#MandatoryCarry or #RepealTheSecondAmendment

I have seen your chart; I can give an equally valid chart showing (I hope you're sitting down here) TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY MILLION cases of self defense. Ya, that's the claim. I give to 250 million number as much veracity as I do the "only about a thousand" claims. Even combining "all" cases, the DGU numbers can not reasonably exceed 2.5 million- That's assuming we include cases where X thought about robing/murdering/etc. Y, only to discover that Y had a gun, and abandoning the idea, before even committing to same. The number also can not reasonably be LESS than 1 million- Studies tell us for every one crime committed, 10 are conceived and abandoned BEFORE the commitment stage. Your understanding of the "militias" terminology in the Second Amendment has at least logical flaws (though I can't go so far as to call them logical fallacies); 1. Until the early 20th century (sometime between the World Wars), the militia quite literally meant "all able bodied males 16 to 65." 2. The militias purpose was local service; Fire, law enforcement (although not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, it's the posse comitatus), and defense of the town. (In the western towns, the local sheriff was as powerful as they were because they were essentially the local militry general.) The purpose to enshrining the militias per se was the knowledge that the State could not provide protection to everyone at all times- They needed the means to protect themselves. 3. On paper, at least, the militias of old are now the National Guards. (Each state still has a militia, and Sheriffs and Mayors can in fact call up the militia during natural disasters; It's usually the Chief of Police and Fire Chiefs who start the ball rolling, as has happened in living memory.) But, you want to hide behind the word "militia"? Very well. Report to the National Guard recruiter. Now, ME, I've already reported. (Pre-9/11, at that.) Then 2, 4, 6 years later, you get out- Then what? You abandon your right to self defense? That is illogical, at best, and ignores a fundamental truth (an outright maxim); Criminals will get guns, no matter what the law says. (:If you outlaw guns, outlaws will have guns.") Even in countries where guns are banned, "criminals still get guns." Paris, Britain, Australia, Sweden. Indeed, in the Sweden case, no better target profile COULD have been developed; An island (no escape possible, and rescue impaired by restrictions on access that made escape impossible), where guns had already "been" banned by owner's privilege. (Only the Aurora shooting makes a better example, as it was not only a contained environment but a highly restricted exit, and no evasion possible for the most part; it really IS a miracle anyone survived at all.) As to SCALIA, he also (loosely speaking) opined that felons may possess guns unless state explicitly prohibits it and that the right to gun ownership is individual, not collective (http://www.ontheissues.org...). Perhaps you were thinking of Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul STEVENS, who opined in "Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution" a 5-word revision to the Second Amendment "the right of the people to keep and bear arms - when serving in the Militia - shall not be infringed." You bring up the context of the Second Amendment, but you don't know it: The context, the world as it existed in the 1760's, "80's, and "90's, was that the State (both the plural and singular, the 13 and federal) -COULD NOT- have policemen, soldiers, or even private security guards ("night watchmen" as they were then known) standing in every village, let alone outside every home. Even today, that would be a practicable impossibility. And yet, attacks on homes DID happen. Indian and "Wildman" raids (whites who'd gone west, living like Indians, and usually on the run from some other matter that they'd rather not deal with) were still quite common. The people needed the means to protect THEMSELVES. The threat of Indian attacks has virtually disappeared (and Hollywood notwithstanding, wasn't the real threat then in any case), but the modern "wildmen" still does; Common criminals, whether they live in the "concrete jungle" or back woods, are still a very real threat. Mandatory Carry is meant to return to this, with a logical address of modern technology; The best militry analogy is the Phalanx; Overlapping protection where you can't actually defend yourself but you can depend upon the man (or other, now) next to you to provide protection. H, BTW- You can cite as many youtube videos as you want, but that's neither evidence, nor factually correct. And slaves were banned the possession of arms, unless directed so, in writing, by their master. Under the Code Noir, any white man who saw a slave or suspected slave in possession of arms (specifically firearms) was required to arrest said slave, deliver him to a judge, and, if necessary, to shoot and kill them. You say, "If everyone was ordered to carry a gun it wouldn't be a freedom now would it?" The State has ALWAYS had the power to force the people to buy things they don't necessarily want or need; Car insurance, for example. (This doctrine is enshrined in the Constitution, and I confess I don't remember where, but it is NOT one of the amendments. It's in the original text.) You argue that bring a gun to a non-lethal encounter "almost" always turns the situation lethal. Firstly, there's very little evidence of this (maybe 1% off all such cases), and secondly, if you're a law abiding citizen (ie, the kind that ARE allowed to keep and bear), then historically the presentation of a gun ends the encounter- The criminal runs for their life, because they KNOW if they get hit, they're going to prison. (Hospitals are REQUIRED to report suspected violence cases.) "The presence of a gun makes quarrels, disputes, assaults, and robberies more deadly. Many murders are committed in a moment of rage..." I can't dispute that. "MOST" people don't shoot without some anger. Those that do, end up in places where they're usually not allowed to leave, and not able to be tried for their actions. BTW- "Many." Not even "most" and far from "all." Noteworthy.