Wednesday, July 23, 2014

Billy Johnson [finally] says something intelligent.

I guess if I were to label someone a pseudo-intellectual, it would have to be the NRA's Billy Johnson since he can appear to think and say some interesting things, but (APU) they don't stand up to scrutiny.

In this case he accidentally made my case for me. That means he really doesn't think through what he says--he just likes the sound of his voice and thinks he looks hip.

Seriously,  if goofball wants to follow what the founding fathers believed in, then he should require military training in schools. 

After all, the Second Amendment does start out "a well-regulated militia being necessary for the security of the free state".

But, the "pro-gun" side wants to forget that part and say it's irrelevant, but that means the Second Amendment is garbage.

After all, why start the sentence with something that is unrelated to the rest of the sentence?

That is called a nonsequitur.  You are saying the Founding Fathers wrote gibberish.
The Second Amendment was implemented by the Militia Acts of 1792, not the Guns for Irresponsible Dickheads Acts of 1792.
In fact, did hard enough and do some serious research and you will find the part about the "well-regulated militia" (which means under civilian control--not an armed mob) is integral to the Second Amendment.

And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights.--Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 3:§§ 1890
I've noticed the hemming and hawing whenever anyone mentions that the Second Amendment right is tied to the responsibility of actually serving in an Article I, Section 8, Clause 16 Militia.  Not saying that you are liable for service as a member of the "unorganised militia" since that designation confers no right or duty other than you can be called up for service.

It's the same thing as saying having a draft card makes you a member of the US military.

Anyway, I can guarantee that once it becomes obligatory and the duties are reimposed that we will see a repeat of what Justice Story mentions above.

So, I say bring it--make people perform the requisite duties under the Second Amendment.

And that means military training in addition to marksmanship.

Then, let's see how many people will be screaming for their Second Amendment rights.

BTW, I support your Second Amendment right--please go to your nearest National Guard recruiting office to exercise it.

As I said, that's not what you want to hear, but what you should be hearing.

See also:


  1. There used to be many conditions place on exercising your rights. At one time you had to be the "right" gender, the "right" color, etc. And as time has passed, these conditions that were once required to be met before being allowed by the government to benefit from these rights have been removed so that all may live with these protections.
    Along the way, it appears that the Supreme Court has determined that the Second Amendment is an individual right. And we again move towards more individual freedoms. Maybe we should take the truly take the moral high ground and remove the provisions for a draft.

    1. Of course, this is all revisionist nonsense.

      You have to remember Heller was decided on the basis of originalist intent. That is, what some goobers some 250 years ago supposedly believed. Of course, the 'thinking' behind Heller is terribly flawed--Anthony Kennedy was really concerned with bears showing up at your front door.

      Can't have it both ways.

    2. Voting restrictions in the 21st century, that's a move towards more individual freedom?

  2. I'll have to disagree, Laci.

    Johnson is both a moron and a grifter.

    Let's remember, Billy Johnson has a business directly tied to removing money from gunloons. So, it's not as if he doesn't have cash in the game.

    Second, I'm sure Johnson realizes that if you were to subject the vast majority of gunloons to actual military training--you would eliminate about 98% immediately. After all, we'd need forklifts to pry most out of their La-Z-Boy chairs and most couldn't couldn't get their parents permission to move out of their parents' basement.

  3. Thanks for another good post, Laci. You gave me a new way to look at the obsolescence of the second amendment. I've always claimed it's meaningless and obsolete because the meaning of Militia as it was used in 1790 does not exist today. But just now I noticed something else. The amendment says, "a well-regulated militia being necessary for the security of the free state." Obviously, the "security" of the US today does not depend on the "militia," regardless of how you define it.

    1. With that logic you can say since we're obviously not a free state anymore, the whole thing is null and void.