BANG !

[Wise One]

I've heard of this Virginia Militia for years, never knowing what the hell it was, so I looked it up.

It's hilarious! A charming bit of retro-cockamamie screwballness every bit as significant as Kentucky Colonels, the Loch Ness Monster and Sasquatch.

The part I like best is "if any soldier shall ... misbehave himself ... the chief commanding officer ... [may] cause such offender to be tied neck and heels, for any time not exceeding five minutes."

Now that's a well-regulated militia!



That picture above is me, sleeping soundly in comforting knowledge that the instructors at VMI, unorganized to beat the band, have my back.

[Truckie]

... Wikipedia? WIKIPEDIA! Even out of you, I expected better. Surface scratching to again incite snicker... a once humorous tactic has now become boring.

I am not intimately tangled in the Virginia Militia, however, I know some folks whom are. I will cede that it likely isn't what it was in the 17 and 1800's. I will believe that some of the Units are mere social clubs at this juncture. But, the several guys I know take this thing pretty serious. Each are former military and you can count on this, their Unit is certainly "well-regulated."

[Truckie]

"If you consider that there has been an average of 160,000 troops in the Iraq theater of operations during the past 22 months, and a total of 2112 deaths, that gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000 soldiers.

The firearm death rate in Washington , DC is 80.6 per 100,000 for the same period.

That means you are about 25 per cent more likely to be shot and killed in the US capital, which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the US, than you are in Iraq .

Conclusion: "The US should pull out of Washington DC."


Disclaimer: I found this blurb. I am not stating it as fact nor have I researched the numbers... but, I'll lay good Franklins that it's accurate. Another interesting aspect, this was taken from an Australian source.

[Truckie]

I've heard of this Virginia Militia for years, never knowing what the hell it was...

It's hilarious! A charming bit of retro-cockamamie screwballness every bit as significant as Kentucky Colonels, the Loch Ness Monster and Sasquatch.



That picture above is me, sleeping soundly in comforting knowledge that the instructors at VMI, unorganized to beat the band, have my back.

I did not edit my above post because I didn't want you to miss this...

The uniformed professors of VMI, who are not regular military, are a Unit of the Virginia Militia !

Now, you may deem them "unorganized to beat the band." But, even you probably can't equate them with "cockamamie screwballness, every bit as significant as the Kentucky Colonels" or Nessie or Yeti... or will you, I mean now that you know?

Irony... the Virginia Militia, in his fact, has Wise's back.

[Wise One]

The uniformed professors of VMI, who are not regular military, are a Unit of the Virginia Militia !

Duh. That's what I said. They are "unorganized militia of Virginia."

[Truckie]

The uniformed professors of VMI, who are not regular military, are a Unit of the Virginia Militia !

Duh. That's what I said. They are "unorganized militia of Virginia."

Reading your post again with the "duh" in mind, sorry I missed it.
However...
I may not be ecstatic about many of them coming to my armed defense (and there are strong exceptions, I've met them). But, I'm unwilling to tag them a bunch of unorganized screwballness.

If our world comes down to organization of the masses for war (again), I will welcome to the team a bunch of cockamamie electrical and mechanical engineers, weaponry and explosive experts, nuclear and biological experts, military tactic historians and the like. But eh, maybe that's just me.

[Wise One]

... an average of 160,000 troops in the Iraq theater of operations during the past 22 months, and a total of 2112 deaths, that gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000 soldiers. The firearm death rate in Washington , DC is 80.6 per 100,000 for the same period.

I love it!! You've provided an outstanding example of using a few real numbers to lie. This and its variants have been in circulation for years so I must assume that you, as an honorable person, are merely copying it because you want earnestly to believe a result.

But there is danger in allowing mere belief to override fact and the truth contained in numbers . You've been hoodwinked.

Your number of 81 in DC is only a bit in excess of the best 22-month number I can find = 57, about the same as the number you quoted for Iraq. This the beginning and the end of Truth in your posting.

The arithmetic for Iraq is bogus. 2,112/160,000 = 1,320 per 100,000 -- a number 22 times larger than the quoted 60. (Maybe somewhere along the line the number got divided by 22, to give a monthly death rate for Iraq which was then compared erroneously to the DC rate for a full 22 month period.)

So the result is wrong by a factor of 22, overstating the relative death rate in DC.

There are additional facts that make your quoted result wrong by an even larger factor, but that would be gilding the lily, so I'll defer additional discussion for now.

[Truckie]

I thought this interesting. I have two primal objections though. First, a Right should be exercised either way. If you want a firearm, great. If not, that's one's Right too. Next, this must estabish some form of registration, albeit reverse. Such sits bad with me. At any rate, I found Maslack's take on the Second, and Vermont's Constitution, quite interesting.

Aside Wise, I filed a disclaimer with the previous item because I did not know it as fact. I intended to research its claims when time permitted; I had not seen that before. If totally out of whack, guess I owe ya a Franklin or two, huh?

Anyhow, here's this: Vermont's Right Not to Bear Arms

[nudgewink]

It's hard to believe it has any real chance of passing.

Vermont seems to have a wacky legislator, even if they do make excellent ice cream up there.

[Uji]

Hey, Truckie, thanks for the thoughts. Two things:

First, you didn't really address the rights-vs-laws issue. You think the right to bear firearms should be unrestricted. My question: "Why should it be the only right to be unrestricted? Even the "right to life" is restricted: under certain circumstances the state can declare it forfeit. Every right that we have is restricted in various ways and many are just as "guaranteed" in the constitution. Why should firearms be any different? Should every right be unrestricted? That, by definition, is anarchy. I'm all for anarchy -- in its place. But as a form of government (or non-government), I don't know...

Second, I'd like to hear what you think is the function of the sort of militia that you describe. That's not a challenge; I simply don't understand what roll such a militia would play in the modern world, nor why it would be necessary.

But I very much hope that you answer the first question first.

[Truckie]

Per your request, the first part. I am for Rights being unrestricted, all of them. Such speaks to the "purist" inside of me. If you read Madison's and Jefferson's et al writings, they too were purists. Their writing indicates that any Fed documents should serve to constrain government, not empower it. They seem to have felt that the peoples of the US of A held all Rights, and such shall be understood. They also opined that with the holding of “all Rights,” the citizenry must be God fearing, disciplined and respectful, and have serious understanding of the implications. I feel this is where we as human, and as a society, have failed those ideals.

Tis solely the fault of our society, its derogation, laziness, complacency and the denial of individual personal responsibility, that the government opines itself, and takes the position of, empowered and authoritarian. And "We The People" are allowing it to do so, even encouraging this to transpire... sickening IMO.

Your thoughts don't really offer issues for debate because I know what you're getting at, and I agree, sadly. If humans would be respectful and behave, we'd not need "restrictions" on Rights. Unfortunately, we all know that there will forever be those that plow over the line. I may be an idealist but, I’m more so a realist.

I understand that yelling "FIRE" in a theater is not protected by the 1st, nor should it be. Personal responsibility and constraint would stifle such behaviors. But and again, human traits lost in the Garden of Eden.

I understand that there must be some firearm restriction. However, I also as strongly believe that our current restrictions are too expansive and fail to address most issues. I don't overtly offer that admission because the Left is non-compromising. I could take a moderate approach if the opposition would reciprocate. But it won't, thus forcing my hand to not.

I sternly believe that the Founding Fathers intended for the private individual to not be prohibited from owning any arm that the Federal military holds... that the body of the citizenry should be, and was, entrusted to behave accordingly with those arms. I believe the Fathers intended all citizens to be the owners and protectors of our country. Post the Revolutionary War and the formation of the Continental Army, the citizenry evolved from being the Army into a body to supplement it. And here we’ve come today, half the population totally unconcerned with the principles this country was founded upon.

I believe the Fathers intended the citizens to be the protectors of our country and its ideals if the government went awry. And the citizenry armed, capable and willing to do so when/if required. The ill of today is that the most of “citizens” have evolved from Sheppard into the sheep. Our society is rapidly changing into a welfare state; a “take care of me” attitude… and with that lazy approach, the sheep will do whatever is required to keep the checks rolling in, to include spitting away Rights.

Second part, I only pointed out “militias” to rebut the opinions that they no longer exist or that the Second Amendment spoke of a militia and not of the private individual. The Father’s definition of “militia” is a defensive force, comprised of each of “us,” all male citizens of fighting age and ability. That definition has not changed in many minds, including mine.

To those that think militias, in the purist definition no longer exist, are mistaken. The VMI professors may have been a poor example of a “fighting force.” However, across this country militias exist, and they exist by the pure definition. These militias are citizens, they are well armed and extremely capable. The liberal government labels the groups as extremists and has the FBI keep tabs on them. If these militias were not capable, and the government has not become more awry by the day, why would the government fear these groups?

What role would these militias play? Agreed, our country would have to be in dire circumstances before they’d play any part. If our government out of control or our mainland invaded, I think these “rebels” would be extremely effective.

Simply read the accounts in New Orleans for examples of quickly formed, previously unorganized, citizen militias taking over law and order and armed defense. Katrina lessons include a fine example of government gone awry, and becoming completely inept. This disaster testifies to what will occur when the lawful are deprived of arms, and to what extent the government is willing to violate the Constition. The criminals kept their weapons and ill intent; the government unlawfully, and unconstitutionally, disarmed lawful private citizens.

[Uji]

Thanks for the thoughtful response. I don't follow your reasoning on several points, though.

First, you recognize that "rights" can't be absolute (yelling "Fire!", etc.) and yet you say they should be absolute. I don't get it. You say we are human and, thus, too irresponsible to behave in the manner the founders required of us, yet that appears to be -- in your mind -- a rational for keeping the rights unrestricted. I don't follow you.

Second, you say the "left" is inflexible yet you are the one claiming that rights are "absolute". You say you understand that there need to be some restrictions on firearms but then maintain -- as I understand you -- that there should be none. If you are indeed a "realist", then you must realize that my right to use, say, the water in the creek that runs through my 3 acres, is restricted at least to some degree by my neighbor's right to have access to the same water supply. Since a constitution can't, literally, outline every such possible limit of this sort, there are laws and regulation enacted.

Third, the founders (most anyway) may very well have felt the way you say the do. My question is, so what? They also thought that slavery should be allowed, that women shouldn't vote or own property or have the same legal rights as a male. They thought native Americans an inferior race from which they had a right to take from them what ever they wanted, etc., etc. All of which is to say that they were human beings of incredible foresight and intellect but bound by their times and their culture. Should we, Amish-like, return to the mores and beliefes of the 18th century? That, of course, is exactly analogous to what the fundamentalist movements in Islam want.

Either rights can be restricted -- in which case, it's simply a public policy issue of how much and under what circumstances -- or, they can't be restricted, in which case it is simply fundamentalism (of the same sort practiced by religious extremists).

Again, I appreciate your willingness to talk with candor about all this.

[Truckie]

Time is slim, I likely should hold on until patience can enter my thought processes. But, I wish to thank you for your quick response and wanted to repay the favor.

I recognized that my jabbering would likely create some confusion; the confusion you're experiencing with my previous post. Yeah, I'm a purist in concept, however, I'm a realist in practice. Rights will require some restriction, I concede that point. Sorry that I was back and forth in my last post.

I said that the Left will not compromise... and that I "could" (and actually do) take a moderate stance on firearms, if the Left would reciprocate. The Left refuses and remains extreme, therefore forcing me to refuse and stand likewise.

Your third point, I'm not convinced that the Founders opined that women, Native Americans and blacks were inferior. Certainly there were some that thought that way but, I'm unsure the majority held to those thoughts. I think that such was the normal of their time, as you point out. Yes, the Father's owned slaves. Yes, women were a "secondary" citizenry, again the custom. The Constitution says, "all men are created equal." I have to think that they felt that way, even if they lived in contradictory times, and conducted selves to the contrary. I think they were insightful enough to realize that "things" must evolve.

You present solid arguments, kudos. However, I continue with my opinion that arms are sort of outside of those points, arms cannot be clumped in that bucket. An armed society is indeed a polite society. An armed populace is not easily oppressed. Much of the gun control we have today was initiated to suppress blacks... enacted chiefly in the south, during the 1960s. Madison et al weren't involved with that oppression, we own this one.

I reluctantly relinquish that we cannot return to the 1800s. But, we'd have simpler lives... I'd have to take the internet with us though ;-)

[coondog]

Well....it is a fact that the "Founding Fathers" are long dead and whatever framework they envisioned was just that.....a framework. And...as good a framework as that might have been, concerned as they were over undue religious influence, it is unlikely their visions of the future included corporate influences which would make the Church of England appear philanthropic.

Who among them could have envisioned concerns over air traffic control, nuclear proliferation or, with the possible exception of Jefferson, internet porn?

Clearly, in practice if not in rhetoric, they intended that the country be run by preferably landed, educated or at least literate, and, yes, wealthy individuals capable of embracing philosophical thought and implementation of high minded moral imperatives.

The concerns of the fledgling republic with regard to armament would have been defensive in nature. Unlikely they would have advocated a militia with the implied purpose of removing themselves from governance by force should the perceived necessity arise.

The 2nd amendment was certainly designed to deal, at the time, with potential European incursion, and of course, eradication of those pesky Indians. And so we could have fresh opossum for dinner.

I suppose the National Guard might have surfaced as a militia, had they not all been sent overseas. However, it must be said that private militias.....the ones the FBI are keeping an eye on.....serve no purpose beyond providing the members thereof with the notion that when the expected and even longed for apocalypse comes down, they will be in charge and able by force to impose their typically narrow minded and egocentric wills upon whoever's available and otherwise undefended.

I don't know exactly who these leftists are who are clamoring to take away 2nd Amendment rights, but they seem to be, for the most part, residents of the overindulgent imagination of the NRA and the conservative candidates they endorse.

As a flaming liberal myself (ask anybody), the private ownership of firearms is seen to be as positive a deterrent now as it was then when it comes to National Security and for fighting duels. As far as registration goes, I believe if you own 10 guns, you should register at least one of them.

I don't know if we should be allowed to have the same weapons as the military, though....they got nukes!!!!

Coondog

On the other hand, a battle tank would be a great equalizer against seasonal incursions of mad cows and opossums.....or an attack helicopter.....that would be awesome!!!

[Uji]

Hey, for those of you interested in guns for security, here's a better idea...

Subject: Fw: How to install a home security system

1. Go to a secondhand store and buy a pair of men's used size 14-16 work boots.
2. Place them on your front porch, along with a copy of Guns & Ammo Magazine.
3. Put a few giant dog dishes next to the boots and magazines.
4. Leave a note on your door that reads:

"Bubba,
Bertha, Duke, Slim, & I went for more ammo and beer. Be back in an hour.
Don't mess with the pit bulls; they attacked the mailman this morning and
messed him up bad. I don't think Killer took part, but it was hard to tell
from all the blood. Anyway, I locked all four of 'em in the house.
Better wait outside. Be right back.
Cooter"

[Wise One]

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots?
I don't think so.

[Sam]

Give me life, liberty and Jack Daniels but don't take my guns.

[fangz1956]

Sam,

I think I like you. You're direct, to the point, and very witty. You make me laugh and think at the same time and that's a good thing.

[Sam]

WOOZER, It's a thankless job but I have a lot of karma to burn

[Juggler]

With Congress tied up over health reform -- legislation whose initial, much-discussed goal was to extend health insurance to as many as 47 million uninsured Americans -- this may be as good a time as any to propose another, less divisive reform.

The FBI and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms estimated in 2008 that more than 250 million guns were owned by U.S. citizens. Since President Obama's election last November, newspapers and electronic media have reported a sharp increase in U.S. gun sales, spurred by rumors that the new administration had secret plans to block gun sales to law-abiding Americans. Normally, about 4.5 million guns are sold in the United States each year, so this surge in sales means that Americans own roughly 260 million guns, in a population of nearly 309 million.

Surveys indicate that gun ownership is not spread evenly across U.S. households. In fact, chances are that a substantial proportion of U.S. gun owners have more than one weapon, so it's quite possible that fewer than 200 million Americans own those 260 million guns. That means there may be more than 100 million citizens left unprotected against their gun-owning fellow citizens.

Surely everyone can agree that this is an outrage. Moreover, it is an outrage that Congress can easily fix, without months of committee meetings, town halls or tea parties. All that is required is a bipartisan, pro-constitutional bill to extend the Second Amendment's protection of gun ownership to all Americans, whether they like it or not.

Under such legislation -- let's call it the Gun Insurance Act of 2009 -- every American would be required to buy some kind of gun. Those who cannot afford even the simplest weapon -- say, those whose 2009 annual income is less than twice the federal poverty level -- could be issued $500 vouchers that would be valid only at gun shops or gun shows, and would have to be used before the 2010 Census. (Just think: What a stimulus to private enterprise all these gun sales would provide, and how many new gun-selling jobs would be created!)

How would the law be enforced? Census takers could verify that everyone they count has a weapon in working condition, and those census takers who survive could report all non-complying Americans to the FBI so it could notify local police departments, which would issue citations for whatever fines Congress chooses to impose. (Note that this proposed legislation would not require creating any new bureaucracy, public option or death panels.) Of course, illegal immigrants would not receive vouchers, would not be required to buy guns and would not be counted in the Census.

So there it is: a modest proposal even Max Baucus and Chuck Grassley can agree on. If we're willing to require people to buy health insurance, why not require them to buy guns? Sure, maybe the Congressional Budget Office could overestimate its cost, and some wimpy liberals could file a court challenge, but the Supreme Court would slap it down on a clear 5-to-4 vote. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, here's one issue where you can count on at least a couple of Republican votes.

The writer, a former Post reporter and editor, lives in Alexandria.