August 7, 2019 9:55 pm at 9:55 pm #1771415
What would happen if someone made an official “militia” for the purpose of having GGWGs at all places that are at risk?August 8, 2019 7:15 am at 7:15 am #1771457
The Constitution of the United States states: “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.”
As such, so long as it is well regulated, the militia is fully legal.August 8, 2019 9:17 am at 9:17 am #1771525akupermaParticipant
“GGWG” – a not widely used abbreviation for “Good guys with guns”
That is already done. It’s called the “police”. Sometimes it is effective and sometimes it isn’t. And there is much dispute over whether the police are the “good guys”.August 8, 2019 9:18 am at 9:18 am #1771541☕️coffee addictParticipant
What’s ggwg?August 8, 2019 1:31 pm at 1:31 pm #1771563
Akuperma, the police don’t count because they are clearly not enough.August 8, 2019 2:00 pm at 2:00 pm #1771571Neville ChaimBerlinParticipant
“What would happen if someone made an official “militia” for the purpose of having GGWGs at all places that are at risk?”
You mean like an umbrella organization that puts armed guards at all shuls and schools? I would imagine if one organization got big enough, it would be regulated as a public utility like electricity and become sort of a secondary police.
There are already private armed security services that many shuls are already utilizing. What would be different about what you’re describing other than the arbitrary use of the word “militia?”August 8, 2019 4:42 pm at 4:42 pm #1771747
The participants would not be paid.August 8, 2019 5:52 pm at 5:52 pm #1771794
Also, this force would exist only for the purpose of preventing and stopping terrorists with guns.August 8, 2019 5:52 pm at 5:52 pm #1771793akupermaParticipant
RebYidd23: Militias are always paid. And they tend to be quite expensive. That’s a feature not a bug. If you don’t pay people, you are limited to rich dudes doing something as a hobby. Very few people would undertake dangerous work without being compensated.
If you feel a need for more police, you are free to vote for a government that hires more police, and taxes the citizens to pay for it. In a democracy, that is for the people to choose. It should be noted that the ethnic group most victimized by crime, and most likely to be victims of crime, are African Americans, who in general do not favor increased spending on police.August 8, 2019 6:32 pm at 6:32 pm #1771849
They would not be paid because they would not be doing anything most of the time. They would not have authority either. Their entire job is to be GGWG, which most of them are already anyway.August 8, 2019 10:06 pm at 10:06 pm #1771891Neville ChaimBerlinParticipant
“The participants would not be paid.”
Would there be a light signal that the police commissioner could shine into the sky when he needs to call on the GGWG’s?August 8, 2019 10:22 pm at 10:22 pm #1771899
Neville, that’s kind of the idea, but the GGWGs are supposed to be bystanders.August 9, 2019 12:39 am at 12:39 am #1771918GadolhadorahParticipant
In Texas, the legislature just enacted legislation authorizing open carry in schools and churches. Unfortunately, by the time a security guard figures out which are the GGWGs from the BGWGs, he will be in olam haboh.August 9, 2019 12:39 am at 12:39 am #1771917Amil ZolaParticipant
The Patriot Militia, The Real Three Percenters, III%, Patriot Pride, The Minutemen, The Patriot Prayer Group are just a few of over 500 militias here in the US. Go to any of their web pages and you’ll see they all profess to be GGWGs.August 9, 2019 5:19 am at 5:19 am #1771955
Regulated by the state?August 9, 2019 5:20 am at 5:20 am #1771956MilhouseParticipant
“Well regulated” in this context means “well trained”.
And the US militia consists of every able-bodied man between the ages of 17 and 45.August 9, 2019 6:58 am at 6:58 am #1771960ubiquitinParticipant
“Regulated by the state?”
that would be unconstitutional. the constitution calls for it to e “well regulated” just some minor gun regulations are not enough.
“And the US militia consists…”
you mean “consisted of” I assure you I’m not part of any militia.
And just so I have your position correct, you are saying that there is no constitutional right to bear arms for 1) disabled 2) women and 3) those over 45 or under 17. correct?August 9, 2019 8:23 am at 8:23 am #1771969Avi KParticipant
They are called security guards.August 9, 2019 9:21 am at 9:21 am #1771974
” I assure you I’m not part of any militia.”
If you’re registered with the Selective Service you certainly are.August 9, 2019 12:48 pm at 12:48 pm #1772025
The militia itself must be regulated. Security guards are paid to stand there.August 14, 2019 10:03 am at 10:03 am #1774668MilhouseParticipant
Ubiquitin, if you are an able-bodied male US citizen between 17 and 45 you are a member of the US militia, whether you like it or not. That is the law.
But the right to keep and bear arms is not restricted to militia members. It’s not “the right of the militia”, it’s “the right of the people“. That means everyone. The same people who have the freedom of speech and the press, the right to the free exercise of religion, the right to be free from unreasonable searches and to due process, etc. It’s a fundamental human right that the Bill of Rights did not create but merely recognizes and protects.August 14, 2019 12:08 pm at 12:08 pm #1774673
I would just repeal the Second Amendment.August 14, 2019 3:55 pm at 3:55 pm #1774889RedlegParticipant
Milhouse, SCOTUS agrees with you. See Heller v District of Columbia
Joseph, lot o’ luck with that one.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.