Posted by Kromey at 2:15pm Jun 29 '10...an armed civilian populace would be of zero use against a modern army anyway.
Sure, I would die in record time if I tried to stand up to an invading army with my XDm .40 S&W. I'd also be an idiot to try to do that.
Ever hear about the FP-45 Liberator? It was a small, single-shot .45 ACP pistol mass-produced in the US during WWII, and air-dropped into occupied territories. Even back then, the Liberator was terribly out-classed, and anyone fool enough to use it in open conflict most assuredly met a very quick death. On the other hand, those are undoubtedly the same folks who would have gone on to earn themselves Darwin Awards anyway.
However, the Liberator was incredibly successful. Why? Simple. Imagine you got your hands on one, and you lived in Nazi-occupied France. (Not hard, as the Liberator was dropped, along with ammunition, all over the continent behind the Nazi lines.) It's small enough to easily conceal in your pocket. So one evening you approach a guard and ask him if you can bum a cigarette off him. Or you ask him directions to get to a tavern you've heard about. Or... well, you get the idea. The point is that you get a momentary distraction, and that's all you need to get your single-shot Liberator into play and pop the guard. Now you have a rifle, ammunition, perhaps a sidearm, and if you're really lucky a grenade or two. Run quickly back into the woods before his buddies respond to the sound of your gunshot. Meanwhile in other areas your buddies are doing the same thing. Now you've got several military weapons between you. A well-planned surprise ambush on a small truck convoy, and you've netted yourself more weapons, more ammunition, etc. It doesn't take long before you've grown up into a fairly well-equipped resistance force.
This isn't a fantasy. This really happened in WWII, and was a significant factor leading up to the eventual defeat of the Nazis. (Hooray, history!).
And there's a far more effective state law enforcement, too,
Law enforcement responds to crime, they don't prevent it. If some thug breaks into my home and threatens my or [private]'s life, a telephone call to 911 isn't going to do me a whole lot of good. (Assuming said thug is polite enough to wait for me to pick up the phone and dial at all -- seems pretty fantastical to me.) But I stand a good chance if I'm armed -- at the very least it's a fair fight now.*
In fact, guns are used an estimated 2.5 million times a year to prevent crimes [Targeting Guns, Dr. Gary Kleck, Criminologist, Florida State University, Aldine, 1997; also, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Fall 1995], which works out to 65 crimes prevented for every one homicide committed with a gun. (This is in the US.) At the same time, 11% of law enforcement shootings result in an innocent bystander being shot, while a mere 2% of citizen shootings do so. [Shall issue: the new wave of concealed handgun permit laws, Clayton Cramer, David Kopel, Independence Institute Issue Paper. October 17, 1994] While this may seem counter-intuitive, it's in fact quite the opposite: Most civilian gun owners are enthusiasts who regularly practice with their firearms; a shockingly large number of cops, on the other hand, do only their minimum qualifications -- usually twice a year -- and otherwise never practice with their weapons.
To say nothing of the fact that law enforcement agencies all over the nation are constantly facing budget cuts leading to reductions in force -- fewer cops around to respond (not prevent!) to crimes.
it's fairly clear from the wording that the intent is to preserve the 'security of a free State' not individual people.
Yes, preserve the security of a free state by arming the state's citizens.
The "militia clause" in the 2nd Amendment is what's called a "justification clause". Its purpose is to describe some of the reasoning behind the guarantee of the right. The "actionable clause" (I don't have that term exactly right, but it's the right idea at least) says that "the People" have the right to "keep and bear arms." Not "keep and bear arms while in the service of the militia", but simply "keep and bear arms".
A bit more history, at the risk of sounding like [private]: While the Bill of Rights was being drafted, a proposed change to the wording of the 2nd Amendment was proposed that would have restricted the right to keep and bear arms to militia service. It was rejected, ostensibly because it was meant to be a right of the citizens, not the states' militias. Also, the notion of a militia being e.g. the National Guard is a modern anachronism: At the time, the militia was every able-bodied white male citizen, and when summoned to militia service they were expected to provide their own weapons. Thus, to ensure an armed militia, it is necessary to ensure an armed citizenry. Even today, thanks to the Dick Act of 1903, the National Guard is the "organized militia", and all other citizens are the "unorganized militia". (Prior to this, the National Guard had no formal federal definition.)
Legally, they are at the same level, but in terms of relevance to the modern day they are not.
So you are advocating simply ignoring laws that are inconvenient to modern day life? Who decides which laws are "ignorable" in this manner? The only sensible approach to a law that is no longer relevant is to repeal it; simply ignoring it is the definition of criminality.
You are also missing a significant factor in the right to keep and bear arms. I'll let Thomas Jefferson explain it to you:
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
* Since this point is always countered with the "but it's better to not resist at all" mantra, here's some stats showing injury/death rates of victims who chose to:
Resist with a gun: 6%
Not resist at all: 25%
Resist with a knife: 40% [I'm curious how this breaks down when looking at folks actually trained in knife combat...]
Non-violent resistance: 45%
Source: The British Home Office, believe it or not!
Sure, I would die in record time if I tried to stand up to an invading army with my XDm .40 S&W. I'd also be an idiot to try to do that.
Ever hear about the FP-45 Liberator? It was a small, single-shot .45 ACP pistol mass-produced in the US during WWII, and air-dropped into occupied territories. Even back then, the Liberator was terribly out-classed, and anyone fool enough to use it in open conflict most assuredly met a very quick death. On the other hand, those are undoubtedly the same folks who would have gone on to earn themselves Darwin Awards anyway.
However, the Liberator was incredibly successful. Why? Simple. Imagine you got your hands on one, and you lived in Nazi-occupied France. (Not hard, as the Liberator was dropped, along with ammunition, all over the continent behind the Nazi lines.) It's small enough to easily conceal in your pocket. So one evening you approach a guard and ask him if you can bum a cigarette off him. Or you ask him directions to get to a tavern you've heard about. Or... well, you get the idea. The point is that you get a momentary distraction, and that's all you need to get your single-shot Liberator into play and pop the guard. Now you have a rifle, ammunition, perhaps a sidearm, and if you're really lucky a grenade or two. Run quickly back into the woods before his buddies respond to the sound of your gunshot. Meanwhile in other areas your buddies are doing the same thing. Now you've got several military weapons between you. A well-planned surprise ambush on a small truck convoy, and you've netted yourself more weapons, more ammunition, etc. It doesn't take long before you've grown up into a fairly well-equipped resistance force.
This isn't a fantasy. This really happened in WWII, and was a significant factor leading up to the eventual defeat of the Nazis. (Hooray, history!).
And there's a far more effective state law enforcement, too,
Law enforcement responds to crime, they don't prevent it. If some thug breaks into my home and threatens my or [private]'s life, a telephone call to 911 isn't going to do me a whole lot of good. (Assuming said thug is polite enough to wait for me to pick up the phone and dial at all -- seems pretty fantastical to me.) But I stand a good chance if I'm armed -- at the very least it's a fair fight now.*
In fact, guns are used an estimated 2.5 million times a year to prevent crimes [Targeting Guns, Dr. Gary Kleck, Criminologist, Florida State University, Aldine, 1997; also, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Fall 1995], which works out to 65 crimes prevented for every one homicide committed with a gun. (This is in the US.) At the same time, 11% of law enforcement shootings result in an innocent bystander being shot, while a mere 2% of citizen shootings do so. [Shall issue: the new wave of concealed handgun permit laws, Clayton Cramer, David Kopel, Independence Institute Issue Paper. October 17, 1994] While this may seem counter-intuitive, it's in fact quite the opposite: Most civilian gun owners are enthusiasts who regularly practice with their firearms; a shockingly large number of cops, on the other hand, do only their minimum qualifications -- usually twice a year -- and otherwise never practice with their weapons.
To say nothing of the fact that law enforcement agencies all over the nation are constantly facing budget cuts leading to reductions in force -- fewer cops around to respond (not prevent!) to crimes.
it's fairly clear from the wording that the intent is to preserve the 'security of a free State' not individual people.
Yes, preserve the security of a free state by arming the state's citizens.
The "militia clause" in the 2nd Amendment is what's called a "justification clause". Its purpose is to describe some of the reasoning behind the guarantee of the right. The "actionable clause" (I don't have that term exactly right, but it's the right idea at least) says that "the People" have the right to "keep and bear arms." Not "keep and bear arms while in the service of the militia", but simply "keep and bear arms".
A bit more history, at the risk of sounding like [private]: While the Bill of Rights was being drafted, a proposed change to the wording of the 2nd Amendment was proposed that would have restricted the right to keep and bear arms to militia service. It was rejected, ostensibly because it was meant to be a right of the citizens, not the states' militias. Also, the notion of a militia being e.g. the National Guard is a modern anachronism: At the time, the militia was every able-bodied white male citizen, and when summoned to militia service they were expected to provide their own weapons. Thus, to ensure an armed militia, it is necessary to ensure an armed citizenry. Even today, thanks to the Dick Act of 1903, the National Guard is the "organized militia", and all other citizens are the "unorganized militia". (Prior to this, the National Guard had no formal federal definition.)
Legally, they are at the same level, but in terms of relevance to the modern day they are not.
So you are advocating simply ignoring laws that are inconvenient to modern day life? Who decides which laws are "ignorable" in this manner? The only sensible approach to a law that is no longer relevant is to repeal it; simply ignoring it is the definition of criminality.
You are also missing a significant factor in the right to keep and bear arms. I'll let Thomas Jefferson explain it to you:
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
* Since this point is always countered with the "but it's better to not resist at all" mantra, here's some stats showing injury/death rates of victims who chose to:
Resist with a gun: 6%
Not resist at all: 25%
Resist with a knife: 40% [I'm curious how this breaks down when looking at folks actually trained in knife combat...]
Non-violent resistance: 45%
Source: The British Home Office, believe it or not!
You are so incredibly wrong - Kromey