Is it just me, or should people stop banging away at the militia clause?

[yokel]

It comes as no surprise that he fails to grasp that there are much greater principles at stake here, and the idea of an armed populace is one of the most "necessary to the security of a free state."

We can plainly see what appeasement, acquiescence, and compromise have done to help turn the failed communist Golden State into a bastion where freedom & liberty are vigorously defended.

 

[TEDDY]

second

any one ever read some of the state constitutions???some are stronger than the 2nd.one reads the militia supplies there own weapons, kit,canteen ammunition ect.try Mass for one.

 

[Frank Ettin]

yokel, ZeSpectre

You still haven't answered the questions. Who have you won over? Who is actually listening to you? What have you actually accomplished? If no one is listening to you, what good are you doing? It appears that you are just reinforcing the anti's negative stereotypes.

...he's never once set foot inside city hall or any other place where the machinery of government operates...

Actually, in the course of my career, I've spent a lot of time there. I've been very successful over the years advancing my clients' interests in the halls of our legislature. I've helped kill bills that that my clients' didn't like. I've help write or amend bills to better suit the interests of my clients. I have some actual experience doing these sorts of things. Do you have any such experience?

As far as the RKBA, for some years in my spare time I've taught shooting and coached a youth trap shooting group that competes statewide and has competed national. I've introduced many people with no prior gun experience to guns and shooting. Most of these people were borderline anti or on the fence. They are now pretty much on our side. But if I had pressed the militia angle, they'd be gone and back talking with their friends at work about the crazed, paranoid gun nuts they'd run into.

So I repeat, what have you actually accomplished? Who is listening to you?

 

[ZeSpectre]

Do you have any such experience?

Fiddletown,
I applaud your efforts but am seriously puzzled by your attempt to turn this into a pissing match where you have to come out on top.

We can disagree you know, folks are sharing opinions here. In fact nobody will know which tactics were right and which were wrong until the final tally.

And just FYI, aside from the logical fallacy of an "ad hominem" attack, yes I do have plenty of such experience which is why your attempt to belittle me in such a fashion is simply amusing.

Come on guys. You're so sure you're on the right track, prove. Show us some successes.

Heller vs DC
That certainly does appear to be a case of "in the face" activism to me.
Didn't seem to win any anti's over...but then again it really didn't seem to need to.

 

[CoLJ]

I don't see the pissing match or the ad hominem attacks... let's agree not to go down that path please.

My take on the crux of the argument here is: do you present the argument in terms of idealism or do you present the argument in terms relevant to the daily lives of antis and on-the-fencers?

In my opinion, the latter approach is the one that will get your foot in the door. Once you have the other guy listening and thinking about that argument, then you can gently introduce the other argument.

People need time to come around.

 

[Frank Ettin]

ZeSpectre, I've made no ad hominem attacks. I've asked about your experience. And I've asked you about the results you have achieved. Information about your background and results are relevant to your bona fides and credibility. I've always been open on this board about who I am and what my background and experience is.

And you appear to be taking some credit for Heller. If you were on the legal team or participated actively in the litigation, that would be appropriate. Did you? How?

Beyond that Heller, while a victory for our side, did not turn on or support the militia argument. In fact the holding was that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to firearms, for lawful purposes, independent of any militia.

 

[ZeSpectre]

Information about your background and results are relevant to your bona fides and credibility.

Which is utterly irrelevant when we are discussing OPINIONS.

I've always been open on this board about who I am and what my background and experience is.

As have I. There are about 4,000 posts out there for you to research if you cared to (though it'd mostly be pretty boring with discussions of caliber firearms repair and such).

Also, I'm not taking credit for Heller (though I did some work with CATO in a supporting role). I'm citing Heller as an example of "in your face" activism that has been effective in producing change. You asked for an example that worked, I supplied a big one.

If you want a personal achievement, I'd like to think that I helped considerably in moving the National Parks Carry effort forward via governmental contacts and a lot of footwork. Of course now we're being absolutely stonewalled by the NPS but pressure is still being applied from other directions.

Finally, If you pay close attention to my posts you may discover that you've made a few assumptions about my own brand of activism as I have never said word one in this thread about my own stance on using the "militia argument", I simply said that I think people who use it as a trumpet are just trying their own brand of activism. Sometimes I agree with how it is done, sometimes not.

What I personally feel (and how I tend to operate) is a lot like my response to the threads on self defense we get here (since fighting for RKBA is a kind of self defense). I usually feel a need to "read the situation on the ground" and calculate how to proceed from there. Sometimes one needs a "soft touch" sometimes a hard shove to break the inertia but my own experience is that just operating on a "one size fits all" approach is often ineffective.

Oh, and to make sure that this is in line with the OP's question.
No, I don't think people should stop "banging on the militia" argument. I think having that historical basis is important and it should be included along with all of the other arguments. Why not use every "caliber" we have available?

 

[Frank Ettin]

Which is utterly irrelevant when we are discussing OPINIONS.

No, bona fides and credibility are very irrelevant to opinion.

Not all opinions are equal. An opinion supported by good, objective evidence when rendered by someone with appropriate training and experience is more likely to have merit than one plucked out of thin air by someone who has no reason to know what he's talking about.

The opinion of my doctor regarding the state of my health is entitled to greater credence than the opinion of my mechanic. The opinion of my mechanic regarding my car is entitled to greater credence than that of my doctor. If that's not the case, I need a new doctor and mechanic.

...Why not use every "caliber" we have available?

Of course, unless the "caliber" is likely to counter productive. Like shooting a bear with a .22, is just going to make him mad.

My hypothesis has been that focus on the militia argument is counter productive. In response, I'm told that I'm wrong, and that my "...strategy plays right into the hands of our adversaries who are keen to further dilute and emasculate the Second Amendment....."(yokel, post #20)

I disagreed, restated my hypothesis and asked for evidence in the form of information about how many people proponents of the "militia" argument have been won over by that argument and who is listening to them. So far no one has come forward with any such evidence that the "militia" argument has been effective for them. Instead, I'm charged with being a "Joe Armchair" (ZeSpectre, post#25), with failing, "...to grasp that there are much greater principles at stake here..."(yokel, post #26).

So I still contend that, "...Out in pubic we will be better served by focusing on the good public policy reasons for the Second Amendment that most folks can process and get their minds around -- like attending to burglars."(post #11) I'm still waiting for some evidence (beyond mere conjecture and appeal to principle) that the "militia" argument can be effective with the non-gun crowd.

Yes, there are many possible approaches to furthering the RKBA. But we need to distinguish those approaches that are likely to be effective and those that are not -- or worse, those that are likely to hurt us by damaging our credibility.

When we press the argument that the true purpose of the Second Amendment is "...an armed populace is one of the most 'necessary to the security of a free state'"(yokel, post#26), we will lose people that we might otherwise sway with, "...the good public policy reasons for the Second Amendment that most folks can process and get their minds around -- like attending to burglars."

Also the fundamental thesis in my initial responses in this thread is that, since Heller has clearly established that the Second Amendment, "...protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes,....", it would be counter productive to focus on the application of the "militia" clause in litigation if the "individual right" argument is compelling. It will not help to get court decisions directly antagonistic to the concept of a citizen militia, at least for those who are concerned about what they believe the true puprose of the Second Amendment to be.

But if someone has can show that people are in fact listening to and paying attention to the militia argument and are being won over by that point of view, I'm open.

 

[ZeSpectre]

Instead, I'm charged with being a "Joe Armchair" (ZeSpectre, post#25)

I think you have misread post #25. I went back and added a line to try and help clarify.

YOU were not charged with being a "Joe Armchair", I was stating why I don't worry about the opinion of the average "Joe Armchair" anti out there: because they grump and growl and NEVER DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT (dogs barking while the caravan moves on).

So if you thought that comment was directed at you then I apologize for that because it was directed at lazy anti types not you.

Also the fundamental thesis in my initial responses in this thread is that, since Heller has clearly established that the Second Amendment, "...protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes,....", it would be counter productive to focus on the application of the "militia" clause in litigation if the "individual right" argument is compelling. It will not help to get court decisions directly antagonistic to the concept of a citizen militia, at least for those who are concerned about what they believe the true purpose of the Second Amendment to be.

Ah, I understand your point now.

I'll have to think on it for a bit. I do wonder if having a rendered legal opinion regarding "lawful personal use" takes us closer to, or further from, protecting our natural rights vs the lines as written in the Constitution.

I feel that the Constitution (being a bedrock of our Republic) is the "solid bole of the tree" and rendered legal opinion interpreting that text (even when done by the Supreme Court) takes us out into the branches. If we get led out onto those branches because it looks good are we also being lead out into an area where we can be more easily "pruned" later?

 

[ilbob]

I am inclined to agree that the operative clause of the 2A is the important one.

There are a lot of people who for some reason think they want to be in their own little militia groups and some whack jobs have encouraged this kind of thinking. They have somehow leveraged the militia clause to mean that they have some right to form their own militia. Since the militia clause is explanatory in nature, and not operative at all, it of course neither grants nor protects such a right.

But clearly, military-type weapons must be legal, or else it defeats the very purpose which it is written for. And we're teetering on that ledge.

I think that the only real use for the militia clause might be to use it to beat the NFA into the ground. Its pretty clear that the founders intended for private citizens to be able to privately keep weapons suitable for military use. The first part of the 2A is pretty clear on that point. I do not believe the right of states to have a militia is the sole, or even the primary purpose of the 2A.

 

[yokel]

No, bona fides and credibility are very irrelevant to opinion.

Not all opinions are equal. An opinion supported by good, objective evidence when rendered by someone with appropriate training and experience is more likely to have merit than one plucked out of thin air by someone who has no reason to know what he's talking about.

Sure, go ahead and claim bragging rights for the relatively wretched condition of the right to keep and bear arms in CA.

Whatever it is you've been doing all this time, it seems evident that it hasn't quite cut the mustard, eh?

The assertion that the Second Amendment strictly pertains to the right of law-abiding persons to acquire and possess arms for recreational purposes as well as the defense of self, family and home is self-evidently risible and absurd on it's face.

Oh, but those naïve judges, politicians and regular folks, they just don't know any better...

If we get led out onto those branches because it looks good are we also being lead out into an area where we can be more easily "pruned" later?

It will work fine if you would like to see the people downgraded in firepower a notch or two or three.

 

[stampsm]

well even if you take the militia clause into your interpretation of what the 2nd guarantees you have to look at it properly. one of the key words in the well-regulated part of it. many people these days take the word as to mean regulation as in laws or rules. this is not correct as to the meaning of the words when they were wrote. viewing historical documents wrote during the time of the bill of rights we can deduce a correct definition of the words well-regulated. one of the good ways of seeing this is viewing the writings of Hamilton and his use of the wording.
http://books.google.com/books?id=ytMEk6O4IvIC&pg=PA129&lpg=PA129

To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would, form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount, which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of a million of pounds.

this shows that the words well-regulated have nothing to do with the concept of laws or regulation, but instead it deals with training. further more if you read this part you will see that he speaks out against forcing people to train to a large extent.

Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people, at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped ; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.

this is a further quote from the same statement from him. here he states that the people SHOULD be armed and equiped. he states the words "properly armed" and this means as for military use in the context. this would be an argument against restrictions on military type arms.

But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable ; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance, that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate size, upon such principles as will really fit it for service in cases of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the state shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments ; but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights, and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army ; and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.

here is the ending part of the statement. this part does not so much deal with the 2nd's rights but states the use of something mentioned in the 2nd. here he talk of establishing a militia that is well trained and ready for use. he also uses two different words, army and militia. this show a difference from federally controlled troops and non federally controlled troops. he also states that one of the jobs of the militia is to defend their own and fellow citizens rights. and the militia is also a security against a large standing army.

you may be correct in stating that the militia clause is not important on the aspect of what rights are given under the 2nd, but you have to also read and understand what the meanings of the clause actually is. you cant just argue the meaning of a set of words by only referring to half of them. your opponents will try to use the other half to deride your argument if they can. "shall not be infringed" are very close and precise words, but almost no one trys to attack these words. instead they attack the other words that can be taken to putting a restriction on these last words in the 2nd. the SCOTUS has rules on the meanings of the words keep, bear, and arms. they have also rules that the 2nd is not dependent on the membership of a militia. they still have not ruled on the meaning of the other parts of the 2nd yet. these other parts are where your other rights are derived from.

you can see that at the time of our country being founded that there was a known difference between a militia and an army. the 2nd says a well-regulated (trained) militia as being necessary. this militia is different than a standing army under the government. the militia clause is important as in it protects our rights to have a military like force other than the army under the government.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Yokel, what I said is that I have actual experience working in the political and regulatory arena and have experience getting things done there. My professional work had nothing to do with RKBA, but I still know about the process works and know how to convince people. I know, because I have done it.

My successful RKBA activities involve converting people by teaching them to shoot.

But so far you've just attacked me repeatedly and haven't answered the questions: Who have you won over? Who is actually listening to you? What have you actually accomplished?

 

[yokel]

My point is that if you really want to know how someone is doing, don't ask that person - look at the results in his/her life. That's where the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

Your supposed prowess in protecting gun owners just does not stand up to the available evidence.

We must expect mendacity, obfuscation, and deceit from our enemies: these are their primary weapons.

Conversely, the good guys stick with the unvarnished truth of Amendment II to the United States Constitution.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Yokel, on multiple occasions, you have declined, pointed to even attempt to answer simple questions about who you have convinced of your views, who's listening to you and what you have accomplished. How can anyone take that to mean anything other than that you've won no one over, thatno one is laying any attention to you and that you've actually accomplished nothing. If that is incorrect, answer the questions. I'm ready to listen.

But if you have no track record, I see no reason to credit your opinions.

...the good guys stick with the unvarnished truth of Amendment II to the United States Constitution.

And exactly what is that and how do you know? Have you been able to convince anyone antagonistic to the private ownership of firearms of this "unvarnished truth"?

 

[Smith]

I somewhat understand your view, fiddletown, that it would not be prudent to present "Guns are to overthrow a tyrannical government" to a naive person who is convinced that guns are evil objects used only for murdering innocents. However, in a world where the 2nd Amendment is constantly being attacked and weakened, I believe that there is no room for compromise.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...However, in a world where the 2nd Amendment is constantly being attacked and weakened, I believe that there is no room for compromise.

But there are still serious questions like -- what has actually been achieved by fueling the stereotypes of the antis, and where have we actually won with the hard line.

 

[Art Eatman]

Fussing and arguing about personal accomplishments sure does detract from the thread.

Let the logic chains of the bases for opinions speak for themselves...

 

[rfurtkamp]

The hard line is sometimes effective if done properly. Please note I'm not talking about yelling about Randy Weaver (although that is popular in some circles locally) or black helicopters or 'shall not be infringed' without being able to explain the basic rights of man to defend themselves and their property, but rather adopting the basic stance that every US citizen has the constitutionally guaranteed right to own and use firearms for any lawful purpose, including defense of self, society, and others, and that right was intended by our Founders to never be infringed. I do not compromise on that point, I do not admit that such rights are not absolute, I do not admit that these rights should be changed by anything short of a constitutional amendment.

FWIW, I'm a certified youth handgun instructor and was a board member at our local range for many years before becoming ill last year. I worked in management at a local gun store that catered to both the fudds and the EBR crowd, and had to regularly explain to Joe BoltAction why concealed handguns and 'assault weapons' had a civilian use. I also own legal NFA firearms and sound-suppression devices. That said, thank you, drive through. Resume available upon request, not valid where prohibited by law. Epeen content out of the way, I continue.

Where you use the hard line: when the anti admits that the police cannot protect you (or have no obligation to), and that you could need to defend yourself and your family. It's about that point that the legal SBR/SMG/SBS comes into play - the usual tack I've taken is to point out in a time of absolute emergency I want the best available tool for the job, the very same tools used by law enforcement themselves.

You tie militia and the 2nd Amendment into your relevant state constitution/legislation regarding militia obligations. Here it's able-bodied men from 18 to 45, and they're expected to provide their own equipment. Thus, to the anti, I am owning the same weapons used by our own troops to fulfil said obligation. They frequently fume, and fuss, but the truth of it cannot be denied. Usually it ends in "but it shouldn't be like that" or muttering about safety, but the point is made nonetheless.

For NFA ownership, the militia clause is essential, unless you're discussing silencers. At that point, it's a health and safety clause, since it'd be irresponsible to not use devices designed to lessen environmental impact and protect the delicate hearing of children who could be lurking nearby. ;0

Fuelling their stereotypes works in some respects, because in doing so, they become confused when you fail to meet others. An articulate, well-educated hick with a machinegun is a scary, incomphrensible thing to them - and they just don't know where to put you.

Where I have done my biggest part is exposing new shooters to the variety of weapons and legal devices out there - 10 year olds *love* the Uzi after proper safety instruction. Their parents do too.

The 'soft line' would argue that you'd never expose them to non-sporting weapons - the 'hard line' is that you educate them in a non-political manner on the variety of weapons and devices available for responsible, practical adults. The use of such devices for anything other than range practice/competition is never, ever mentioned in anything I did in that regard - it's irrelevant.

Where the rights angle *has* worked was educating a parent of a particular child that was extremely anti-gun, but acknowledged that they wanted their child to be safe with firearms given the prevalence of privately-owned guns in the region. After extensive discussion, aided by the fact I am a certified instructor who passed organizational-mandated background checks, the parent actually did in fact listen. They may not have bought their own weapons, but understood both the how and legal why surrounding the reasons why others might after several discussions. The child ironically was one of the best natural pistol shooters I've ever seen.

In a more confrontational environments, where I am not representing any particular organization, group, or formal agenda, the hard line is typically the one I do adopt. Rights are rights; I have been known to link the court-established right to privacy/abortion to firearms ownership and use in that neither may be particularly popular, but that both do exist (especially post-Heller) today as established by our system of law. I am doing myself no favors by denying the basic facts of the situation: most anti-gun people will not listen to a word I say.

It's why I make sure that this state's children are aware that they too someday can own their very own suppressor, machinegun, or other adult device. Every kid that goes to school that next Monday and tells his friends he's played with stuff from movies and TVs is a little messenger.

Adults you can't be that subtle with. Anti-gun people will not listen to a wishy-washy half-defense of the Second Amendment; they occasionally, and I stress occasionally, which is about all you can reasonably expect in a heated political topic, might come away with something resembling what you've said. Might as well be as direct about it as possible.

But back to the original point at hand: others here have in fact done things to further the education and practice of the people to keep and bear arms, and don't agree that a hard line is not acceptable in discussing our basic freedoms with anti-gun people.

Sorry I've failed to keep track of name, rank, and identification numbers of people who have come around in their way of thinking over the year, next time I'll ask them to sign a waiver or something so I can scan and put it up here, where someone will of course claim that such things are forged and the flame war rage on.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Let the logic chains of the bases for opinions speak for themselves...

But logic is a means of processing data and reaching conclusions. The validity of those conclusions is dependent on tha quality of the data submitted to the logical process. Even perfect logic will yield false conclusions if the data on which the conclusions are based is erroneous.

Now consider rfurtkamp's post (#44). That is a well reasoned analysis which he supports with appropriate reference to his background, training and experience -- all of which add credence to his opinion. I may disagree with some of his conclusions, but he has stated them cogently. And who he is and what he's done contribute to that.

 

[dvcrsn]

Rfur--I have noticed that the self defense angle tends to work well with those that are basically in the middle and here in Los Angeles--ask if they remember the riots in 1992 when Koreatown was saved by people with ARs, AKs, SKSs. Another effective attentiongetter is in discussions, I will line up ammo for 357 and 44 mag, 454 Casul, 223 Remington, 7.62X39, 30/06 and 303 across my palm while describing how the firearms work. People who don't know much about firearms will believe the Brady lies that the ARs, AKs and SKSs are superhigh powered (which is debunked by the fact that the rounds used have case capacities no bigger than the revolver rounds) and emphasize that machine guns were restricted in 1934 (well before the introduction of the firearms in question). I know the AR and AK may have an edge in kinetic energy, but the revolvers have the edge in momentum.
Also Fiddletown, I was wondering if you know Ed Worley and Paul Payne

 

[yokel]

The rule is: Hush, hush. Don't tell. What they don't know won't hurt them...


The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms derives from our duty to retain the basic means necessary to defend our country and our liberty. Certainly it is true that the actual defense of our national borders is normally delegated to the professional military. But we, the people, are responsible for the defense of country and liberty, and the Second Amendment is crucial to our performance of that duty.

In fact, if we make the judgment that our rights are being systematically violated, we have not merely the right, but the duty, to resist and overthrow the power responsible. That duty requires that we always maintain the material capacity to resist tyranny, if necessary, something that it is very hard to do if the government has all the weapons.

You tie militia and the 2nd Amendment into your relevant state constitution/legislation regarding militia obligations.

Second Amendment guarantees people power, not state power.

 

[Catherine]

I don't think that anyone should stop talking about the Second Amendment or any other PRO GUN issue.

If you don't want to discuss it or bring it up - your call. Whatever trips your trigger!

If you want to bring it up since it is a VERY important issue... keep doing it.

The MILITIA is not a dirty word no matter how the "OH, SO POLITICALLY CORRECT CROWD" want to make it for fear of offending someone.

Peace, freedom and firearms,

Catherine

 

[Smith]

But there are still serious questions like -- what has actually been achieved by fueling the stereotypes of the antis, and where have we actually won with the hard line.

If stating my beliefs makes me a stereotype in the eyes of a misled few, so be it. I believe it's possible to present the militia argument without coming off as a foil-hat-wearing wannabe Rambo. There is no need to "soften" the truth. If you only use "politically correct" arguments, it opens the door to "reasonable restrictions" such as the AWB. IMO, there will always be some who label you as a crazy. I'm sure there are plenty of people out there that wouldn't stop their fight until the last BB gun was sent to the crusher. That doesn't mean we must tailor our arguments to cater to this minority.

 

[ilbob]

I somewhat understand your view, fiddletown, that it would not be prudent to present "Guns are to overthrow a tyrannical government" to a naive person who is convinced that guns are evil objects used only for murdering innocents. However, in a world where the 2nd Amendment is constantly being attacked and weakened, I believe that there is no room for compromise.

Who is arguing for compromise? I am in favor of getting whatever we can while we can. But I am also aware that often it is more productive to get things without making so much fuss.

There seem to be a few who really don't want their 2A rights back at all. They claim to be "no compromise" but what they really are is no brains. Demanding our restoration of 2A rights be all or nothing is counterproductive and foolish. The legal and political system just does not work that way, nor does the court of public opinion.