I own a 300 savage 1910 that is bolt action and $8.00 a round.
5 Likes
Savage indeed.
4 Likes
My first rabbit was shot with a Savage/Stevens single shot 16 gauge. It was running straight at me, I caught it between hops, hit it in the ass end. Been worried about shooting high ever since. Still fodder for the family around the Thanksgiving table to this day. I was 6 years old!
3 Likes
The problem is raising and supporting a STANDING ARMY. One that is on duty 24/7. THAT is what this whole thread was about. It is obvious to any student of Constitutional history what they wanted and didn’t want.
What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. …Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins. —Elbridge Gerry, Fifth Vice President of the United States
“The army…is a dangerous instrument to play with.”
George Washington to Alexander Hamilton, April 4th, 1783
“A standing army is one of the greatest mischiefs that can possibly happen.”
James Madison, Debates, Virginia Convention, 1787
“Always remember that an armed and trained militia is the firmest bulwark of republics—that without standing armies their liberty can never be in danger, nor with large ones safe.”
James Madison, Inaugural Address, March 4, 1809
“Standing armies are dangerous to liberty.”
Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, 1787
4 Likes
Isn’t 300 Savage a round that is commercially available to reload?
1 Like
You are correct, the founders were very wary of standing, professional armies.
That said, there has never been a time since our nation’s founding when we didn’t have an army. We’ve had a very, very small army- prior to the Constitution being ratified, the U.S. Army was so small that it could only guard our artillery supplies, and that’s it- but we’ve never had no army. It was a pretty short period of time before Congress raised an infantry regiment, and then another, and then authorized the Legion. Those were the same founders who expressed unease with standing armies.
2 Likes
Though I suspect the founders where more at ease with that decision knowing that for every member of the standing army they authorized there were likely dozens if not hundreds of civilians armed with weapons of similar capabilities to stand up to them if the army turned its attention to violating our freedoms.
We still have the numbers but our tools don’t match up any longer by a long shoot. And the anti self defense crowd wants to make that disparity even larger.
3 Likes
That is a good point. Militia could come almost as well armed as their professional counterparts. It varies. The militia might not have bayonets or artillery, for example, but they might show up with horses. Supply lines were a bigger problem, because they had to carry everything they needed with them. If they ventured too far from home, they quickly ran low on food or ammunition.
The single most significant difference between the professional armies under President Washington and the militias had to be training. Militia could perform well, but one never really knew what they would do under pressure. The professional infantry regiments trained together and were more reliable in combat, they simply didn’t have the numbers to take the battle to the enemy without militia auxiliaries.
3 Likes
In the age of modern warfare it would be difficult to field an effective army that was solely volunteer and part time trained at best.
I was thinking mostly from a standpoint of an armed citizenry being a deterrent to potential government tyranny forced upon us by a standing army. In the case of the early days the army would have to go into an area occupied by fairly equally well armed people who would know the terrain and have their own support network already in place. In some cases the citizens even had access to superior weapons such as the Kentucky rifle with far superior range and accuracy compared to the standard issue smoothbore musket.
But from a deterrent perspective, even though there is now a significant imbalance in weapon capability and training, The fact that there are millions of citizens armed with semiautomatic rifles must make people with despotic intentions at least think twice about using the military to subjugate the populace. Especially when they have to wonder how many people in the standing army will be willing to risk their lives to attack their fellow citizens.
Taking away our semi auto rifles, as the anti self defense crowd is attempting to do, makes that calculation shift noticeably in favor of the wanna be despots.
3 Likes
Ideally, they’d keep the CMP active and citizens would always be one generation behind the Army rifles. But you’re right, that still wouldn’t do much against Abrams or Apaches.
4 Likes
Ya, that part always makes me sad. I love my M1 Garand and it’s awesome that I can own a piece of history and still take it to the range today. But it’s a few generations behind. They initially brought to life the concept of “a well regulated militia”, but then were boxed into an older era, crushing the initial vision. It was crazy how difficult it was, just for them to be able to sell surplus 1911s.
3 Likes
Interesting article I ran across: Limits on Gun Ownership May Result in Tyranny (From Gun Control, P 123-130, 1992, Charles P Cozic, ed. -- See NCJ-160164) | Office of Justice Programs
2 Likes
I am a history buff , guys this was one of the best reads that I’ve had in decades , hats off , great job on all sides .
2 Likes
I take solace in the fact that history is replete with lesser armed and trained combatants not only taking on but giving far superior forces major difficulties. Just a few come to mind.
Afghans against the Soviets
Afghans against the US
A young newly formed Israel
Our own revolution against the vastly superior British empire
I’m sure with a few moments of thought we could all find a few more places in history where this is true.
4 Likes
Yeah, as much as I don’t like to admit it some goat herders about 118,000+ strong in Afghan gave our more advanced military a run for our money.
Those of us ready to stop the madness should just organize as people that want to keep and defend the constitution against the domestic enemies which are those that break the constitution especially those in office and think they can get away with it. Whenever they pass a law that is not constitutional we as a group say no and if they send feds to enforce unconstitutional law then as a group take up arms and stop them from enforcing illegal laws, hopefully just by disarming them and sending them on their way. The 2nd amendment exists for this reason. To put our foot down and say no to the fed when they break the constitution. By getting local Sheriff’s to back us up we would be unstoppable since the force of state law would back us. Key word we have to do it as a group otherwise done as a loner those in power who break the constitution would call us terrorists and throw lies about us as a group. With our local Sheriff’s as backup they’ll have a harder time, if we keep playing their stupid games we will never get anywhere in court.
1 Like
someone brought up the Geneva convention… last time I checked the U.S. NEVER signed on to it???
2 Likes
I think we have signed on to all the parts of the Geneva Convention but a couple of the parts may not have been ratified by the Senate?
But I’m pretty sure the GC only applies limitations to how countries can treat soldiers and civilians during military conflicts and some other war related agreements. Not sure how it would be relevant to our right to keep and bear arms?
If the treaty infringed on our right to keep and bear arms then it would be a constitutional violation for a government official to sign or ratify it.
1 Like
An important day today, National 2A Day, 4/17/23.
I had not known that
“The Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) that non-military people had the right to have arms in their homes for self-defense.”
To me, the voice of the people since the very start, through today, demonstrates the importance of these rights.
On a side note, call ahead to your range today to inquire if they are offering any discounts today.
History: (link)
3 Likes
Some people may not know this but on top of 2A at the Federal Level there all 50 states go further to define explicitly the right to defend yourself in their constitutions. A lot of these states are violating their own state constitutions which is a violation of civil rights and the states own residents should sue at a state level.
Some states like California only defend the right in the home:
Article I, Section 12
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, in the home, shall not be infringed.
Here is a list of all states that have a right to self-defense in their constitutions:
- Alabama
- Alaska
- Arizona
- Arkansas
- California
- Colorado
- Connecticut
- Delaware
- Florida
- Georgia
- Idaho
- Illinois
- Indiana
- Iowa
- Kansas
- Kentucky
- Louisiana
- Maine
- Maryland
- Massachusetts
- Michigan
- Minnesota
- Mississippi
- Missouri
- Montana
- Nebraska
- Nevada
- New Hampshire
- New Jersey
- New Mexico
- New York
- North Carolina
- North Dakota
- Ohio
- Oklahoma
- Oregon
- Pennsylvania
- Rhode Island
- South Carolina
- South Dakota
- Tennessee
- Texas
- Utah
- Vermont
- Virginia
- Washington
- West Virginia
- Wisconsin
- Wyoming
The right to self-defense is a fundamental right that is recognized by the United States Constitution and the constitutions of all 50 states. This right allows individuals to use force to protect themselves from harm, including deadly force if necessary. The specific laws governing self-defense vary from state to state, but the general principle is that individuals have the right to use force to protect themselves from harm, even if that means using deadly force.
Here are the states and territories that do not have a right to self-defense in their constitutions:
- District of Columbia
- Guam
- Puerto Rico
- U.S. Virgin Islands
The District of Columbia is a federal district and is not a state. Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands are U.S. territories and are not states. These jurisdictions do not have their own constitutions and are subject to the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Constitution does not explicitly mention a right to self-defense. However, the Supreme Court has ruled that the right to self-defense is a fundamental right that is protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
5 Likes