A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Aside from the fact that is a little awkwardly phrased, that’s the text to the Second Amendment.

Gun control advocates like to emphasize the “well regulated Militia” part. A common argument is that the time for a Militia has passed. We’re not in Revolutionary War times. The government will keep us safe, not the citizens.

But how obsolete is the Militia? Not as obsolete as you may think. In fact, three states turned to the unorganized militia during WWII. Oregon, Alaska, and Maryland turned to ordinary citizens, using guns and ammunition that the citizens provided, for protection during war time.

In Alaska, the National Guard was already deployed, and the Army was too far away when the Japanese invasion began. It was up to the gun owning citizens of the state to protect their fellow citizens until reinforcements could arrive. In Oregon, the armed citizenry patrolled the beaches.

So it was merely 60 years ago when we last needed the unorganized militia of citizens to defend this country. And I don’t think the idea that the time will come again is far fetched.

Now that I’m only a few hundred miles from Mexico, I’m watching the political situation down there very closely. Yes, most of the beheadings are on their side of the border for now, but what about when their government collapses?

You can bet that Arizona citizens who exercise their Second Amendment rights will fare better than those who don’t.

So I don’t buy the argument that the time for the Militia has passed. I don’t think you should either.

Source: America’s 1st Freedom, an NRA magazine.

Note: It turns out there is no good antonym for Obsolescence. Hence the (non). If you’ve got a better word for the headline, I’m all ears.

Update: I was able to find the whole article online at the Author’s Website.

Using a relatively simple machine at home. Each plastic case can be reloaded around 6 times.

Source: The Dad

Caution, opinions ahead.

“Hhhhhhhhhhhhhh.”

That is a sound I make when I read articles about irrational assumptions that make the claims of the Flat Earth Society sound like they might not be tinfoil-hat crazy.

Apparently, some Californians think punishing legal gun owners makes their state safer.

They want guns to be programmed to only function for the owner. Which means if one person in a crowd gets to shoot back at a criminal, you better make sure that person doesn’t get shot first, because nobody else will be able to pick up the survival tool and continue attempting to stop the attacks. Also, new technologies are perfect and never malfunction in a critical moment.

They additionally would like all handgun ammo purchasers to allow the store to photocopy their driver’s license before completing the sale. The lesson here is that crime pays. You have to steal if you plan to shoot someone and have a better chance of not being caught. I’m sure most murderers won’t be willing to steal. Excellent solution. Very similar logic to the “no guns” signage that has such screaming and bleeding success on school property.

I could continue disassembling particulars, but the principle driving the entire line of thought has distracted me. Was there any violent crime previous to the invention of the gun? Of course not. If we could somehow magically disarm the criminal masses, would the crazies switch to the incredibly easy to make home-made bombs? Maybe not, but in the case that they did, what tools could a law-abiding citizen use to stop them?

It’s true you can’t fight fire with fire. But if there is a fire, two responses are ideal. Tending to the burn victims, and putting out the fire so it doesn’t claim more victims. Law-abiding citizens who own guns are far (far) more capable of mitigating a violent attack. So let’s not punish them for being willing to have and/or carry fire extinguishers.

Duh.