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

[rfurtkamp]

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

Second Amendment guarantees people power, not state power.

But for the antis who cannot understand the difference between the people's militia and the national guard, or the 'join the military if you want guns' argument, this is a persuasive and not untrue bundling. I *do* in fact have a statutory obligation in this state, so do people in most others.

Core of the anti argument is that the militia is the national guard or reserves, restricting ownership to them. Pointing out one error in their basic understanding only helps.

 

[rfurtkamp]

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.

Count me as a fool.

And count this as an inaccurate straw man of most 2nd Amendment 'absolutists' - me demanding nothing but unrestricted, shall not be infringed is not all or nothing in supporting court filings or understanding the process. I understand the concept of standing. I understand precedent.

It *is* possible to be both no compromise. It's also possible to know that the no compromise approach can exist with the absolutist core philosphy and court filings, calls for legislative action, etc that are less than absolute. Should someone ask why I support restoring gun rights to unincarcerated felons, the basis for it is the Second Amendment and the vast majority of pre-1968 American history - but it doesn't mean that I'll suggest to my legislator that a bill to restore funding to the review panel for those convicted of crimes on a national level *has* to contain the abolition of every gun law in existence.

Amazingly, I can do this, and even call for 'if you want the Second Amendment to not be what it says it is, please change it' without being these things you claim.

 

[yokel]

The NRA bylaws say at Article II - Purpose and Objectives, Section 1:

"To protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, especially with reference to the inalienable [sic] right of the individual American citizen guaranteed by such Constitution to acquire, possess, collect, exhibit, transport, carry, transfer ownership of, and enjoy the right to use arms, in order that the people may always be in a position to exercise their legitimate rights of self-preservation and defense of family, person, property, as well as to serve effectively in the appropriate militia for the common defense of the Republic and the individual liberty of its citizens."[Emphasis added]

A prime example of reactionary, right-wing, mouth breathing creeps!

Now that the cat is out of the bag, I think that it would be a good idea for everyone who is reading this to send a notice to the NRA and cancel their membership.

 

[ilbob]

It *is* possible to be both no compromise. It's also possible to know that the no compromise approach can exist with the absolutist core philosphy and court filings, calls for legislative action, etc that are less than absolute.

I don't see the "no compromise" crowd doing that though. What I see is they attack good legislation because it is imperfect to the point where they damage the chances of it passing. I see them attacking the primary organization that has been the leader in reducing the loss of freedom, and gaining some of it back, because that organization is smart enough not to fight to the death over things that are already lost.

 

[rfurtkamp]

I don't see the "no compromise" crowd doing that though.

I am part of the "no compromise" crowd. You've now seen it. See my explanations above. Next.

I see them attacking the primary organization that has been the leader in reducing the loss of freedom, and gaining some of it back,

If you're referencing the NRA, yes, many of us don't particularly like it. It has a poisonous history, particularly in the 1934 NFA that took away many of our basic rights as gun owners, and again in the protectionist measure known as the GCA of 1968, blocking import of pretty much anything that threatened the commercial constituency that is at the core of the organization's interests. Then there's FOPA in '86, a poison pill of mixed bag ugly, and the aftermath of '94 where owners and shooters of 'nonsporting'-type guns were screwed to protect everyone else.

That said, I applaud their educational efforts and support of local ranges. I applaud their actions surrounding the expiration of the AWB, and the liability exemptions.

NFA owners still remain non-citizens to the NRA in practice - it's as if legal ownership of machineguns, suppressors, sbr/sbs/aow/dd/etc is a dirty little secret that needs to be stuffed under the rug.

because that organization is smart enough not to fight to the death over things that are already lost.

Things that it has directly helped to take away, sadly.

And it's not just about 'fight to the death', it's about fight at all. I don't expect an organization that is just barely supporting semi-auto EBRs in the last decade to suddenly start calling for the enforcement of the Second Amendment as it is written, it's just not going to happen. I don't expect it to provide any functional support to NFA owners any time soon, or not sell us all downriver if it means saving Joe Shotgun or Ruger's competitive advantage enforced by tariffs or state bans.

In the end, NRA probably does most gun owners more good than harm - but if you're in a category that isn't quite as mainstream in your ownership or use, it isn't as clear cut a choice.

I honestly wish I could in good conscience get behind them and their actions. I'd love to in good conscience provide financial support to the organization.

As it stands, I cannot. I don't fault others for doing so given their own personal interests.

It's one of the things that saddens me about our political system and the interest groups that surround the practice, protection, and restoration of our most basic rights.

 

[Frank Ettin]

rfurtkamp,

However, the reality is that in the political arena, some things are doable and some are not, some results are achievable and some are not; and if one is unrealistic about which is which, he usually loses it all. And wile the NRA may not have achieved results that were entirely satisfactory to some gun owners, those results must be evaluated from the perspective of whether under the circumstances any better results were reasonably possible. The proper question is not whether we lost something. It's whether without the NRA's adroit political advocacy and understanding of the political landscape we would have lost even more.

And it's not just about 'fight to the death', it's about fight at all....

There are ways to fight that can be as effective as possible and those that are not likely to be effective. Standing around fervently, "...calling for the enforcement of the Second Amendment as it is written,..." just isn't going to get you anywhere in the political arema.

Politicians and regulators aren't swayed by talk of rights or the Constitution. They are swayed by power. Their goals are to either keep their jobs or move up to positions of greater prestige. The question they ask themselves when anyone comes advocating a position is whether supporting that position will help accomplish those goals or hurt them. It comes down to power: votes and money. (Regulators are also more swayed than legislators by credible threats of litigation, especially litigation they might lose. It looks bad for the agency. But since litigation costs so much, it again comes down to money.)

So for a legislator or regulator it comes down to a question of numbers. How many voted will be won or lost by siding with an organization like the NRA. How much money can be marshaled by an organization like the NRA to help win or lose votes or fund undesired litigation.

Like any other fight, it's about firepower. In politics firepower is votes and money. I believe that the NRA now has about 4 million members. When it advocates for or against legislation, that's its firepower. It take the fight where and as far as it can with that amount of firepower. If it had 6 million or 8 million or 10 million members, it would have that much more firepower.

 

[rfurtkamp]

However, the reality is that in the political arena, some things are doable and some are not, some results are achievable and some are not; and if one is unrealistic about which is which, he usually loses it all.

The thing is that I can pick a fight and be conscious of the big picture. There is no evidence of this big picture existing at NRA, honestly. The only guns that are protected by the organization in practice are those sold en masse by their business lobby, not the end users. It's what got us GCA of 1968, which was pure protectionism under the guise of gun control and fear of black riots.

There are ways to fight that can be as effective as possible and those that are not likely to be effective. Standing around fervently, "...calling for the enforcement of the Second Amendment as it is written,..." just isn't going to get you anywhere in the political arema.

Thing is they can press for incremental change while adopting this approach. They don't. Again, NRA is about protecting its business sponsors, not its members.

Politicians and regulators aren't swayed by talk of rights or the Constitution. They are swayed by power.

And what is the NRA's focus in achieving this power? It's certainly not about the entirety of 2A rights.

Like any other fight, it's about firepower. In politics firepower is votes and money. I believe that the NRA now has about 4 million members. When it advocates for or against legislation, that's its firepower. It take the fight where and as far as it can with that amount of firepower. If it had 6 million or 8 million or 10 million members, it would have that much more firepower.

The problem is that I am aware of the organization's history in calling for bad fire missions. NFA 1934 would never have happened if the NRA president had not supported it in Congress. GCA 1968 would not have happened, just the same.

I'm fighting to get rights back that *the NRA* worked to take from my grandfather.

That's what people forget.

I do not.

 

[Frank Ettin]

....I'm fighting to get rights back that *the NRA* worked to take from my grandfather....

That always takes us back to the questions of how and to what effect. I hear a great deal of bemoaning from many folks of what are characterized as the NRA's failures and short comings, but I hear very very little (nothing really) from NRA detractors about concrete alternate strategies that have actually produced results.

 

[rfurtkamp]

That always takes us back to the questions of how and to what effect.

How, and to what effect, first step is basic level education that the items in question are in fact legal. The net has helped substantially in that regard but there's no substitute for going out and letting others actually use the weapons and knowing what dealers to refer them to.

Step 2 is getting state-level changes for NFA stuff, which has happened quite a bit in the last few years. Suppressors, MGs, etc are now legal for civilian ownership that a few years back would have been inconceivable.

Step 3 is national changes. Thanks to Heller and the current court, there's at least a *chance* that things may change in regards to FOPA.

I hear a great deal of bemoaning from many folks of what are characterized as the NRA's failures and short comings, but I hear very very little (nothing really) from NRA detractors about concrete alternate strategies that have actually produced results.

Honestly must not have asked very many folks, then. Kansas last year, mgs. Missouri for suppressors. It's not perfect, but amazingly people are getting things done in that respect.

Basic grassroots stuff on the net has also accomplished results, sometimes without direct political activism. NFA purchases via revocable living trusts and other methods where local sheriffs et al were the final cockblock in getting otherwise legal devices owe much, if not all, of their popularity (and increased visibility) thanks to internet forums. People under 21 can now purchase/manufacture NFA weapons and devices as well, same thing. Somebody read the regs, figured it out, got an ATF opinion that was positive, and the floodgates opened.

And why again are we fighting these battles? Because *NRA* actively cheered as NFA 1934 was passed, and testified on its behalf in Congress.

 

[Frank Ettin]

That's more "what" than "how." But we shall see.

 

[RDak]

Fiddletown wrote, in part:

Dmack_901 and yokel, how many people have you turned with your "true purpose of the Second Amendment" arguments? Who has listened to you? Let's see some results

I've convinced quite a few liberals, that the ability of the State to form militias, in order to guard against (1) foreign invasion and (2) central government tyranny should be preserved.

Almost all of the liberals I've argued with have recognized the Militia clause is a good one when I ask them that question. Oh, once in a while I'll get the rabid anti-gunner who doesn't even think a squirt gun should be legal, but they are rare from my experience.

I then say, "well, if you recognize the right of the State to protect itself from foreign invasion and outside tyranny, why can't you apply that to an individual?"

Many have said, "good point" but question the "foreign invasion" part of the question by asking (i.e., in so many words): "How can an individual right, separate from the Militia clause, help with foreign invasion?"

I reply, in so many words: "Good point but, at the individual level, I look at foreign invasion as someone attacking you or breaking into your home, etc. And that that is beneficial to the State, as a whole, because it thwarts a different type of invasion.

Also, (I've asked) "what about terrorists, etc., trying to invade our country on a piecemeal basis? Doesn't that allow an individual, or unorganized group of individuals, to thwart a non-typical type of foreign invasion?"

They have a harder time with those arguments but most liberals I've argued with don't reject them out of hand. They seem to think those arguments are a "stretch" but don't just automatically reject them. I even believe they are a "stretch" but not entirely out in leftfield.

Now, with Heller supra, I don't need to argue the Militia clause nearly as much as I used to, but it is still a very important part of the 2nd Amendment IMHO.

In fact Fiddletown, I don't argue much with people any longer relative to the 2nd Amendment, and individual rights, because it has gotten pretty tiresome for me over the years.

It's great to see so many young people embracing the 2nd Amendment and especially nice to see people like Gura litigating these issues.