never spent much time in SF, but Googleing "San Franscisco Gun Stores" only turned up two shops. In a city of 800k. This is a case of low demand, and even lower supply.

Also, there's a difference between not caring & being happy with current laws. Those people who "don't care" will be against us if you tried to remove gun free school zones, for example.

a1c
07-06-2012, 10:13 PM
While the situation has improved somewhat as of late, I wouldn't go as far as saying that we're welcome here.

I've never spent much time in SF, but Googleing "San Franscisco Gun Stores" only turned up two shops. In a city of 800k. This is a case of low demand, and even lower supply.

Also, there's a difference between not caring & being happy with current laws. Those people who "don't care" will be against us if you tried to remove gun free school zones, for example.

It's not about "lower demand". You'll understand better about the situation if you learn more about SF politics. There are several gun stores just outside city limits to the south.

motorhead
07-07-2012, 1:16 AM
the whole concept of militia was put to rest by heller. the right to keep and bear was affirmed as an INDIVIDUAL right. it no longer has any real meaning in arguing the 2nd.

Upstanding Black Citizen
07-07-2012, 3:32 AM
I'm not an expert on SF politics, but I do know that they had a history of trying to screw over immigrants, a handgun ban, and screw with potential gun shop owners. That being said, even if you go ahead and count all the gun shops in the bay area, you've still only got a couple dozen shops in a region of over 7 million people. :shrug:

I'm just asserting that the majority of Californians were only allies up to a point. Expect them to vote against us en masse if we actually try to repeal some of the current laws like the GFSZ Act, or even just elect some decent people. They are not to be relied upon yet.
============
More directly on topic:
We can't possibly argue that machine guns, NFA items, assault weapons, or even plain 30 round magazines are protected if we rip out all references to militia duty from the 2nd Amendment. None of those things are commonly used for self defense outside of police / military organizations. As for hunting, none of those things are needed to easily exercise that activity.

The 2nd Amendment is absolutely gutted without the ability of individuals to form militias and perform militia duties. We can't fight a tyrannical government with just handguns and hunting weapons can we? We need our privately owned black powder cannons for that.;)

taperxz
07-07-2012, 7:01 AM
I'm not an expert on SF politics, but I do know that they had a history of trying to screw over immigrants, a handgun ban, and screw with potential gun shop owners. That being said, even if you go ahead and count all the gun shops in the bay area, you've still only got a couple dozen shops in a region of over 7 million people. :shrug:

I'm just asserting that the majority of Californians were only allies up to a point. Expect them to vote against us en masse if we actually try to repeal some of the current laws like the GFSZ Act, or even just elect some decent people. They are not to be relied upon yet.
============
More directly on topic:
We can't possibly argue that machine guns, NFA items, assault weapons, or even plain 30 round magazines are protected if we rip out all references to militia duty from the 2nd Amendment. None of those things are commonly used for self defense outside of police / military organizations. As for hunting, none of those things are needed to easily exercise that activity.

The 2nd Amendment is absolutely gutted without the ability of individuals to form militias and perform militia duties. We can't fight a tyrannical government with just handguns and hunting weapons can we? We need our privately owned black powder cannons for that.;)

There are more than a couple dozen in the entire bay area. Not sure where you are but the bay area consists of 9 counties. As for San Francisco, they basically zoned them out of business. Due to regulations on ALL businesses in SF, its not easy to do business with the health care requirements and the minimum wage requirements,taxes, ect. Originally, it was an anti gun law they passes but that has been defeated or at least rendered moot.

Demonicspire
07-07-2012, 7:06 AM
I'm really not sure about this. As I've said before, some people seem to want the US to go to hell so they can play red dawn. This may be an overly harsh criticism, but the US has a good thing going, and I think its important to fight for it. I do not think that we are at all close to needing an armed overthrow of the government. When the time is right for that, we'll all know.

The US isn't perfect, but it is so far ahead of the rest of the world in personal freedoms, and we just have to keep pushing. Real, meaningful political change is long and arduous, almost to the point of being Sisyphusian but it does happen.

Armed bands are a grave responsibility and bring many evils with them. That's why you should only form them in the circumstances of the most dire need, where you are willing to accept all the consequences. Otherwise you're just asking for trouble. Look what "militias" do in so many African countries.

I'm trying hard to phrase a complex argument about psychology and personal responsibility, but banding up has caused some very good and normal people to do some very bad things. It is often noble and necessary to oppose the law, but there is a fine line between that and thinking yourself beyond it.

Note that I am not saying that any of you want to do bad things, and I do fully support the rights of private citizens to bear arms, because that one day may become an eventuality, but I urge the utmost caution. At the end of the day, without a noble purpose, what is the difference between a militia and a gang?

Kappy
07-07-2012, 7:20 AM
I would think that the 2nd Amendment not only gives us the right to own firearms (and other arms), it gives us the right to have a militia comprised of the people. It looks implicit in the wording.

dustoff31
07-07-2012, 7:32 AM
Armed bands are a grave responsibility and bring many evils with them. That's why you should only form them in the circumstances of the most dire need, where you are willing to accept all the consequences. Otherwise you're just asking for trouble. Look what "militias" do in so many African countries.

I'm trying hard to phrase a complex argument about psychology and personal responsibility, but banding up has caused some very good and normal people to do some very bad things. It is often noble and necessary to oppose the law, but there is a fine line between that and thinking yourself beyond it.

Note that I am not saying that any of you want to do bad things, and I do fully support the rights of private citizens to bear arms, because that one day may become an eventuality, but I urge the utmost caution. At the end of the day, without a noble purpose, what is the difference between a militia and a gang?

Well put. Many people often get caught up the romanticized idea of the masses rising up and shaking off their oppressor. I'm not denigrating that idea, just pointing out that if you decide to start a revolution, you had better be able to fininsh it. There are no half measures.

Many fail to understand, or choose to ignore that on April 19, 1775 those guys on line at Concord Bridge and Lexington were by definition, in rebellion and were committing treason. They are now know as patriots because they eventually won. Had they not won, they would now simply be known as dead traitors. Either killed in battle or hanged afterwards.

Upstanding Black Citizen
07-07-2012, 11:32 PM
There are more than a couple dozen in the entire bay area. Not sure where you are but the bay area consists of 9 counties. As for San Francisco, they basically zoned them out of business. Due to regulations on ALL businesses in SF, its not easy to do business with the health care requirements and the minimum wage requirements,taxes, ect. Originally, it was an anti gun law they passes but that has been defeated or at least rendered moot.

http://www.bayareacensus.ca.gov/

This is where I got the over 7 million figure.

There's a topic on this board with a long list of "Bay area" gun shops, but most of them are actually outside that area so I didn't use it. I used Google maps to get a rough estimation.
=================
But yeah, The 2nd Amendment isn't strictly limited to personal use any more than the 1st is. The 2nd Amendment is basically crippled if the only recognized protected firearms are home defense handguns and similar items.

Nessal
07-07-2012, 11:49 PM
I don't understand how CA ban on paramilitary groups not a violations of first amendment rights.

Demonicspire
07-08-2012, 7:01 PM
I don't understand how CA ban on paramilitary groups not a violations of first amendment rights.

Well, it depends on what you do. You can form gun clubs for days. We're a gun club of sorts, but its an issue of intent/behavior. You can form a neighborhood watch, and look out for crime, but you can't form a second police force and start arresting criminals and administering justice.

So, you can meet and talk about guns and civil responsibility, but people would take affront if you started patrolling the place in armed bands. You have the right to meet to express your ideas, but not to plan to do violence.

Upstanding Black Citizen
07-09-2012, 12:38 AM
A Sheriff's Department sanctioned, uniformed, lightly-trained, armed neighborhood watch group could work if law enforcement had severe cuts and layoffs and thus needed all the manpower and cash they could get.

You would have to pay the department for neighborhood watch uniforms, the training, and would have to supply and register your own weapon in order to get the license to carry. You'd also have to sign a liability waiver. $2000 after everything is said and done is my high estimation of what it hypothetically might cost.

Your job would be to report to the PD on the dates/times you signed up for, and investigate non violent reports like vandalism, kids skipping school/doing drugs, parking violations, car accidents, along with doing general patrols and stuff like that. You wouldn't be allowed to actually arrest people, but you could write tickets and report crimes. In the event of an emergency/serious crime where another officer was needed but not available, you'd be obligated to respond if called into service. If you don't do your job/do it badly you get fired. If you get sued/killed it's your fault and your problem, not the department's. You will not be paid for your service.
==============
You'd be a member of an organized, well regulated militia for the purpose of providing state security. Not quite a police officer, but close enough to get a legal way to acquire an AW permit and register AWs, high cap magazines, a LTC, and public acceptance of a local militia, especially in disaster/riot-prone areas.

Does this sound possible to pull off? Would people be willing to sign up?

Demonicspire
07-09-2012, 11:29 AM
In some cases, I think we're safer with fewer cops as opposed to more. The cops go too far for every day enforcement, and can't go far enough for serious things (although there are very good reasons for it). So all they do is mildly annoy recidivists and harass taxpayers. I wouldn't do away with them or anything, but I think there needs to be mandatory psychotherapy.

There's all sorts of data that suggests people for whom violence is part of their jobs (soldiers, prison guards, cops), their mentality decays and they become incapable of choosing when violence is appropriate. The stanford prison experiment is a notable example.
A Sheriff's Department sanctioned, uniformed, lightly-trained, armed neighborhood watch group could work if law enforcement had severe cuts and layoffs and thus needed all the manpower and cash they could get.

You would have to pay the department for neighborhood watch uniforms, the training, and would have to supply and register your own weapon in order to get the license to carry. You'd also have to sign a liability waiver. $2000 after everything is said and done is my high estimation of what it hypothetically might cost.

Your job would be to report to the PD on the dates/times you signed up for, and investigate non violent reports like vandalism, kids skipping school/doing drugs, parking violations, car accidents, along with doing general patrols and stuff like that. You wouldn't be allowed to actually arrest people, but you could write tickets and report crimes. In the event of an emergency/serious crime where another officer was needed but not available, you'd be obligated to respond if called into service. If you don't do your job/do it badly you get fired. If you get sued/killed it's your fault and your problem, not the department's. You will not be paid for your service.
==============
You'd be a member of an organized, well regulated militia for the purpose of providing state security. Not quite a police officer, but close enough to get a legal way to acquire an AW permit and register AWs, high cap magazines, a LTC, and public acceptance of a local militia, especially in disaster/riot-prone areas.

Does this sound possible to pull off? Would people be willing to sign up?

tlcwrites
07-09-2012, 11:52 AM
A Sheriff's Department sanctioned, uniformed, lightly-trained, armed neighborhood watch group could work if law enforcement had severe cuts and layoffs and thus needed all the manpower and cash they could get.
...
Does this sound possible to pull off? Would people be willing to sign up?

Apparently Chicago has something similar, and it doesn't sound like it's working out so well in practice:

http://secondcitycop.blogspot.com/2012/07/ceasefire-dealing-drugs-again.html

Not a bad idea in theory, but screening out those who would abuse their new-found positions of trust might be harder than it sounds.

SilverTauron
07-09-2012, 2:28 PM
A list of people formaly identifiable as a militia by most acceptable definition.
"a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government."


Except when the interference of a large State government is being *requested* by the voters!

There are millions of people in America who think a large benevolent bureaucracy is the future of America, and are dedicated to ensuring the benevolence of the Statist philosophy of high taxes, subsidized healthcare and housing, and high crime are brought to everyone whether they want it or not. Put even more succinctly the majority of Californians, Chicagoans, and New Jersey-ites hate freedom. Freedom, don't you know, is reckless. You just don't know what the guy next to you is up to. We need a large and intrusive government to keep everyone safe and equally miserable.

In that environment any movement against government is going to fail, as public support will be against such a movement from the outset. A pro-RKBA militia will be seen as a terrorist group seeking to undermine legal authority, and millions of welfare state voters will have a literal financial interest in ensuring the OP's militia is destroyed. Cant have the welfare checks and free tuition for illegal aliens halted because of some antiquated concept of "individual liberty".

luchador768
07-09-2012, 2:37 PM
Come on UBC, you can't come on here and have a rational debate with your first post!! You have to ask a question like 1911vs.glock, 5.56vs .223, birdshot for home defense, or the classic "a guy at the gun store told me..."

Wiz-of-Awd
07-09-2012, 2:52 PM
This is my first actual post on this website. I've been lurking for about the past two years. Here's my two cents on this issue.
======================
Rights are not secured by laws and rulings alone, you must also win in the court of public opinion. This is something that seems to be consistently overlooked.

The majority of Californians don't want us (gun owners) integrated into their schools. They do not want us shopping in their stores. They do not want us walking up and down their streets. They do not even want us to live in the same neighborhoods as they do. They see us as uncivilized, violent, irrational dangers to society that belong in prisons.

Until this changes, California will do the absolute bare minimum to comply with whatever court rulings that are in our favor, if even that much. The Civil Rights movement predicted this much, and the legislature has been fulfilling the prophecy.

"Might Makes Right"

The only real definition to anything in this world is the view as expressed by the majority.

This is why it takes so long to overturn such things as 2A interpretation, personal rights and so on. You just have to get enough people on board to decide - as the majority - that this or that is "right" and what we will do.

Conversely, it took a long time for things to become what they are. Year by year, decade by decade, our rights in California have become what we have let the majority dictate by not staying in the game enough to have a say in the matter.

A.W.D.

Glock22Fan
07-09-2012, 3:06 PM
Anyone thinking that there's any point in having a revolution had better think hard about what will replace the Government of today. "One that follows the Constitution," you will cry. Of course, but how will you enforce that on your newly elected representatives, who would soon revert to the status quo as it is today?

Jack Ryan (in Executive Orders by Tom Clancy) pleaded for non-politicians to be elected to Congress and the Senate (to replace the massive loss caused by an airliner crashing into the Capitol). However, later in the series, after his term was over, the disgraced Ed Kealty was back as President and it was business as usual once again.

The original American Revolution is an anomaly. Every other revolution has ended in despotism and dictatorship. The symbol of the French revolution was the guillotine. The Russian revolution lead to the Gulag camps.

Be careful what you wish for.

Saber2Golf
07-09-2012, 5:09 PM
...subsidized healthcare and housing, and high crime are brought to everyone whether they want it or not

...Cant have the welfare checks and free tuition for illegal aliens halted because of some antiquated concept of "individual liberty".

High crime rates are a symptom of poverty, not of affordable healthcare, housing, and tuition. Middle class people with full time employment and college educations typically don't shoot people over drug deals gone wrong. They have a stake in civilized society and tend not to jeopardize their lives for a quick buck (not violently, anyway). If you want to conflate socialized medicine with high crime, I suggest you look to any number of western European countries that have high standards of living, low poverty, happy citizens, socialized everything, low crime, and in at least one case a fully automatic Sig 550 in the home of every military aged male.

The answer to having less crime is having less poverty, and people need to consider for a second that what we've been doing to bring poor people into the middle class (and have that middle class be large and healthy) might not be "trickling down" as claimed. And any chart that shows wages vs cost of living for the past 40 years will back me up.

TL;DR: poverty is the enemy, not allowing people who survived uterine cancer to have insurance.

Upstanding Black Citizen
07-10-2012, 12:21 AM
I agree with you Saber, but the problem is that most people fighting poverty and those issues also tend to be antigun for some reason.
============================
I think mandatory registration, needing permits to carry, and bans on entire categories of useful firearms is outright unconstitutional. However, I don't expect these things to go away in our lifetimes, if ever. We just don't have the public support to change all of that.

The most we can reasonably hope for in the foreseeable future is a permanent reopening of the MG and AW registries, and shall issue CCW permit processes.

Which reminds me to ask, how many lawfully registered machine guns, AWs, and handguns have been confiscated so far here in America?

SilverTauron
07-10-2012, 12:39 AM
Anyone thinking that there's any point in having a revolution had better think hard about what will replace the Government of today. "One that follows the Constitution," you will cry. Of course, but how will you enforce that on your newly elected representatives, who would soon revert to the status quo as it is today?

Jack Ryan (in Executive Orders by Tom Clancy) pleaded for non-politicians to be elected to Congress and the Senate (to replace the massive loss caused by an airliner crashing into the Capitol). However, later in the series, after his term was over, the disgraced Ed Kealty was back as President and it was business as usual once again.

The original American Revolution is an anomaly. Every other revolution has ended in despotism and dictatorship. The symbol of the French revolution was the guillotine. The Russian revolution lead to the Gulag camps.

Be careful what you wish for.

Agreed. It must be remembered that America as we know it is a historical anomaly;the typical outcome of violent revolutions is a failed state or a regime more repressive than the one that got sent packing.

Ryan in SD
07-10-2012, 3:07 AM
Well, I guess it would be easier to get CA into order before federal.

The need for having Bullet buttons, CA defined "AWs", magazine restriction, pistol roster, etc etc need to go.

It would be hilarious to have ALL law enforcement abide by the same rules. Why don't we draft some legislation for everyone to equally suffer these stupid laws? Force more people to be aware and frustrated that these laws even exist.

"Officer, is that a preban mag? Where's your bullet button, you have a pistol grip on that AR."

We all walk the same streets...

Saber2Golf
07-10-2012, 6:42 PM
I agree with you Saber, but the problem is that most people fighting poverty and those issues also tend to be antigun for some reason.
============================
I think mandatory registration, needing permits to carry, and bans on entire categories of useful firearms is outright unconstitutional. However, I don't expect these things to go away in our lifetimes, if ever. We just don't have the public support to change all of that.

The most we can reasonably hope for in the foreseeable future is a permanent reopening of the MG and AW registries, and shall issue CCW permit processes.

Which reminds me to ask, how many lawfully registered machine guns, AWs, and handguns have been confiscated so far here in America?

Thanks for the +1.

A lot of people who are trying to combat poverty are indeed trying to fight gun rights, and can't understand the gun violence is a symptom of poverty and not the cause. And a lot of 2A advocates tend to be of the "F poor people" mindset, and can't understand the reality is someone who comes from abject poverty can't just decide to become a PHD, and go do it. It's not impossible, but one anecdote about someone doing it doesn't equate to, "There you go, problem solved! Everyone do what that person did!"

I actually see the poverty thing as a boon to gun rights. Less poverty > less crime > less of a reason to disarm people who aren't criminals to begin with. I also see both extremes of the political spectrum as a threat to individual rights...it's just each side attacks different ones.

As for your question...legally owned ones? I know of only one murder with a legally owned F/A weapon, and it was committed by a cop. I also know of zero crimes committed with .50BMG firearms...at least one has been confiscated due to the person committing a felony, but the felony wasn't committed with the .50BMG.