Anti-rights mythology of the "well regulated militia"

The first argument against a citation of the 2nd Amendment seems to always be a curt, cherry picked quotation: "well regulated militia". The implication is that if you aren't in a designated organization that trains and drills, then the 2nd Amendment does not apply to you.

Lets break this down in two parts - "well regulated" and "militia". The use of "well regulated" was used frequently during this time period, and is perfectly explained by Brian T. Halonen:

The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."

1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

The key point being, "well regulated" was directed at assuring functionality, and not instruction to enforce strict limitations.

As for "militia", at no point do these individuals question what a militia was to those living in the 1790's or early 1800's, but instead ignorantly cling to an assumption of it either being the National Guard or other government structured entity.

This is the historic context of militias in early America: A militia was not a well-trained, government controlled army. It’s a body, that if needed, can be called forth on the peoples terms – and not always of a specific list. In many cases, simply the assumption of being able-bodied met the obligation to answer the call. Only the strictest forms involved conscription, and even those cases involved bearing a personally owned firearm rather than something that was issued. Militias were also led by one of their own whom they personally selected rather than being anointed by officials. This is one of the purist forms of self-determination from government, and why the 2A was one of the most strongly phrased with “shall not be infringed”.

Interestingly, the Pennsylvania constitution from the same time period doesn't contain any militia phrasing. From Article IX Section 21:

That the general, great and essential principles of liberty and free government may be recognized and unalterably established, WE DECLARE,

(snip 20 sections)

Section 21. That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the state shall not be questioned.

Those that still cling to the myth that the right to bear arms applies only to those serving in a militia often ignore the definition in the Militia Act of 1903. Given this definition, if I were to concede that the 2nd amendment refers to a collective right (I do not), men between the ages of 17 and 45 would still have a right to bear arms without infringement. See the relevant text in the US code here:

(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.

I suspect collectivist clingers will make up reasons this doesn't matter. In any case, it's not relevant to understanding the intention of the amendment, since the founders established no such age limitation.

Richard Henry Lee refuted the notion that the militia referred to a select corp, now known as the National Guard:

But, say gentlemen, the general militia are for the most part employed at home in their private concerns, cannot well be called out, or be depended upon; that we must have a select militia; that is, as I understand it, particular corps or bodies of young men, and of men who have but little to do at home, particularly armed and disciplined in some measure, at the public expense, and always ready to take the field. These corps, not much unlike regular troops, will ever produce an inattention to the general militia; and the consequence has ever been, and always must be, that the substantial men, having families and property, will generally be without arms, without knowing the use of them, and defenseless; whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all pro-miscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.
                                   -R. Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer 53 (1788)

He reiterated this stance again:

No free government was ever founded, or ever preserved its liberty, without uniting the characters of the citizen and soldier in those destined for the defence of the state. . . . Such are a well regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen.        
                                     -State Gazette (Charleston) (8 September 1788)

If you want further proof of intent behind the 2nd Amendment then refer to the Federalist Papers, which were written and distributed by the Founding Fathers in order to justify and convince the original member states to ratify the Constitution. In “Federalist No 46”, Monroe contrasts our newly formed nation to Europe, where the people are not trusted with arms and therefore would be unable to shake off the yokes of tyranny if imposed. He wrote this after having just risked everything in a war against an oppressive ruler. The first shots of this war, by the way, were fired when British troops marched towards Lexington and Concord to confiscate firearms.

Samuel Adams also clearly stated that the constitution is not intended to prevent citizens from keeping their own arms:

“And that the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms…”                                                   
“Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,” pp. 86-87 (Peirce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)

I could go on like this for an entire book. It is trivial for anyone willing to spend a little time researching the topic to determine that the founders intended that every man be armed on their own volition.

The Supreme Court relied on these same primary sources and many more in the Heller (2008) opinion when it held that:

(starts on page 570)
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it con­notes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 576–595.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 595–600.

Note the page citations lead to the details within the linked document that support the court's conclusion.

At this point it should be clear that it is at best ignorant and at worst propaganda to peddle the idea that the constitution only protects a collective right to bear arms.

A Safer Pennsylvania!

Except not really, because nine of the twelve proposals recently published by the PA Auditor General are biased trash that’s narrowly focused on an agenda and not an actual solution.

Proposals 1, 2, 7, 8, and 12 – These proposals would be good for helping prevent violence of any form. My frustration with this is that it’s never addressed as the broader issue that it really is, but instead tunnel vision on something that’s not even the underlying issue. This just flows with the rest of the report, which is littered with repetitive talking points to convince people that a particular inanimate object is somehow a unique threat and public health crisis. This is unhelpful as it draws attention from the real issue with mental health and violence, and what motivates so many individuals to commit mass murder. The instrument is irrelevant, as it’s just one of a million different options. Gary Ridgeway, the Green River Killer, was convicted for 48 murders and confessed to 71, and yet the way he strangled his victims rightfully never caught the crazy fixation of a political agenda.

Proposal 3 – MD’s are not qualified to discuss the topic of gun safety, and falls well outside their swim lane (the NRA was right). It’s the equivalent of your car mechanic lecturing you on how to avoid a car accident. Their technical expertise does not make them an expert on physics, driving techniques, or human behavior. If this is the standard that we’re setting, then do it across the board and be prepared for the longest “health” surveys of your life: Do you own a car? Do you ride a motorcycle? Do you own a swimming pool? Do you own sharp objects? Do you have any OTC medications or items that are toxic? Do you have access to a tall building or roof? Do you have any stored gasoline or propane? (this list could go on forever) All great safety talking points, but to cherry pick firearms for discussion in a clinic is blatantly biased. If I were asked this question in a doctors office I would tell him/her to go fuck themselves and that it’s none of their business. I’ll talk to a SAMI if I want an opinion from someone who actually matters on this subject.

Proposal 5 and 6 – A training course with qualified firearm experts is a great way to teach safety, but it makes no sense to waste tax dollars to create a new voluntary program with such a narrow subject that few people will attend. Valuable courses already exist in the private sector, and teach way more than simple fundamentals of safety. They expand into a wide range of topics, that even involve live fire training (I have a feeling Mr. DePasquale wouldn’t approve). The encouragement of safe storage is good, but this is a bigger problem than education – it’s financial. If anyone really supports these proposals, then give people their hard earned income back by offering tax credits to create an incentive and make it affordable. A single safe that offers actual security can greatly exceed the value of the average homeowners firearms. Additionally, you can also donate to the NRA because training and safety programs are what they already do (again, I bet Mr. DePasquale wouldn’t approve). If you’re concerned with lobbying, campaign funding, or legal actions that the NRA is involved in, that is a separate pot of money collected by the NRA-ILA.

Proposal 9 – Bureaucracy at its finest. Create an additional expense and administrative burden to tell us that thieves steal things, and might commit even more crimes later. When we read the reports, we’ll all pretend to be surprised that criminals don’t care what the laws are.

As for the other proposals that are decent, #4 is something I'm sure is already practiced by FFL dealers, but it doesn't hurt to offer insight. Proposal 10 does offer the opportunity to connect individuals to multiple crimes, which would help ensure criminals are being held fully accountable. Finally, proposal 11 is what every law abiding gun owner has been advocating from the beginning - enforce the laws already on the books! 

Rich white people are telling us we don’t need guns

Did you guys hear that? It was the voice of an overpaid, white Hollywood actress. From within a nook of her million dollar home, situated inside a gated community with private security, she assertively denounces the choice you’ve made to protect your home with an AR-15. Her criticism spews hatred for how you conceal carry in public, while she pays someone else to do her grocery shopping and makes arrangements for her bodyguards to drive her to a gun control rally.

At the rally, she convinces suburbanites whom live in neighborhoods with high property values to vote for magazine capacity limits. They’re easily convinced, because why would you need 30 rounds to feel safe if they feel they don’t need any rounds at all? After they drink the kool-aid, they go back to their lives in regions void of low-income housing that attract crime, and wave to police patrol units that their town can afford due to above average property tax revenue. The Hollywood actress, feeling good about herself, leaves the rally with her security entourage and heads off to an audition for a multi-million dollar role in a new action film where she’ll shoot people with guns.

But of course, this isn’t just limited to rich Hollywood types preaching in your ear. It could be billionaire Michael Bloomberg having it printed in the newspaper he owns... or the “man of the people” Bernie Sanders tweeting from one of his three mansions... or Hillary Clinton/Barack Obama while they travel the world with their lifetime taxpayer funded Secret Service…

Translation of their sermon: “Either you decide to get rich and live safely the way we do, or you decide to have no security at all… The only way you’re allowed to be protected by a gun is if you can pay someone else to carry it for you. The value of your life, family, or property is measured in who you can afford to protect it.”

For those in the gun community, these are arguments that need to be made. These rich people aren’t necessarily detached from reality per se, but they are certainly detached from OUR reality. They are oblivious to our insecurities, and therefore they take a stance on gun control that contradicts three fundamental views that leftists have of themselves. One is that they’re the righteous opposition to rich, white elitism, second as a bastion for the working class, and third as stalwarts of victim advocacy. The fact that on this particular issue they take a stance that's the polar opposite of what they claim to be shouldn't go unnoticed or without refute. Feeding them their own poison may be one of the simplest ways to get a point across.

Effective Pennsylvania Gun Rights Advocates

My impressions are based on watching who is getting things done. It could be simply a PR issue, but from where I am sitting:

Firearm Owners Against Crime is currently the most effective and visible group keeping on top of the issues and advocating for gun rights in Harrisburg.

Joshua Prince is currently the most effective litigator defending gun rights in the courts.

It's entirely possible my opinions are biased towards those good at self-promotion. However, it's difficult to argue with results. In recent memory, FOAC played what I believe was the biggest role in getting an unfortunately doomed bill passed to strengthen state preemption. Prince followed this up with a series of suits that got many municipalities to drop their illegal anti-gun ordinances.  More examples are easily found online.

FOAC and Prince are typically the source of information about what is going on in Harrisburg when it comes to gun rights. They deserve your support.

Here are Pennsylvania bills poised to degrade and destroy gun rights

Remember that in Pennsylvania governors may only serve two consecutive terms, after which they cannot run for governor again until they've waited a term. This means that a second-term Wolf, who is openly anti-gun, can go ape shit on guns knowing he won't face re-election again -- if he even wants it -- for 5-8 years depending on when he starts the push. The previous post presents data suggesting this push will begin immediately.

HB 2227:

This is an Extreme Risk Protection Order bill. Joshua Prince summarized the issues with it for FOAC. Essentially, anyone who has ever met you can have your guns confiscated with effectively no due process. The burden is entirely on you to clear your name and get your guns back.

HB 1400 (and its several variations):

Universal background checks.

SB 17:

This is an assault weapons and large capacity magazine ban. If passed, you'd have 120 days to register all "assault weapons" or turn them in. Registration requires an application process where you must submit the same information you do for a LTCF in addition to pictures of yourself and information about the item you are registering. Assuming you pass the background check and an investigation of your character and reputation, you will pay $15 and receive a certificate to possess the item that is good for 5 years. The renewal fee is also $15.

"Large capacity" magazines include any magazine (fixed magazines count!) with a capacity greater than 10. The proposal implies you can register your magazines using the assault weapon process, but does not explicitly state this and the information required for the certificate application doesn't appear to apply to magazines. This may be an outright ban. Rim fire pistols are treated the same way as center file pistols in this bill.

The Coming Post-election Push for Gun Control in PA

From this reddit thread:
















































As is pointed out in the thread, the only poll that matter is on Tuesday, but the predictions aren't encouraging for gun rights.

Relevant thread from PAFOA with additional information about the issues and a planned protest in Harrisburg.

The shockingly simple math behind time off...

Advocates of socialism often tout how generous government-mandated paid leave is in socialist-leaning countries. France, for example, mandates a minimum of 36 paid vacation days per year. In this post, I argue that this benefit simply trades flexibility for rigidity when compared to the US. However, that flexibility in the US requires an ingredient in short supply: Personal responsibility.

In the US, the 4 percent rule of thumb is often applied to determine the amount of funds required to last a thirty-year retirement with no active income (income earned through working). Essentially, if you need $40,000 a year to live in retirement that means you need to save $1,000,000 in diversified stocks and bonds to have a reasonable shot at your funds lasting for 30 years of no income. Let's be more conservative and use 3 percent: Our retiree needs more like $1,400,000 saved to retire.

Assume our retiree started saving at 22 years old and made a salary that remains at exactly $80,000 their entire career. In reality, this salary is easily obtained for a present day retiree-to-be that's willing to start a career in an in-demand field (their choice!), and can grow well beyond that figure. Assuming a 25% tax rate, this individual can save $18,000 a year assuming they spend $42,000 each year. This is a reasonable spend rate considering the retirement goal, better learn to stick to the expected budget early! This individual has saved enough to retire by age 52 based on a reasonable Monte Carlo simulation.

Assuming our retiree is a man, his life expectancy is 78 years according to the World Bank. Due to his diligent saving, he can enjoy 26 years of not having to work for money. This assumes no gap in employment, but, hey, his income also never grew so we'll call it a wash! It's also reasonable to expect no major employment gap considering he chose a high demand field of employment. This retirement has a very high probability of success given that we are shooting for less than 30 years of retirement and chose a conservative 3% withdrawal rate.

Let's image an average Frenchman. In France he can retire by 62, but only assuming he worked for a minimum of 42 years. If our Frenchman started working at 22, he can't retire until age 64! Since his life expectancy is 82 years, that leaves 18 years to not work. But wait, don't forget he gets 5 work weeks off a year! That's (42 * 5) / 52 = 4 years off while working.

Our US retiree has the ability to enjoy 26 years of not working while our Frenchman gets 22 years. But wait, there's more!

- The US retiree will likely be able to retire even earlier assuming income growth that keeps up with inflation (assume 3%). This one tweak allows the US retiree to quit paid work at 42 instead of 52. That's 10 extra years of retirement! What's better, 36 years of no work or 22? 36 years is longer than the 30 year horizon, but we also dropped the withdrawal rate a solid percent to be more conservative.

- Given his choice to work in a high demand field, the US retiree will likely be able to command no less than 3 weeks off a year if my own career trajectory has any say in the matter. (20 * 3) / 52 = 1 additional year off in his 20 years of employment (assuming the pay increases). That's a total of 37 years of not working!

- Our US retiree leaves the workforce early enough to avoid most age-related health issues. How many years of good health does our 62 year old Frenchman have left?

What are the primary differences? The US individual isn't taxed to death and can choose to stop working whenever he can live on his savings without risk to a pension. Notice that these calculations assume all savings were after tax. Those funds aren't locked up in a traditional 401k or IRA. In reality, our retiree seems smart enough to build a portfolio with tax diversity (e.g. some funds in tax advantaged accounts and others in taxable accounts).

However, the US individual must diligently save and control spending (buy less shit, save more -- good for the environment, good for you!), which requires real personal responsibility. This implies traits we might miss in some socialists.