and the registration is recent and only applies to new sales, not really to private sales. Besides, getting purchase permit isn't that much different than a NICS check or a purchase permit in places like North Carolina and Michigan.

but not as big of a pain in the ass as, say, New Jersey or DC.

According to the BATF&E the number one source of crime guns is straw purchases and the number two is unscrupulous FFLs and private sales. Thefts are less than 10% of crime guns.

But then you probably have moles inside the BATF&E that tell you otherwise.

Just can't stay away, can you.

and a more recent study of course I wonder why it was published in a health magazine instead of a criminology journal makes me wonder about their methodology and study quality, but it verifies studies that went through those hoops.

Is there an official ATF publication that actually says this? Can you link it? No, I don't mean VPC making the claim. ATF doesn't trace all crime guns, in fact very few of them. I don't see how they could come to that conclusion especially the stolen part. It is probably true that they said ten percent of the guns they traced where reported stolen and entered into NCIC. Question is out of the number of guns are stolen, how many are reported to the cops? Out of that number, how many theft victims thought to have copy of all relevant information including serial numbers to give to the cops to put the information in NCIC?

Nice OP.

why should your opinion matter?

Funny how so many RW NRA types are also xe why thnophobes. You'll find some good company in this group.

Obviously, in your mind, the only opinions that count are those of US residents and citizens. And you wonder why your country is so fucked up.

Having lived in the US for 37 years, I think I have a right to opine on this subject.

Now, tell me why your opinion should matter.

...for adding your thoughts to the article. I wish everyone would do so.

I guess that your word is your bond.

There are a few responsible and civil people here (and one endlessly entertaining to me). There used to be more but the idiots and belligerent morons ran them off.

Just don't respond to the latter.

There are some very civil and genuine Democrats who post here and also support 2A.
But it has always been a port of entry for RW trolls too.

is that they assume (or, more accurately, accuse) anyone who supports broad gun rights as being a RW troll (or "gun humper," "child killer," "ammosexual," ...).

I very glad that you explicitly acknowledge that there's a critical mass of genuine Democrats who support an interpretation of the the Second Amendment consistent with very expansive and liberal personal rights understanding of every other Amendment of the Bill of Rights and rest of the Constitution (including people like myself, a liberal NYC attorney who's never owned a firearm).

The failure to acknowledge the broad range of opinions concerning gun rights within the Democratic Party, and the resulting alienation of a great many Democrats, has been a significant contributing factor in Democratic electoral losses that imperil a broader progressive agenda. People fail to remember that even Bill Clinton acknowledged that his gun control agenda and signature Assault Weapons Ban, which the Obama DOJ found did nothing to prevent gun crime or accidents, cost him his Democratic majority in Congress (and unseated a Democratic Speaker!), very likely lost Al Gore his home state of TN in the presidential election, and the "shellacking" Democrats have recently taken across the South and Midwest, both federally and in state legislatures and governorships, truly speaks for itself.

I would additionally note that the actual Democratic Platform recognizes and individual right to own firearms, and the very strict gun control position of many Democrats on DU departs significantly from our Party standard, often far more than many gun rights proponents on this forum who are rarely, if ever, as absolutist in their positions.

Of course, you or others may believe that the Second Amendment is ludicrous or outdated and our culture supporting gun rights is uncivilized or self-destructive, but the habit of demeaning and dismissing other Democrats who don't share such opinions is not only juvenile and rude, it ultimately supports opponents of our Party and those who fight against more general liberal policies far more than the most vociferous purported "RW, gun rights troll" n DU.

...more than to explain. But the use of the term does serve to illustrate how gun prohibition, like most prohibitions, gravitates to the swampy miasma of societies gone wild and wooly. All 90,000,000 of us. There is also the implied (and refreshing) concession by the controllers that guns are truly not the problem.

A better approach to the question of violence is to drop the "gun" from "gun violence," and to look at what causes violence and dysfunction in our society. I don't think the regulatory/ban approach does much at all to address deeper problems of poverty, crumbling schools and families (without those institutions, who or what is left to inculturate new generations?) This is what progressive politics are supposed to deal with.

We all have our bogies in a culture war. Most controllers are comfortable pointing to a miniscule group of yee-HAHs parading with rifles, or the rare bug-brain who shoots up a school. Inevitably, these guys are white, extremist and often nutso; the all-purpose PC enemy we can point to in public, even as thousands of homicides are ground out daily by veteran criminals who are too often black citizens in concentrated metropolitan areas. One commits a disproportionate amount of meyhem; the other is the fall guy on a puppet string. We cannot continue this charade of perceptions. In fact, most all the races and peoples in this society are law-abiding and want to be left alone by the police and the thugs. But a central reality is ANY community can be shaken down, punked, intimidated, and cowed by a small group of thugs who choose to violently impose their set of "values" on the rest. As long as this goes on, the majority of citizens should not be denied the right of self-defense. For another reality is that the police Cannot do this for us. The communities must do this themselves.

I'm glad the person quoted finally caught up to the "celebrity culture" explanation of things which have been discussed here and elsewhere for years; there is some resonance. What was once the true frontier mythology of millions of new people coming to a new nation (ours) and having a chance to BE someone, a self-made man or woman, has dissipated quickly with the mass media's collapse (this is the chief component of national mythologizing for a big modern nation), and is now bottled in a factory making smart phones and such. The tech didn't make you do it, but it has so far not been up to the task of justifying a nation and its myths, or of finding an alternative to the mass model.

"Now, don't you ask yourself who they are
Like everybody else,
They want to be a star."

-- Bad Girl by Donna Summer, 1979

By now, this phenomenon is obvious, and ripe for anyone to plug in their favorite hepcat atrocity. That said, the idea that some regulation or law is going to change that reminds me of our family's old Emerson radios: 5-tubes and fulla static. And atrociously limited.

"I think it is a good thing for the state to give this responsibility (to defend the state) to the people."

This quote probably best illustrates why the USA is different from Switzerland with regards defense using violence. The USA's government Recognizes the right to defend not just the state, but ones self. I don't think our country's philosophical approach regarding defense is the problem. The problem, imo, is that this big complex nation has lost the viability necessary to justify itself, let alone solve its myriad problems.

Is simplistic, ignorant and lazy and ignores the root causes of crime and violence in this country. You could implement a ban on gun ownership tomorrow and there would still be millions of guns in the hands of felons who would go around shooting people, and the only people that wouldn't have access to a gun are those who obey the law.

Guns don't cause violence. -> Even if you ban guns there will still be guns around. -> Those guns would still cause violence.

WTF?

First he says that guns don't cause violence and then he says that illegal guns cause violence.

I'm not going to argue your interlocutor's case for him -- in case I'm mistaken in some regard -- but I'm not seeing your interpretation. In fact, I'm at a loss to see how you came to your interpretation.

Okay, so let's talk about national defense policy. The Swiss do not have an expeditionary military. America does. In Progressive circles we refer to it as the Military Industrial Complex and it's generally considered a bad thing.

America is a resource-rich patch of spacious land. It would be worth invading. If you don't want the MIC but you want to keep your home and your freedoms you will have to fight for it.

(I don't know. Some people seem over-burdened by "freedumb" and seem to resent the idea. Maybe they're better off serving a foreign imperialist power.)

In order to fight for it you will have to possess the means to fight and make it so painful for an invader to control that the cost is too great. If you don't have aircraft carriers you're going to have to make sure 100 million people can shoot like soldiers.

Do you want to turn 100 million people into militia?

I'm willing to give it a whirl in order to get out from under the MIC but that means the control fetishists are going to have to get over themselves and see to it that MOAR GUNZ! are put into the hands of the populace, not less -- and lots of training too -- like, from high school on up.

Usually thoughts like that give Controllers the vapors.

The well-regulated milita would be controlled by the government. And the government is evil. EVIL!!! They give you rifles and train you how to use them because they are indoctrinating you! The government is turning our children into soldiers of their evil empire of liberal oppression!


Remember what happened when Obama proposed a national engineer-corps for natural disasters? The right-wingers cried "brown-shirts!"



Your last point: It depends.
Do you drink wine because a good wine belongs to a good meal or do you drink wine because you want to get drunk?
What is the reason for the action? Do you do it because it is expected from you or do you do it because you have selfish reasons?

The problem is not the gun. The problem is that people treat their gun as their problem-solver when they run into trouble, e.g. when they want money and the cashier has money.
The difference in mentality is that in Switzerland, the gun is not YOUR problem-solver. It's your militia's problem-solver.

in working order, not regulated in the current form. Whatever you are calling a militia, or call themselves, are not real militias.

And just for the record -- USC 10 Section 311 states all able-bodied males 17-45 and all able-bodied females 17-45 who have completed basic military training are members of the unorganized militia.

So the US government recognizes -- and even creates -- a militia without the sort of regulation you suggest.

nuc uni: And just for the record -- USC 10 Section 311 states all able-bodied males 17-45 and all able-bodied females 17-45 who have completed basic military training are members of the unorganized militia.

Yawn. Advise nuclear unicorn for the umpteenth time that the unorganized militia, by defintion of the word unorganized, is not well regulated, and therefore could not possibly be the well reg'd militia described in the 2nd amendment.
The only well reg'd militias in existence today are the national & state guards.

Bonus alert for nuc uni's misinformation!: nuclear unicorn is spreading misinformation (or is it disinformation?). USC 10 section 311 does not have any requirement to complete 'basic military training':

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

Stop embellishing requirements to join the unorganized MOB, nuc uni.

A militia: a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.

dscntnt: As JFK said: "The Second Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason I believe the Second Amendment will always be important."

You take a sentence out of context, & even alter it to fit your cherry pick. In context it's clear JFK was referring to a well regulated militia which was needed for the security of a free state & thus the citz had the rkba, BECAUSE JFK WAS REFERRING TO THE PREVAILING VIEW OF THE 2ND AMENDMENT AT THE TIME 1960, which was militia based.

JFK: April 1960: “By calling attention to ‘a well regulated militia’, the ‘security’ of the nation, and the right of each citizen ‘to keep and bear arms’, our Founding Fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy. Although it is extremely unlikely that the fears of governmental tyranny which gave rise to the Second Amendment will ever be a major danger to our nation, the Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships, in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason, I believe the Second Amendment will always be important.”

dscntnt: To be of value as a military unit or supplement thereto, a percentage of an unorganized militia MUST have some degree of skill-at-arms. Since by virtue of the fact that these folks MUST be civilians and not paid professionals, they must have a means to develop said skills. This would be difficult without any arms.

What was this, some sort of unorganized rant? there is NO drilling necessary to belong to unorg'd militia, no regular training, nothing. There is NO organized method of training in the unorg'd militia to 'develop skill at arms'.
The unorganized militia has met as a militia force once since its inception circa 1903, in wwII, only ~5,000 bothered to show up near ft stevens oregon right after pearl harbor, and most of them were wwI vets. Aside from that the unorg'd militia has never showed up armed to fight any battle.
THE UNORGANIZED MILITIA IS A JOKE.

dscntnt: You claim that "well regulated" would exclude "unorganized" but you have yet to offer proof of that in light of the 18th century usage of the these terms at the time of their authoring.

You misquoted me, what I wrote: .. the unorganized militia, by defintion of the word unorganized, is not well regulated, and therefore could not possibly be the well reg'd militia described in the 2nd amendment.

dscntnt: You claim that "well regulated" would exclude "unorganized" but you have yet to offer proof of that in light of the 18th century usage of the these terms at the time of their authoring.

You seriously don't understand the diff between well regulated and unorganized?
OK, websters 1828 dictionary:

UNOR'GANIZED, a. Not organized; not having organic structure or vessels for the preparation, secretion and distribution of nourishment, &c. Metals are unorganized bodies. {HAHAHAHA}

OR'GANIZE, v.t. 3. To distribute into suitable parts and appoint proper officers, that the whole may act as one body; as, to organize an army. So we say, to organize the house of representatives, which is done by the appointment of officers and verification of the powers of the several members. So we say, a club, a party or a faction is organized, when it takes a systemized form. This original and supreme will organizes the government. http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,organize

REG'ULATE, v.t. 1. To adjust by rule, method or established mode; as, to regulate weights and measures; to regulate the assize of bread; to regulate our moral conduct by the laws of God and of society; to regulate our manners by the customary forms.
2. To put in good order; as, to regulate the disordered state of a nation or its finances.
3. To subject to rules or restrictions; as, to regulate trade; to regulate diet.

REG'ULATED, pp. Adjusted by rule, method or forms; put in good order; subjected to rules or restrictions.

You dscntnt, argue the absurd.

So is gun control -- and yet you prattle on with stuff that isn't even worth reading.

nuc uni: So is gun control {a joke} -- and yet you prattle on with stuff that isn't even worth reading.

Says the one who posts disinformation prattle about the unorganized militia & doesn't have the integrity to admit her error:

nuc uni: And just for the record -- USC 10 Section 311 states all able-bodied males 17-45 and all able-bodied females 17-45 who have completed basic military training are members of the unorganized militia.

And just for the record, why don't you retract this BS nonsense about military training for the unorganized militia. You posted disinformation, didn't you? woman up & acknowledge your error.

unorganized militia. Still, the unorganized militia exists regardless of your yammering about its efficacy even though the US, Syrians, Iraqis, Russians and many other modern militaries have come to learn unorganized forces can be extremely difficult to contend with.

And since the unorganized militia exists that seems to satisfy the Controllers disinformation propaganda that the the 2A was only intended for the militia. The militia exists, by federal statute.

Deal with it.

nuc uni: .......Okay. Females who are members of the National Guard are the only ones eligible for the unorganized militia.

Huh? facetiousness? more disinformation? or just a blunder?

nuc uni: Still, the unorganized militia exists regardless of your yammering about its efficacy even though the US, Syrians, Iraqis, Russians and many other modern militaries have come to learn unorganized forces can be extremely difficult to contend with.

How bizarre a rebuttal. Of course the 'unorganized militia'' exists, as a vague entity; just as the 'sleeping masses' exists, or any other vaguely defined obscure conglomeration of people. And yes it is a joke, having not been activated since wwII, and then only by 5,000 americans after pearl harbor due to invasion hysteria, mostly wwI vets.
You make a lame comparison as well; you speak of guerrilla warfare largely in 2nd & 3rd world countries, which would not be applicable to the US.

nuc uni: And since the unorganized militia exists that seems to satisfy the Controllers disinformation propaganda that the the 2A was only intended for the militia. The militia exists, by federal statute.

The unorganized militia was not what madison & FF intended when the 2nd amendment was written. Could not have been, since the 2ndA/1792 militia act called for a well regulated citizens militia which drilled regularly, had officers, was obligatory. The unorg'd militia does not drill at all, has no citizen officers, & is only a militia in name only. If the unorg'd militia was 'called up' for duty, hardly anyone would show up, that's how ridiculous it is. Stop with the gibberish nonsense.

nuc uni: Deal with it.

Your false bravado is disgusting. You cannot even own up that you spread lies about the unorg'd militia receiving training. Pathetic.

dscntnt: Yes it was/is and the unorganized militia is still the militia.

I don't know why I argue against absurd reasoning, but once again the UNORGANIZED militia is not a well regulated militia, and is not what was intended by the 2ndAmendment.
UNORGANIZED, inactive, couch potato, sedentary, ineffective, have all been used to describe the unorganized militia.

dscntnt: They show up in groups of one and join the ranks of the national military all the time.

dscntnt: "They show up in groups of one..". >> Should I really go any further?

dscntnt: Of great value in modern conflict regardless of terrain or theater is the sniper. They are valued for their abilities at precision targeting of personnel and equipment, gathering intel and the ability to improvise and overcome challenges in roles including counterinsurgency and spec ops work. Folks that have these skills predominately acquire them over long periods. Most often they begin shooting as teens and young adults. These are not the kind of abilities one can learn during basic training as a rule... The fact that you fail to recognize this only serves to enhance my opinion of them.

Again with the absurd reasoning. As if your red herrings above have anything to do with a discussion of whether the unorganized militia as an entity is or is not a joke, or is what was intended by the 2nd amendment.

dscntnt: The term in the 2A is "well regulated" which at the time also carried the meaning of effective

Really? and how is the UNORGANIZED Militia 'effective', if it is inactive & unorganized?

Webster's 1828 dictionary:
EFFECT'IVE, a. Having the power to cause or produce; efficacious.
1. Operative; active; having the quality of producing effects.
2. Efficient; causing to be; as an effective cause.
3. Having the power of active operation; able; as effective men in any army; an effective force.

Effective describes almost exactly what the unorganized militia is NOT.

Back then in 1791, 'well regulated' carried the meaning of 'effective'? that meaning would've been an inference I suppose, but I don't see your point, since you obviously try to obscure what 'regulated' meant by definition. Oh wait, obscurity is your point?
Pls point out in Webster's 1828 dictionary, which definition fits 'effective':

REG'ULATE, v.t. 1. To adjust by rule, method or established mode; as, to regulate weights and measures; to regulate the assize of bread; to regulate our moral conduct by the laws of God and of society; to regulate our manners by the customary forms.
2. To put in good order; as, to regulate the disordered state of a nation or its finances.
3. To subject to rules or restrictions; as, to regulate trade; to regulate diet.

REG'ULATED, pp. Adjusted by rule, method or forms; put in good order; subjected to rules or restrictions. . http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,organize

...your version of the type of training the Founders had in mind when they spoke of preferring a civilian militia over a large standing army. What skills were they hoping those civilians would have in preparation for their assimilation into a federal force in the event of an emergency? In light of the articulated protection of the RKBA for such purposes, what precisely was the hope for a Minuteman regarding abilities that would translate as useful in a military conflict?

You apparently think that a key attributed was their carefully ruled and controlled actions maybe on a parade field or possibly arranging a latrine. If not maybe you could outline it; put in words what you think the 2A provides for a militia member to learn and practice.

The mention of the militia in amendment 2 sets no conditions on individuals, nor can it:

Amendment 2 is a restriction on government, and authorizes nothing.


The 'militia' arguments are a red herring. Always have been, and always will be.

beevul: The mention of the militia in amendment 2 sets no conditions on individuals, nor can it: Amendment 2 is a restriction on government, and authorizes nothing.

You want to rehash already gone over failures on your part? fine with me:

beevul, june 2015: The second amendment was NEVER anything more or anything less, than a restriction on governmental exercise of power, James.

The bill of rights was both a restriction on congress & a guarantee of individual rights (in 2nA case, the right to belong to a well regulated militia, right as a duty):

Wm Rawle, 1829, A view of the constitution, all caps in link, not my emphasis: CHAPTER X. OF THE RESTRICTIONS ON THE POWERS OF CONGRESS — AND ON THE EXECUTIVE AND JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES — RESTRICTIONS ON THE POWERS OF STATES AND SECURITY TO THE RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS
Of the amendments already adopted, the eight first in order fall within the class of restrictions on the legislative power, some of which would have been implied, some are original, and all are highly valuable. Some are also to be considered as restrictions on the judicial power.
The constitutions of some of the states contain bills of rights; others do not. A declaration of rights, therefore, properly finds a place in the general Constitution, where it equalizes all and binds all. http://www.constitution.org/wr/rawle_10.htm

encyclopedia britannica: Bill of Rights, in the United States, the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution, which were adopted as a single unit on Dec 15, 1791, and which constitute a collection of mutually reinforcing guarantees of individual rights and of limitations on federal and state governments. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/503541/Bill-of-Rights

wiki: The Bill of Rights is the collective name for the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. Proposed to assuage the fears of Anti-Federalists who had opposed Constitutional ratification, these amendments guarantee a number of personal freedoms, limit the government's power in judicial and other proceedings, and reserve some powers to the states and the public. http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172167980

The only thing that matters is who makes the last post on a thread, regardless of how pointless or ignorant the content.

Then they can declare themselves the "winner", then go away for a week or two.

beevul, +emph: THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added:

You do realize there is an 'AND' between declaratory and restrictive? Restrictive clauses are indeed what restricts congress, but declaratory clauses are what provides for guarantees of individual rights (in 2ndA case, right to belong to militia & kba).

Wm Rawle (1825,29, A View of the Constitution) gives a far better rendition of what the 2ndA actually meant, than beevul's limited understanding:
Wm Rawle: In the second article, it is declared, that a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free state; a proposition from which few will dissent.
The corollary, from the first position, is, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. http://www.constitution.org/wr/rawle_10.htm

Wm Rawle described the militia clause as "a proposition from which few will dissent". Rawle then described the rkba clause as a COROLLARY.
A corollary is a resultant which is derived from a higher rule or law. Thus the militia clause dictates what the corollary applies to.
There are some views Rawle had in 'A View of the Constitution' which were inconsistent, but this one has never seriously been challenged.

corollary: noun: (logic) an inference that follows directly from the proof of another proposition
noun something that will also be true if a particular idea or statement is true, or something that will also exist if a particular situation exists

Wm Rawle, 1829, A view of the constitution: CHAPTER X. OF THE RESTRICTIONS ON THE POWERS OF CONGRESS — AND ON THE EXECUTIVE AND JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES — RESTRICTIONS ON THE POWERS OF STATES AND SECURITY TO THE RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS
Of the amendments already adopted, the eight first in order fall within the class of restrictions on the legislative power, some of which would have been implied, some are original, and all are highly valuable. Some are also to be considered as restrictions on the judicial power.
The constitutions of some of the states contain bills of rights; others do not. A declaration of rights, therefore, properly finds a place in the general Constitution, where it equalizes all and binds all. http://www.constitution.org/wr/rawle_10.htm

encyclopedia britannica: Bill of Rights, in the United States, the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution, which were adopted as a single unit on Dec 15, 1791, and which constitute a collection of mutually reinforcing guarantees of individual rights and of limitations on federal and state governments. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/503541/Bill-of-Rights

wiki: The Bill of Rights is the collective name for the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. Proposed to assuage the fears of Anti-Federalists who had opposed Constitutional ratification, these amendments guarantee a number of personal freedoms, limit the government's power in judicial and other proceedings, and reserve some powers to the states and the public. http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172167980

beevul: Third, you're wrong again, in that the restriction on government contained in amendment 2, explicitly protects from governmental interference, the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

You mean to say that I am wrong, as well as Wm Rawle in his respected 1825 A View of the Constitution is wrong, encyclopedia Brittanica is wrong, & wiki too?
Why are we wrong beevul? since all of us agree that 2ndA indeed protects from govt interference, it's just that it also guarantees rights, which you are ignoring in your blissful etcetra.
You are not rebutting anything, beevul. You are simply regurgitating a half truth, that the bill of rights was a restriction on congress, while ignoring that it was also a guarantee of individual rights (in 2ndA case an individual right to belong to militia).

beevul: You have no business talking about the failures of others, james, until you get your own house in order.

You mean I, Wm Rawle, Encyclopedia Brittanica, & wiki too, 'have no business' rebutting you?

beevul: As I said, the 'militia' arguments are a red herring. Always have been, and always will be.

That's in your mind, accd'g to the 2ndAmendment mythology.

There are two problem I see here:


First, is that Myself and most others cant decipher what it is exactly that you're saying half the time. Between the run on sentences, the cryptic references, and your "stare at this paragraph and an image will show itself" 'format', its a headache to even bother. It gives TL: DR an entirely new meaning.

Thre second problem, is that you can't seem to correctly understand many of the things you yourself read.

You consider an institution create by federal statute to be a "MOB"? You Controller always want to control things through the law. Yet, here is a law and you describe it as a "MOB".

You seem perpetually unhappy, James. I think you're in this more for the fight than any search for a better society.

nuc uni: You consider an institution create by federal statute to be a "MOB"? You Controller always want to control things through the law. Yet, here is a law and you describe it as a "MOB".

False premise, the law creates a well regulated national & state guards militia, & classes all others as an unorganized force pool which is obsolete today as it is an all volunteer military force, there is no conscription.
You defend federal statutes as absolutely effective? wow, the unorganized militia is gonna get you, at least those afeared of that tyrannical govt.. Yes, the unorganized militia is generally a MOB. It doesn't meet, it has no leadership, no pay, no mobe point, no nothing. It's an unorganized MOB.
Why then miss smarty, do governors & presidents invariably refuse to call to arms the unorganized militia for civil disturbance? relying always on the national or state guards aka well regulated militias?
I'll tell you why, because they don't want an armed MOB of vigilantes showing up with guns galore and potentially causing or instigating far more problems than already exist, with little recourse if innocent or even guilty people get shot. Duh, how dumb can you get?

nuc uni: And just for the record -- USC 10 Section 311 states all able-bodied males 17-45 and all able-bodied females 17-45 who have completed basic military training are members of the unorganized militia.

And just for the record, why don't you retract this BS nonsense about military training for the unorganized militia. You posted misinformation, didn't you? woman up & acknowledge your error.

nuc uni: So the US government recognizes -- and even creates -- a militia without the sort of regulation you suggest.

The unorganized militia is a JOKE; was a bone to the masses by teddy roosevelt to placate & appease them as if they were actually a part of defending the country, give them espirit de corps, ha.

nuc uni: Self-defense is not selfish; it's a basic, essential human right and any scheme of government that interferes with that right is illegitimate.

And the right to self defense existed thousands of years prior to the 2nd amendment being written, & is a separate concept. To conflate the two concepts is often a far right wing tactic of intimation to the uninitiated, a pathetic tactic to elicit support for gun ownership.

The Swiss are very devoted to their country. Here in the United States, we love our country because we get to do whatever we want, and that's what we call freedom. In Switzerland, they love their country because they are socialized in a certain way that makes them respect their fellow citizens and the rather orderly, regimented society they built. The members of the civil defense force can keep military weapons at home because they would be horrified at the idea of using their firearms to disrupt the social order. They think Americans are stupid to pull reckless stunts like open carry demonstrations and showing up armed at the Bundy Ranch. They admire our 2nd Amendment, but they question whether or not we deserve it.