400 million guns

Screen Shot 2022-10-05 at 7.02.25 PM.png
Also densely populated with......
 
NG isn't the militia.

they are enlisted men not militia,,
But on June 3, 1916, the National Defense Act made the use of the term “National Guard” mandatory for state militias, and the act expanded the President’s authority to mobilize the Guard during war or national emergencies here, for service or in different parts of the world, for the duration of the event that caused the mobilization. The act was an update of the Militia Act of 1903, which created the first early National Guard to make the state militia force easier to federalize and to train National Guard members professionally similar to the army. In addition, the 1908 Militia Act authorized the use of the guard overseas.


The Militia’s status as the nation's primary reserve first almost did not happen. Even after the 1908 act, the army continued plans to create a federal reserve service. In 1912, Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson asked Army Judge Advocate General Enoch H. Crowder to study the use of national guardsmen overseas. Crowder found that the Guard was bound in its operations by the specific language of the Constitution--it could not be used overseas. Attorney General George Wickersham agreed, producing an opinion that the federal government could not employ the National Guard for purposes beyond those enumerated in the Constitution’s militia clauses.
 
But on June 3, 1916, the National Defense Act made the use of the term “National Guard” mandatory for state militias, and the act expanded the President’s authority to mobilize the Guard during war or national emergencies here, for service or in different parts of the world, for the duration of the event that caused the mobilization. The act was an update of the Militia Act of 1903, which created the first early National Guard to make the state militia force easier to federalize and to train National Guard members professionally similar to the army. In addition, the 1908 Militia Act authorized the use of the guard overseas.


The Militia’s status as the nation's primary reserve first almost did not happen. Even after the 1908 act, the army continued plans to create a federal reserve service. In 1912, Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson asked Army Judge Advocate General Enoch H. Crowder to study the use of national guardsmen overseas. Crowder found that the Guard was bound in its operations by the specific language of the Constitution--it could not be used overseas. Attorney General George Wickersham agreed, producing an opinion that the federal government could not employ the National Guard for purposes beyond those enumerated in the Constitution’s militia clauses.
Irrelevant....They still carry a DD2, which makes them federal troops, not the militia properly defined.
 
But on June 3, 1916, the National Defense Act made the use of the term “National Guard” mandatory for state militias, and the act expanded the President’s authority to mobilize the Guard during war or national emergencies here, for service or in different parts of the world, for the duration of the event that caused the mobilization. The act was an update of the Militia Act of 1903, which created the first early National Guard to make the state militia force easier to federalize and to train National Guard members professionally similar to the army. In addition, the 1908 Militia Act authorized the use of the guard overseas.


The Militia’s status as the nation's primary reserve first almost did not happen. Even after the 1908 act, the army continued plans to create a federal reserve service. In 1912, Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson asked Army Judge Advocate General Enoch H. Crowder to study the use of national guardsmen overseas. Crowder found that the Guard was bound in its operations by the specific language of the Constitution--it could not be used overseas. Attorney General George Wickersham agreed, producing an opinion that the federal government could not employ the National Guard for purposes beyond those enumerated in the Constitution’s militia clauses.
you still need to get a dictionary and read it,,
 
That may be true and I'm sure you can pull out other mostly irrelevant stats to support the NRA's interpretation of gun rights.

The fact remains that states with expanded gun rights have more gun violence than those with restrictions, and the United States has more gun violence - by far - than pretty much every country on earth that isn't undergoing some sort of civil war or breakdown in law and order.

p.s. It's the fucking guns.
Lol. I just proved to you that its NOT the guns. Lol
 
Go ahead.....explain it according to your theory...

I don't have the time to respond to every post or every portion of everyone's posts, but I already addressed this in a previous post. Tl/dr: Yes, you can have a trend in which the number of guns increases while the number of crimes decreases, but over the longer term, that is a trend that will not hold up. Here's my best explanation why (best one I can think of at the moment):

 
I use the 2A to justify stopping mass murders. But I can only do that if I'm armed. Duh!
Really?
You don't seem to be doing a very good job of that.

 
Look at what I found:

Screen Shot 2022-10-05 at 7.02.25 PM.png


Every city above in red is RUN BY A DEMOCRAT!

Okay, now explain to me what power a mayor has to stop gun violence, or better yet, how any of their policies contributed to the rise in gun violence. Mayors aren't the ones enacting concealed carry laws. Cops can confiscate weapons via lawful search, but that's about it. The vast majority of the cities on this list are in states that have more liberal gun rights.
 
Okay, now explain to me what power a mayor has to stop gun violence, or better yet, how any of their policies contributed to the rise in gun violence. Mayors aren't the ones enacting concealed carry laws. Cops can confiscate weapons via lawful search, but that's about it. The vast majority of the cities on this list are in states that have more liberal gun rights.
really??

a mayor has the power to put more cops on the street and enforce the laws instead of tying their hands in favor of the criminals,,
 
Really?
You don't seem to be doing a very good job of that.

No mass shootings in my area. Now if more law abiding citizens would actually carry guns ... maybe everyone else's track record would be as good as mine.
 
really??

a mayor has the power to put more cops on the street

If the city has the money, which they increasingly don't because wealthy residents and businesses move away.

and enforce the laws instead of tying their hands in favor of the criminals,,

In some cases, you have a point, but as I mentioned earlier, states that have tried the lock-em up approach (Alabama and Louisiana) had to stop because their penal systems were at a tipping point.
 
If the city has the money, which they increasingly don't because wealthy residents and businesses move away.



In some cases, you have a point, but as I mentioned earlier, states that have tried the lock-em up approach (Alabama and Louisiana) had to stop because their penal systems were at a tipping point.
thats a poor excuse,, take cops from low crime areas and move them into high crime areas,,,

at soe point you need to stop making excuses and get the job done,,
 

Forum List

Back
Top