Thom says " If you have a legitimate reason to own a gun...fine."

116 posts / 0 new

Again the issue is muddied with what seems like the intent to misinform and distract. By speaking only in terms of the recent carnage the entire point of the 2nd Amendment is missed. It is not about hunting, sporting use or home/self protection but about the ability of a population to resist a government that is out of control to the point of tyranny. Period. Even if you believe that successful outcome unlikely (though the Brits felt the same way) it is not relevant. The rest is all smoke and mirrors. If the Bush administration did not convince you that this right is needed nothing will. I come at this with my left leaning creds fully intact and it is oh-so-tiresome to hear people I respect that repeatedly refuse to put the argument in proper context to debate it. I am not a member of the NRA because I think their M O is counter productive as well. If the actual context of constitutional gun ownership is discussed I have a legitimate reason for gun ownership. And so do you.

DAY51's picture
DAY51
Joined:
Dec. 26, 2012 2:21 pm

Comments

I agree with your 2nd amendment assessment but I believe that if our forefather's could have envisioned tanks, rpg's, drones, smart bombs, etc. that they would have emphasized more on the self defence reasons than that of government control.

One must look at the other side of the coin as well. What if your government is doing a good and reasonable job but a faction of one sort or another decided they wanted to turn our democracy into a dictatorship? Should the government and we as citizens just look the other way because the Constitution allows for overthrow? Where exactly is the line drawn on what groups and individuals can have access to in terms of weaponry?

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 6:53 am

You are both wrong on the 2nd amdt. The founders feared standing armies, and wanted a state based militia with individuals bearing arms.
But other than that, if we accept your premise then you would be right.

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 7:21 pm

The key here is right of the individual. Regarding the modernization of available weaponry, the goal of the 2nd ammendment that I set out above is exactly why the individual should own comparable arms. It is already a crime to overthrow (or plan to overthrow) the government. I won't grab a gun because I'm angry (those folks shouldn't own them and if you fixed THAT we would not be talking) but won't hesitate if I am afraid and have no viable option.

DAY51's picture
DAY51
Joined:
Dec. 26, 2012 2:21 pm
Quote Phaedrus76:You are both wrong on the 2nd amdt. The founders feared standing armies, and wanted a state based militia with individuals bearing arms. But other than that, if we accept your premise then you would be right.

Exactly who were those militia? I am pretty certain that the domestic door kicker will be made up of police and national guard (militia?) should the albeit extreme case of confiscation become the "answer". Both would be under emergency federal control. Not to swim to the deep end so soon but I'm just saying...

DAY51's picture
DAY51
Joined:
Dec. 26, 2012 2:21 pm

The way to overthrow a military empire is not be using their best card, guns and all that other lethal crap. Try paralyzing it economically, or with bureaucracy. Slow down, be literal about everything. Do Street Theater and have Peace Parties. Try to be funny and human in contrast to the grim reign of fear and culture of dread. Don't believe in the principalities and powers of this world.

Non-violence and general strikes are traditional tactics. Feed the poor. Heal the sick. Pay attention to what is not working and organize there. Instead of fighting the army, expose the fraud. Tell better stories and show better films. Play better music.

The 2nd Amendment was written in the wake of Shay's Rebellion. It replaced the looser Articles of Confederation, and the Founders still did not found a standing army. It did not take long, however, for that to happen, and our National Guards are not run on the Swiss model. The modern military is not about calling up civilians to bring their guns and fill the ranks of the local militia. The idea that having these guns owned by civilians serves either a national defense or a civil rebellion function is no longer true if it ever was.

It is time to demythologize the gun in America. Tool or toy, but not really weapon of self-defense in all but the more exceptional situations. I pose the right not to be shot.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 11:15 am

So that "deep end" is you reject the 2nd amdt as written, and if confronted with a change of the laws you'd go Rambo on your local police?
Thanks.

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 7:21 pm

My own opinion is that strong gun laws will not do much to retard our gun problem. There are just too many inappropriate guns out there. Laws can help keep it from getting any worst, but the only laws that would actually help make it better would involve confiscation, and we can't do that. Drive them underground. Make them incredibly expensive. Let the illegal gun dealers kill eachother off in turf wars. That's probably about the best we can do.

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote DAY51:By speaking only in terms of the recent carnage the entire point of the 2nd Amendment is missed. It is not about hunting, sporting use or home/self protection but about the ability of a population to resist a government that is out of control to the point of tyranny. Period.
If true... then you'll EASILY find this stated role for these well-regulated militias in either the Constitution or the Militia Acts of 1792.

I won't hold my breath.

These "well regulated" militias were to be just that. WELL-REGULATED. They have specified uses in the Constitution and one is they can be use to suppress insurrection. Do you seriously believe that the Framers... in large part brought together for the Constitutional Convention BECAUSE OF AN ARMED INSURRECTION... one where Dan Shays led 1000+ men and attacked the federal armory in Springfield MA, would be SYMPATHETIC to armed mobs?

If the Framers trusted the People there would not be so many checks upon them in the Constitution. Ya, we're not even trusted to elect a president without a possible veto from the Electoral College... and the antidemocratic Senate has a check on the House... but you actually believe the Framers WELCOMED armed mobs to threaten the new Republic???? Forget the quotes some might have uttered. SHOW US THE LAW THAT ENSHRINES THIS POWER FOR THE MILITIA!!!

My god.... give us a break.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm
Quote DAY51:It is not about hunting, sporting use or home/self protection but about the ability of a population to resist a government that is out of control to the point of tyranny. Period.
Sorry, DAY51, I don't get it. Is the assumption that this "population" will open their can of armed whupass on DC?.....Is the assumption that U.S. military won't have a say in the matter?

Good Luck with that.

al3's picture
al3
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

[quote=Bush_Wacker]

I agree with your 2nd amendment assessment but I believe that if our forefather's could have envisioned tanks, rpg's, drones, smart bombs, etc. that they would have emphasized more on the self defence reasons than that of government control.

One must look at the other side of the coin as well. What if your government is doing a good and reasonable job but a faction of one sort or another decided they wanted to turn our democracy into a dictatorship? Should the government and we as citizens just look the other way because the Constitution allows for overthrow? Where exactly is the line drawn on what groups and individuals can have access to in terms of weaponry?

/quote]

I love how the left frames the point of protection against the government from "tyranny and oppression". They say that this point is invalid for the 2nd as their is no way that the people can take on the U.S. military; the most powerful military on earth today. I say, I agree on a toe to toe battle. But, I say that they have framed the argument wrong. They are operating out of a percieved notion of how the conflict would go down. How do they know how it would go down? Here is a more likely scenerio.

A dictator emerges in our government. Men go to their arms to form a militia to resist and take back possession of their country. Classically trained military officers, retires and active (West Point, Annapolis grads etc.) defect. They head up and train a civilian militia, much as was done in the Civil war for the confederates. Their may be great losses in the initial days, as the government has access to higher technological weapons. But, gorrilla warfare and sabotage allow the rebels to get a hold of these high tech weapons. Now, the power balance is more equal, and a victory is much more attainable. But, none of this would have been possible without a certain level of basic armament of the patriots.

Look. In Vietnam and Iraq the US had overwhelming military technology, and yet these wars dragged on for a decade. The opposition had basic dated weapondry from old Russian military stores. How is this possible? Because, when the people's are motivated, they will stop at nothing to defeat the enemy. It' s just a question of how long one wants the battle to rage, and how many lives one is willing to accept; how the deck is stacked. Give our citizens access to modern semi-automatic weapons and they have a better chance to end the conflict more quickly. Reduce them to archaic bolt action rifles only, and the conflict will be drawn out longer, or may in fact be lost altogether. It' just a question of where one wants to draw the line as to what kinds of guns civilians can possess.

Just like many other things, guns come down to a cost benefit analysis. Society looks at the cost of something vs. the benefit. Their are many lives lost every year from car accidents, but we don't ban cars. Occationally, a plane crashes and takes many lives all at once, but we still don't ban airplanes. Why? Because, society says that their is more value in the car or plane than x amount of lives lost from them. Sadly, the libs on the left see no benefit in the gun. To them, it is just a tool for killing and the taking of innocent lives. Well, yeah! Dughhhh! If one looks at it that way, then guns DON'T have any value. But, I say they are refusing to look at the benefit side.

The benefit side is protection from foreign invasion and tyranny and oppression from inside the country. A government in fear of the people does the will of the people. And, as long as we live in a system where our politics are working, then we don't need to worry about guns. But, what if it were to fail? Perhaps the mere knowlede that the masses of the citizendry have arms prevents the thought of this from ever happening. Remove that checkstop and lookout. Anything is possible then.

The libs would have you think that anyone with this mindset is a cook, a fringe wacko just waiting to go rogue. But how about this?Hitler, Stalin, Mao just to name a few. All despots throughout history have siezed power and maintained control over their peoples because the people had no way to resist. Freedom did not exist under the rule of these totalitarian men.

So to all of those self righteous liberals out there that demonize the gun, the NRA and anyone who believes in them I say this. Go ahead with your life. Maintain your vegan diet. Marry your pig if you want. Ride your bike instead of a car. Build you house out of mud so you don't kill a tree. But leave freedom to the real men. Men that are willing to fight and die for it because it is that precious to them. And remember that it is because of them that you are able to live your live any dam way you please!

Amen

TChamp3121's picture
TChamp3121
Joined:
Nov. 16, 2010 4:20 pm

Pierpont-

Cherry picking at it's finest. You leave out " the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Telling, that.

Al3-

It's not about whupass in DC but creating an unsustainable position for the tyrant militarily if it went that far. There are not nearly enough armed forces to maintain control on the US unless the population is not armed. It will fall to police, some of whom will not go along with the plan.

TChamp-

I would probably be one of those libs you slam (minus the gun issue) but you see how the scenario might happen the way I do. 90% of the people that I have been on the other side of this conversation with have never been around guns in any form and are so misinformed which stokes the fear of guns (and people that have them). There are non gun folks that can come around to a more honest look at the issue but Ted Nugent isn't the guy to do the convincing.

DAY51's picture
DAY51
Joined:
Dec. 26, 2012 2:21 pm
Quote DAY51:

Pierpont-

Cherry picking at it's finest. You leave out " the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Telling, that.

I'm not leaving out ANYTHING.

If the militias were made up of freemen ("The People" never meant everyone unless you're claiming slaves had the right to own guns.) who were MANDATED to buy, thus they OWNED, their own arms... then there was no one else to be disarmed, was there?

YOU, however are evading my questions... first ignoring the fact that the Second is the ONLY one of the Bill Of Rights to explain the reason for the right... in this case it's the WELL REGULATED MILITIA. We KNOW who this militia is because IT'S IN THE CONSTITUTION. It's role is SPECIFIED... and one role is to SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS like Shays Rebellion. Since this militia has never been abolished by amendment it must still be around... and it is: the state NATIONAL GUARDS. They are now provided their weapons by the federal government. The Second is obsolete. If there's a right to own a weapon it's an unenumerated right in the Ninth.

So let's see where we are... you might dig up some OPINIONS, but have NO proof of ANY law that the Framers/First Congress/states EVER wanted these militias to be an armed counterweight to the federal government... and NO responses to any of the other points I raised. You base your argument on what? A bastardized reading of the Second? And let me guess, in the 3.5 years between the ratification of the Constitution and the ratification of the Second... there was NO such role for these militias?

Are there any intelligent people out there that can defend Day's claims by showing us IN LAW these well-regulated militias were meant to threaten the new federal government?

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm

State law and state constitutions may change, but the progress of Second Amendment jurisprudence is glacial. As a matter of pure legal precedent, the Justice Department likely has the winning argument in this debate simply because the last time the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on this point was in 1939. In United States v. Miller, the court held that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is not applicable in the absence of a reasonable relationship to the "well regulated militia" provision of the Second Amendment. The court stated that:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.

The Supreme Court has turned down every opportunity to accept a new case and clarify the question of whether Miller established a definitive test requiring some connection between guns and state militias or whether it was announcing a one-time-only rule about Jack Miller and his shotgun. Still, the lower courts have followed the first view, and, in the wake of Miller, virtually every lower court has accepted the state militia/collective rights test as a settled point of law. While a fascinating normative debate over whether or not the right should be an individual one rages in the academy, in think tanks, and around the candy machines at NRA headquarters, the Second Amendment issue is not a close call in the courthouse. Eminent legal scholars, including Sanford Levinson and historians such as Emory's Michael Bellesiles, have done some staggering scholarly work on the subject of the original intent of the Framers and the prevalence of guns at the time of the founding of the country. [Updated May 8, 2002: Bellesiles' methodology has recently come under fire by constitutional scholars.] None of it has induced the Supreme Court to step into the fray.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/recycled/2007/11/who_has_the_right_to_bear_arms.html

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 6:53 am
Quote Pierpont:Are there any intelligent people out there that can defend Day's claims by showing us IN LAW these well-regulated militias were meant to threaten the new federal government?

The crux of the matter here is what's meant by the security of a free state. If we're to include in this what's written in the Federalist Papers... even if this is NOT specifically stated in the Constitution or Militia Acts, where these well-regulated militias are to be a possible counterweight to a standing army or elite corps... the idea here is STILL the militias would have to be WELL REGULATED... even if inferior to a highly trained army. This does NOT apply to Joe Sixpack shooting cans at the local sandpit. This well regulated militia is now THE NATIONAL GUARD. And last I looked these militias are well armed.

If there's an individual right to own a weapon for self-protection, hunting, or recreation that once only belonged to freemen but was generally extended to most adults, it's not in the Second, it's in the Ninth. Problem here is both parties... but especially the GOP, is trying to bury the Ninth... all because they've deluded themselves they have a monopoly on respect for the Constitution.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm

@Pierpont Is your obsession so overwhelming now that you've resorted to replying to your own posts? 15 -> 13 Those voices you hear in your head....they are real.

mjolnir's picture
mjolnir
Joined:
Mar. 3, 2011 11:42 am

Thanks so much for the "intelligent people" dig. So helpful and f u 2.

Go back to my original subject line for a second and answer the following. In an armed encounter with ___________, out to do you harm, you would:

A. rather have a comparable firearm and know how to use it.

B. or not.

Because I choose A. I am not a bad person. Because you choose B. neither are you.

Now back to the sandpit.

DAY51's picture
DAY51
Joined:
Dec. 26, 2012 2:21 pm
Quote mjolnir:

@Pierpont Is your obsession so overwhelming now that you've resorted to replying to your own posts? 15 -> 13 Those voices you hear in your head....they are real.

Gee M, I'm partially conceding a point and you have a problem with that????

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm
Quote Pierpont:
Quote mjolnir:

@Pierpont Is your obsession so overwhelming now that you've resorted to replying to your own posts? 15 -> 13 Those voices you hear in your head....they are real.

Gee M, I'm partially conceding a point and you have a problem with that????

No problem, just amusement. It's been a boring day.

mjolnir's picture
mjolnir
Joined:
Mar. 3, 2011 11:42 am
Quote DAY51:

Thanks so much for the "intelligent people" dig. So helpful and f u 2.

Go back to my original subject line for a second and answer the following. In an armed encounter with ___________, out to do you harm, you would:

A. rather have a comparable firearm and know how to use it.

B. or not.

Because I choose A. I am not a bad person. Because you choose B. neither are you.

Now back to the sandpit.

TRANSLATION... you STILL can't prove your points... and AGAIN choose evasion. Your original post was about the MILITIA... and you're now talking about SELF protection. How many more posts devoid of content do you intend to post? Please explain how YOU are part of that "well regulated militia" mentioned in the Constitution? Unless you're in the National Guard, you're not. If you are, you're weapons are supplied. So PLEASE stop pretending the Second applies to you.

BTW, I'M ALSO A GUN OWNER! I just don't see the Second in ANY way applying to me.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm
Quote Pierpont:[...]Please explain how YOU are part of that "well regulated militia" mentioned in the Constitution? Unless you're in the National Guard, you're not.[...]
Perhaps DAY51 is part of the "unorganized militia" as defined by 10 USC § 311 (b)(2).

mjolnir's picture
mjolnir
Joined:
Mar. 3, 2011 11:42 am
Quote TChamp3121:
Quote Bush_Wacker:

I agree with your 2nd amendment assessment but I believe that if our forefather's could have envisioned tanks, rpg's, drones, smart bombs, etc. that they would have emphasized more on the self defence reasons than that of government control.

One must look at the other side of the coin as well. What if your government is doing a good and reasonable job but a faction of one sort or another decided they wanted to turn our democracy into a dictatorship? Should the government and we as citizens just look the other way because the Constitution allows for overthrow? Where exactly is the line drawn on what groups and individuals can have access to in terms of weaponry?

I love how the left frames the point of protection against the government from "tyranny and oppression". They say that this point is invalid for the 2nd as their is no way that the people can take on the U.S. military;

The men who wrote the 2nd amdt wrote it to allow for a militia and to make standing armies unnecessary. Your premise is still false.

Quote TChamp3121:

the most powerful military on earth today. I say, I agree on a toe to toe battle. But, I say that they have framed the argument wrong. They are operating out of a percieved notion of how the conflict would go down. How do they know how it would go down? Here is a more likely scenerio.

Look. In Vietnam and Iraq the US had overwhelming military technology, and yet these wars dragged on for a decade. The opposition had basic dated weapondry from old Russian military stores. How is this possible? Because, when the people's are motivated, they will stop at nothing to defeat the enemy. It' s just a question of how long one wants the battle to rage, and how many lives one is willing to accept; how the deck is stacked. Give our citizens access to modern semi-automatic weapons and they have a better chance to end the conflict more quickly. Reduce them to archaic bolt action rifles only, and the conflict will be drawn out longer, or may in fact be lost altogether. It' just a question of where one wants to draw the line as to what kinds of guns civilians can possess.

Interesting rightwing treasonous rebel fantasy. Before you take that plunge read up on Gen. Sherman's March to the Sea. Or better yet, look into the recent "accomplishments" of the graduates of the School of the Americas. We changed the named some years ago, it is based out of Ft.Benning in Georgia. They do fascinating work, psychological warfare is the name empires use to promote what decent people call terrorism.

Also, remember in Vietnam and Iraq, the resistors had nothing to lose except a lifetime of serfdom. An American with a job, and a relatively decent life is unlikely to be willing to live in the wild for 10 years, eating rice and cockroaches.

Quote TChamp3121:

Just like many other things, guns come down to a cost benefit analysis. Society looks at the cost of something vs. the benefit. Their are many lives lost every year from car accidents, but we don't ban cars. Occationally, a plane crashes and takes many lives all at once, but we still don't ban airplanes. Why? Because, society says that their is more value in the car or plane than x amount of lives lost from them. Sadly, the libs on the left see no benefit in the gun. To them, it is just a tool for killing and the taking of innocent lives. Well, yeah! Dughhhh! If one looks at it that way, then guns DON'T have any value. But, I say they are refusing to look at the benefit side.

We also do not allow everybody access to airplanes or automobiles. We have requirements and enforcement mechnamisms in place to keep people from operating both items that society has deemed are unworthy.

Quote TChamp3121:

The benefit side is protection from foreign invasion and tyranny and oppression from inside the country. A government in fear of the people does the will of the people. And, as long as we live in a system where our politics are working, then we don't need to worry about guns. But, what if it were to fail? Perhaps the mere knowlede that the masses of the citizendry have arms prevents the thought of this from ever happening. Remove that checkstop and lookout. Anything is possible then.

The libs would have you think that anyone with this mindset is a kook (sp), a fringe wacko just waiting to go rogue. But how about this?Hitler, Stalin, Mao just to name a few. All despots throughout history have siezed power and maintained control over their peoples because the people had no way to resist. Freedom did not exist under the rule of these totalitarian men.

Hitler was brought to power by the gun, a mob of fascists with guns. Stalin was elected General Secretary in a peaceful election, although a mob of communists with guns lead by Lenin did overthrow the tyrannical Czars who had oppressed the Russians for 7 centuries. Mao came to power with the gun, a mob of communists with guns.

Quote TChamp3121:

So to all of those self righteous liberals out there that demonize the gun, the NRA and anyone who believes in them I say this. Go ahead with your life. Maintain your vegan diet. Marry your pig if you want. Ride your bike instead of a car. Build you house out of mud so you don't kill a tree. But leave freedom to the real men. Men that are willing to fight and die for it because it is that precious to them. And remember that it is because of them that you are able to live your live any dam way you please!

Amen

No, we are able to live freely because of civlian control of the military. Rightwingers in this country have always sought to use the military to suppress the people either directly, or through rebellions or coups. After the US War of the Rebellion Lincoln should have ordered Grant to hold tribunals for every last rebel, and crucified every last one found guilty of treason. Reconstruction was too kind.

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 7:21 pm
Quote DAY51:

Thanks so much for the "intelligent people" dig. So helpful and f u 2.

Go back to my original subject line for a second and answer the following. In an armed encounter with ___________, out to do you harm, you would:

A. rather have a comparable firearm and know how to use it.

B. or not.

Because I choose A. I am not a bad person. Because you choose B. neither are you.

Now back to the sandpit.

I put on another thread a link to a news clip of "trained" armed people resisting a school shooter. The take away is that in order to have a reasonable chance to confront an armed attacker, the armed citizen requires weeks of police training at a minimum, plus practice at least every 2 weeks. Practice does not include shooting leisurely at soda cans.

The reality is in an attack, or any crisis, the first two things to die are 1) planning and 2) calm reactions. Even trained police officers fail in these situations. A firearm is 45 times as likely to injure or kill a family member or friend of the gun enthusiast than it is to ever be used in some heroic fashion. More firearms equals more deaths, most often of innocent people. The few exceptions may all get published each month by the nra, but until those exceptions vastly outnumber the 29,000 who die every year from gun violence the costs are too much.

We need to have gun enthusiasts be required to maintain insurance on their firearms, keep them locked in secure facilities, and tax gunpowder highly enough to offset the costs of the deaths, injuries and police forces required to counter the gun enthusiasts drug-and- alcohol- fueled, paranoid rampages.

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 7:21 pm
Quote DAY51:Al3-

It's not about whupass in DC but creating an unsustainable position for the tyrant militarily if it went that far. There are not nearly enough armed forces to maintain control on the US unless the population is not armed. It will fall to police, some of whom will not go along with the plan.

Noted. However “a government out of control to the point of tyranny” doesn’t present any defined events or clarity against which the armed masses can rally and unite against. Absent a overt public power grab….it’s more likely, it’s a slow and imperceptible coup, tons of divisive propaganda, thus many perceived bad guys, a change that’s amorphous and doesn’t present many clear flash points for action……kind of like what’s happening now with the growth of fascist corporate/government collusion…and after 30 years of that…for the most part, the only people getting shot aren’t responsible for any of that..….So I believe, in that light, what’s more likely, as "tyranny" occurs, is the real bad guys watch and profit as we all shoot each other. And Tchamp – your point is noted but in Vietnam and Iraq as well as Afghanistan, the invading foreign imperialists presented a flashpoint against which unity – and relatively effective “citizen” resistance could be achieved. Even then, there could have been ways, and there are tools we all know could have used – if it was easy to ignore collateral damage, and had the stomach for our own casualties – that even those relatively united “freedom fighters” probably could have been crushed...

Now – if China invaded us, and somehow the U.S. military was incapacitated, and our very existence were threatened, all bets would be off, and you’d see the largest, most powerful citizen resistance ever seen.

Note I'm not against ownership of guns. While I see the benefits in shooting sports as well as personal protection, I still don't buy the "arming against the government" scenario as the only reason to have one.

al3's picture
al3
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote mjolnir:
Quote Pierpont:[...]Please explain how YOU are part of that "well regulated militia" mentioned in the Constitution? Unless you're in the National Guard, you're not.[...]
Perhaps DAY51 is part of the "unorganized militia" as defined by 10 USC § 311 (b)(2).

It's pretty hard to make a point about ORIGINAL INTENT... and the CLEAR LANGUAGE of the Second Amendment concerning a WELL REGULATED MILITIA... the one specifically mentioned IN THE CONSTITUTION, by refering to a law written in... was it 1907? This is a NEW Militia and the law itself makes it clear it's NOT the organized or well regulated militia:

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are - (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/10/A/I/13/311

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm
Quote Pierpont:It's pretty hard to make a point about ORIGINAL INTENT...

by referring to a law written in... was it 1907?

Of course such retroactive rewritings of history are not uncommon here. Cap tried to "prove" the Framers were always against slavery and the Bill Of Rights was even meant to apply to slaves.

It's one of the more amusing threads on this board.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm

The National Guard is not the peoples militia. It is just the branch of the governments army that has its theatre of war within our country. It answers to the government.

TChamp3121's picture
TChamp3121
Joined:
Nov. 16, 2010 4:20 pm
Quote TChamp3121:

The National Guard is not the peoples militia. It is just the branch of the governments army that has its theatre of war within our country. It answers to the government.

The state National Guards are the old "well regulated militias" of the Constitution. Just look at its stated purposes in the Constitution. Since that militia was never amended out of existance... it must still be around... it's just has an expanded role. The unregulated militia is a 20th century creation.

Article 1:

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Article 2:
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;

The discipline prescribed by Congress can be found in the Militia Acts of 1792.
http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm

"Original Intent" as defined by whom? You? Are you claiming that 10 USC § 311 (b)(2) as the definition of "the unorganized militia" is a wholesale fabrication since it doesn't fit with your conceptualization of a "collective" interpretation of the 2nd? The concept of the unorganized militia being a body of self-armed citizenry extends back through colonial history and indeed into 7th century England as variations on the theme of the "fyrd".

mjolnir's picture
mjolnir
Joined:
Mar. 3, 2011 11:42 am

Oh no, now facts are going to get in the way of a rightwinger's concept of reality. And the personal attacks begin in 3, 2...

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 7:21 pm

[/quote]TRANSLATION... you STILL can't prove your points... and AGAIN choose evasion. Your original post was about the MILITIA... and you're now talking about SELF protection. How many more posts devoid of content do you intend to post? Please explain how YOU are part of that "well regulated militia" mentioned in the Constitution? Unless you're in the National Guard, you're not. If you are, you're weapons are supplied. So PLEASE stop pretending the Second applies to you.

BTW, I'M ALSO A GUN OWNER! I just don't see the Second in ANY way applying to me.

[/quote]

Well, thanks for the translation. And yes, self protection. Though I would extend it to the protection of others.

To the original argument, the blank can be filled any number of ways that still say private ownership is a plus. Grandpa's deer rifle may be a Browning BAR but any competent machinist could make a mag that holds 20 rounds that functions 100%. Just like an AR10. There is NO difference other than cosmetic, see 94 ban (bayonet lugs and flash hiders are banned? It's almost comic). BTW I can drop an empty 10 rd. BAN mag and be dumping the next 10 rd. BAN mag in about 2 seconds. A ban is just more knee jerk feel good BS. So we must coniscate! Which of course means if I don't turn in, register, sell back, pick a method, I am now a felon (which also makes it illeagal for me to own a firearm or vote the guy out). BTW if asshole X is going on a killing spree it's a done deal wether its an AK or a gallon of premium unleaded. If Mom had locked her shit up as anybody with an ounce of responsibility would have done, she might be alive. Though had she lived IMO she should have been prosecuted for the damage done which is to some degree her fault (even excluding raising an screwed up demon).

So you as a gun owner a part of the "problem"? Shame. If the 2nd doesn't apply, great, quit flogging it and go to why YOU should have a gun but I should not. YOU should be able to disarm ME? Awesome.

Are you advocating confiscation?

DAY51's picture
DAY51
Joined:
Dec. 26, 2012 2:21 pm
Quote mjolnir:

"Original Intent" as defined by whom? You? Are you claiming that 10 USC § 311 (b)(2) as the definition of "the unorganized militia" is a wholesale fabrication since it doesn't fit with your conceptualization of a "collective" interpretation of the 2nd? The concept of the unorganized militia being a body of self-armed citizenry extends back through colonial history and indeed into 7th century England as variations on the theme of the "fyrd".

Who said it's a "fabrication"? It's the creation of a NEW "militia".The law STATES CLEARLY this new militia is NOT the National Guard which is the well regulated militias of the Second.

Are you suggesting laws written 130 years AFTER the Constitution was written reflect the intent of the Framers or the First Congress? We KNOW what the Original Intent of the Militia was from LAWS of the day. Where in the Constitution, the Second Amendment, or the Militia Acts is there ANY mention of a unorganized or undisciplined militia??? And it doesn't matter what the hell came before the Constitution's intent of the militia... it only matter WHAT BECAME LAW. I'm shocked anyone should have a problem with this.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm

As defined by the const. and the laws written in the time frame from 1782 - 1810 or so.

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 7:21 pm

@ Day: PLEASE learn how to use quotes here. It's the least we can ask.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm
Quote Continuing to evade every question posed to him DAY51:Well, thanks for the translation. And yes, self protection. Though I would extend it to the protection of others.

To the original argument, the blank can be filled any number of ways that still say private ownership is a plus. Grandpa's deer rifle may be a Browning BAR but any competent machinist could make a mag that holds 20 rounds that functions 100%. Just like an AR10. There is NO difference other than cosmetic, see 94 ban (bayonet lugs and flash hiders are banned? It's almost comic). BTW I can drop an empty 10 rd. BAN mag and be dumping the next 10 rd. BAN mag in about 2 seconds.

Who cares. Answer the questions I asked.

Quote Now resorting to a red herring, Day51: A ban is just more knee jerk feel good BS. So we must coniscate! Which of course means if I don't turn in, register, sell back, pick a method, I am now a felon (which also makes it illeagal for me to own a firearm or vote the guy out). BTW if asshole X is going on a killing spree it's a done deal wether its an AK or a gallon of premium unleaded. If Mom had locked her shit up as anybody with an ounce of responsibility would have done, she might be alive. Though had she lived IMO she should have been prosecuted for the damage done which is to some degree her fault (even excluding raising an screwed up demon).

Do you have ANY knowledge about the Constitution, the Second, or the Militia Acts? If you do it might be time to let us in on it instead of post after post of nonsense.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm
Quote Pierpont:
Quote Continuing to evade every question posed to him DAY51:Well, thanks for the translation. And yes, self protection. Though I would extend it to the protection of others.

To the original argument, the blank can be filled any number of ways that still say private ownership is a plus. Grandpa's deer rifle may be a Browning BAR but any competent machinist could make a mag that holds 20 rounds that functions 100%. Just like an AR10. There is NO difference other than cosmetic, see 94 ban (bayonet lugs and flash hiders are banned? It's almost comic). BTW I can drop an empty 10 rd. BAN mag and be dumping the next 10 rd. BAN mag in about 2 seconds.

Who cares. Answer the questions I asked.

Quote Now resorting to a red herring, Day51: A ban is just more knee jerk feel good BS. So we must coniscate! Which of course means if I don't turn in, register, sell back, pick a method, I am now a felon (which also makes it illeagal for me to own a firearm or vote the guy out). BTW if asshole X is going on a killing spree it's a done deal wether its an AK or a gallon of premium unleaded. If Mom had locked her shit up as anybody with an ounce of responsibility would have done, she might be alive. Though had she lived IMO she should have been prosecuted for the damage done which is to some degree her fault (even excluding raising an screwed up demon).

Do you have ANY knowledge about the Constitution, the Second, or the Militia Acts? If you do it might be time to let us in on it instead of post after post of nonsense.

Okay, soooo sorry. No, really, I am. What question would you like me to answer? You advocate something though what is unclear. Ask away.

DAY51's picture
DAY51
Joined:
Dec. 26, 2012 2:21 pm
Quote DAY51:Okay, soooo sorry. No, really, I am. What question would you like me to answer? You advocate something though what is unclear. Ask away.

They are not that hard to find... they start in my very first post to you... you know the first of my posts you avoided addressing.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm

Yeah, I just looked. Damn! You're right, I did not answer them.

DAY51's picture
DAY51
Joined:
Dec. 26, 2012 2:21 pm
Quote TChamp3121:

The National Guard is not the peoples militia. It is just the branch of the governments army that has its theatre of war within our country. It answers to the government.

Seems the National Guard knows it is the direct legal descendent of the old well regulated militias...

Legal Basis of the National Guard

The National Guard's charter is the Constitution of the United States. Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution contains a series of "militia clauses," vesting distinct authority and responsibilities in the federal government and the state governments. These clauses and follow-on legislation have sculpted the Guard as you see it today. Here are summaries that will help you understand how the Guard came to be what it is today.

http://www.arng.army.mil/aboutus/history/Pages/ConstitutionalCharteroftheGuard.aspx

The Dick Act of 1903 superseded the Militia Acts of 1792 and the old well-regulated militias were renamed the National Guard. The creation of the unorganized militia doesn't happen until 1908 and it clearly makes a distinction between the organized militia... the National Guard, and this NEW unorganized militia. The Second Amendment speaks ONLY about preventing the federal government from disarming the well regulated militia... which the 1903 law arguably makes moot since the federal government starts to arm the Guard.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm

As a clear and definitive statement of the "armed populace" required to resist the tyrant take-over theory of gun ownership, TChump deserves our thanks. There it is clearly stated and summed up in this pathetic coda in the last paragraph, concluding with the Mancard Creed. "But leave freedom to the real men. Men that are willing to fight and die for it because it is that precious to them." With the obligatory insult, "And remember that it is because of them that you are able to live your life any dam(n) way you please!"

I have had it with you macho insecurity aholes and your "real men" bullshit! It is so fucking pathetic. You cannot see the real world for the gunsights getting in the way. All the things you said about civil resistance get it wrong. It is because of the power of the people, not of their guns, that they win. It is the guns they seize and the troops that turn to join the resistance that plays any armed part in the revolution. It is not the armed groups operating in the name of the people without having come from an organized popular resistance that will ever win any broad following. They just justify the government having more guns and fewer civil rights laws to go after these 'revolutionaries.'

The best alternatives to a failed election system is not gunfire. Non-violence is far more powerful and confounding for the tyrants. Economic tactics can erode the structures of the power towers, but disaffection is about the loss of legitimacy upon which the power of the tyrants rests.

BTW Phaedrus, while there are enough court prophets to add preachers to your banished group, you must note that it is also the preachers who call out against the oppression of the rich and corrupt and predict the Day of the Lord. The loss of legitimacy is what these prophets point out, largely for neglecting social justice.

As to that bottom line about guns with the good weighed against the bad, I cannot see the "good" in stockpiles of arms or "patriots" ready to declare that they are the real men ready to fight and die for whatever they call democracy. The dangers and downsides are too obvious and manifest. The actual gain is negligible given the fact that any successful overthrow of the American Empire would require the revolt of its own armed forces far more than an uprising of romanticists with guns. There is far more important organizing work and ground preparation to do for us to be able to hold any turf or have any support among the people in the first place. Armed 'militias' undermine that very community solidarity and preparation that would be required for them to have any positive role to play down the line.

Real men don't go around boasting that they are real men. They don't romanticize violence or toughness either. They don't underestimate the power of love or the work of healing. They let others write their reviews.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 11:15 am

Lots of love and healing went into the much endorsed "Arab spring" that will come back to haunt us.

Redwing's picture
Redwing
Joined:
Jun. 21, 2012 4:12 am

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2985014934048616285&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr#r[10]

From here:Perpich v. Department of Defense, 496 US 334 - Supreme Court 1990

"The Dick Act divided the class of able-bodied male citizens between 18 and 45 years of age into an "organized militia" to be known as the National Guard of the several States, and the remainder of which was then described as the "reserve militia," and which later statutes have termed the "unorganized militia." The statute created a table of organization for the National Guard conforming to that of the Regular Army, and provided that federal funds and Regular Army instructors should be used to train its members.[11] It is undisputed that Congress was acting pursuant to the Militia Clauses of the Constitution in passing the Dick Act.[...]"

Emphasis mine, leading me to believe that sCOTUS saw a direct lineage for both a "select" militia and an "unorganized militia" springing from the Constitution, not from legislative acts of the first Congress and certainly not as an entirely new creation as suggested by Pierpont.

George Mason, who was unequivocal that the militia consisted of all "the People" and was one of the first founders to suggest some Federal control of the militia in an effort to sidestep a standing army said this:

http://www.constitution.org/dfc/dfc_0818.htm

"The Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787
by James Madison"

"SATURDAY AUGUST 18. IN CONVENTION"

'Mr. MASON introduced the subject of regulating the militia. He thought such a power necessary to be given to the Genl. Government. He hoped there would be no standing army in time of peace, unless it might be for a few garrisons. The Militia ought therefore to be the more effectually prepared for the public defence. Thirteen States will never concur in any one system, if the displining of the Militia be left in their hands. If they will not give up the power over the whole, they probably will over a part as a select militia. He moved as an addition to the propositions just referred to the Committee of detail, & to be referred in like manner, "a power to regulate the militia."'

I reiterate: " If they will not give up the power over the whole, they probably will over a part as a select militia." States would give up control of part of the "whole militia" leaving what, the "unorganized militia".

mjolnir's picture
mjolnir
Joined:
Mar. 3, 2011 11:42 am

Dear Redwing, I fear you have lost all perspective on where the "Arab Spring" falls in the "blowback" the American Empire has accumulated over the past half century plus. You might not be able to see how it fits with the other European colonists whose empires are still blowing back against what was left behind.

The basic point is that there is no neat and clean way out of the mess the Neocons and Cold Warriors have created over many decades. Where ethnic and religious differences have been used or established in power to the detriment of others, it is unrealistic to expect that payback will not take place. Where chaos allows the worst elements to flourish, they will. Blowback is a nasty mix of real grievances lacking any due process and left to stew. Add a large batch of locally produced paranoid mythology to justify the victims of injustice in their holy vengeance, and you have something neither diplomacy nor military provided 'security' can fix.

I have been a critic of American geopolitics for over half a century myself. Beyond a critic of the sins of the good guys, I am a critic of the enterprise and the fantasy in which we 'star' as the 'good guys' inn our own mythology.

There is a great irony in our self-image. We indict ourselves by what we bless ourselves with. Still, it is hard to top the established paranoia of the Cheney for evil. The "Arab Spring" at least began to move the ground under the National Security State Imperium where dealing with dictators worked for our legions. As Mr. Hagel is discovering, saying anything honest about Israel, outside of Israel, will get you AIPac'd. Once again, that leverage comes from the Right and makes any intelligent, sane or honest initiative in foreign policy a political nightmare.

I could agree with a nuanced criticism of the continuation of the Empire under Obama where what is done to complete the evil mission with great competence still fails and is still evil. I can appreciate why decent people think that preserving America while pursuing incremental reforms trumps all indictments or delays their justice for "the greater good." I think they fall into the ordinary trap of avoiding what confronts and indicts us.

As to the militia discussion, it seems clear to me that the question of a standing army or how the defense of the states (union) was to organize and establish its defense forces was not settled by the 2nd Amendment. Taken literally, it would make the imperial military unconstitutional and so obviously so that it would have come to a head long ago. The "well-regulated militia" is clearly what this text establishes citizen gun ownership for, not some unregulated rebel potential to keep DC honest.

Shay's Rebellion scared the shit out of these people. Context people, context! But, remember, I said the issue was not settled and continued to be worked out, not exactly the direction I wish it had taken, but certainly not one where the tyranny of the state was a major concern to the gun makers and sellers, not to mention the owners. If the standing army is how tyranny enforces its will, how the hell does allowing it to become MIC Max fit in with any right to resistance?

I really, really do not want any 'unorganized militias' out there defending me or acting in what they think my interest should be. I certainly don't want to have them come to purge me in order to 'cleanse' the 'homeland.' I want a chain of command, and I would like to have that chain accountable to the people supposedly being protected and served. I will be glad to help convince loyal Americans serving in the military to join the revolution, and while I would take their guns in the inevitability of violence, I would want their help disarming the MIC more.

Finally, entropy, like all evolution, is more eposodic than regular. We speak of "tipping points" and "hitting bottom" to note when glacial shifts and quakes occur. The power of established evil seems massive against the healing and restoring. Things are falling apart in very slow motion. Paranoia is never adequate to explain the next chapter. And then something happens to signal change, and then change itself. Not the "change" to what we thought we wanted very often, but the end of what we knew was wrong. What we think of as "right" is too often nostalgic rather than post-imperial/green dealing with the mess. We want the New Deal back when we need to get out of global entanglements that would make George Washington crap.

Here again, however, getting out does not mean going away. The globe is finite. We are in this together. It is all the more reason to kill the empire and end dominator politics.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 11:15 am
Quote mjolnir:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2985014934048616285&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr#r[10]

From here:Perpich v. Department of Defense, 496 US 334 - Supreme Court 1990

"The Dick Act divided the class of able-bodied male citizens between 18 and 45 years of age into an "organized militia" to be known as the National Guard of the several States, and the remainder of which was then described as the "reserve militia," and which later statutes have termed the "unorganized militia." The statute created a table of organization for the National Guard conforming to that of the Regular Army, and provided that federal funds and Regular Army instructors should be used to train its members.[11] It is undisputed that Congress was acting pursuant to the Militia Clauses of the Constitution in passing the Dick Act.[...]"

Emphasis mine, leading me to believe that sCOTUS saw a direct lineage for both a "select" militia and an "unorganized militia" springing from the Constitution, not from legislative acts of the first Congress and certainly not as an entirely new creation as suggested by Pierpont.

Didn't I already state that with a link to the NG home page?

You're conveniently, if not dishonestly, conflating two different bills... the 1903 Dick Act which created the National Guard on the basis of the constitutional militia with an expanded role... but did NOT create any unorganized militia.... and some law that came 5 years later that did creat this NEW unorganized militia... DISTINCT from the already existing National Guard. There's no constitutional basis for this new militia.

The Militia of the Constitution isn't named per se but it is DESCRIBED in Article 1:

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

It's an ORGANIZED and DISCIPLINED Militia... and the discipline prescribed by Congress is there in those Militia Acts. There is no other federally mandated militia. So if the Second calls them a "well regulated militia"... it's the same one.

Quote mjolnir: George Mason, who was unequivocal that the militia consisted of all "the People" and was one of the first founders to suggest some Federal control of the militia in an effort to sidestep a standing army said this:

http://www.constitution.org/dfc/dfc_0818.htm

"The Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787
by James Madison"

"SATURDAY AUGUST 18. IN CONVENTION"

'Mr. MASON introduced the subject of regulating the militia. He thought such a power necessary to be given to the Genl. Government. He hoped there would be no standing army in time of peace, unless it might be for a few garrisons. The Militia ought therefore to be the more effectually prepared for the public defense. Thirteen States will never concur in any one system, if the disciplining of the Militia be left in their hands. If they will not give up the power over the whole, they probably will over a part as a select militia. He moved as an addition to the propositions just referred to the Committee of detail, & to be referred in like manner, "a power to regulate the militia."'

I reiterate: " If they will not give up the power over the whole, they probably will over a part as a select militia." States would give up control of part of the "whole militia" leaving what, the "unorganized militia".

It doesn't matter what someone SAID... it's what was AGREED upon that matters. It's like someone trying to "prove" slavery wasn't protected by the Constitution because of the words of an anti-slavery delegate.

And The People was a term that NEVER meant everyone... and the Militia Acts state who will be in that militia... able bodied white males from 18 to about 45.That's hardly "the whole body of the People". Again you're conflating some language from some state constitution and trying to apply it to the Federal Constitution WHICH DOESN'T INCLUDE THAT LANGUAGE.

The concept of the well regulate militia was fleshed out in the Militia Acts pursuant to Article 1... and there's NO mention of any other militias... select or unorganized. Now this doesn't prohibit states from creating a reserve... but it's NOT the militia of the Constitution... the one mentioned in the Second Amendment... or the one of the Militia Acts. For instance it can not be federalized... and if men are ordered to procure specified weapons and equipment, and train on a schedule, it's by the order of Congress not the states.

So did you even have a point? You're trying to steal constitutional protection meant for the ONLY militia of the Constitution and give it to any gun tottin yahoo who claims to be a member of an unorganized militia... all because you so respect the Constitution, no doubt.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm
Quote Pierpont:Didn't I already state that with a link to the NG home page?
No as a matter of fact you didn't. The link I provided is to a supreme Court decision that says the Dick Act, among other things, delineated the "organized militia" and the "reserve or unorganized militia" if you don't like it take it up with them.

http://constitution.org/uslaw/sal/032_statutes_at_large.pdf

"CHAP. 196 .-An Act To promote the efficiency of the militia, and for other January 21,1903
purposes .
[public, No. 33.]
Be it enacted by the Senate and House ofRepresentatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled, That the militia shall consist of every able-bodied male citizen of the respective States, Territories,
and the District of Columbia, and every able; bodied male of foreign
birth who has declared his intention to become a citizen, who is more
than eighteen and less than forty-five years of age, and shall be divided
into two classes-the organized militia, to be known as the National National Guard.
Guard of the State, Territory, or . District of Columbia, or by such
other designations as may be given them by the laws of the respective
States or Territories, and the remainder to be known as the Reserve | Reserve Militia ."

page775 ie. the "unorganized militia".

Quote Pierpont:It doesn't matter what someone SAID[...]
Of course it matters what a founder said, not as precedent but as a matter of context. This is of course a reply to #44 not #43

mjolnir's picture
mjolnir
Joined:
Mar. 3, 2011 11:42 am
Quote mjolnir:
Quote Pierpont:Didn't I already state that with a link to the NG home page?
No as a matter of fact you didn't. The link I provided is to a supreme Court decision that says the Dick Act, among other things, delineated the "organized militia" and the "reserve or unorganized militia" if you don't like it take it up with them.

http://constitution.org/uslaw/sal/032_statutes_at_large.pdf

Oops, I should never work from memory. I was under the false impression the unorganize militia was created sometime later. That's probaby because the term unorganize militia doesn't appear in the Dick Act. There it's called the Reserve Militia. My apologies for saying you conflated two bits of legislation. My link was to the home of the National Guard which stated it was the legal descendent of the constitutional militias.

Thanks for the full text of the Dick Act.... I'll trust that more than what the USSC said, at least when it comes to the unorganized militia... because even on matter of the organize militia there's much confusion. Bushwacker once posted a quote from a 1982 Senate report that claimed the opposite:

"That the National Guard is not the 'Militia' referred to in the Second Amendment is even clearer today. Congress had organized the National Guard under its power to 'raise and support armies' and not its power to 'Provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia.' The modern National Guard was specifically intended to avoid status as the constitutional militia, a distinction recognized by 10 U.S.C. 311(a)."

http://www.constitution.org/mil/rkba1982.htm

Bottom line, though... if the unorganized, or reserve, militias are NOT meeting the constitutional requirements of Article 1, section 8 on being subject to the discipline of Congress, or presidential call up to supress insurrections etc, then it's not THE well regulated constitutional militia of the Second. So far nothing I've found in the Dick Act suggests the unorganized militia was subject to ANY training.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm
Quote mjolnir:
Quote Pierpont:It doesn't matter what someone SAID[...]
Of course it matters what a founder said, not as precedent but as a matter of context. This is of course a reply to #44 not #43

It doesn't matter what was said in debate IF that sentiment didn't prevail. We are discussing LAW here, right? Not some Framer's OPINION? The latter can't be passed off as some "proof" a law exists when it doesn't. That's what fundies do trying to "prove" the US is a Christian nation when the Constitution is entirely secular.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm

It's late.

I'm tired.

I couldn't find the "Cliff's Notes" on the 2nd Amendment, so here's the next best thing.

Note in particular the discussion relating to Pennsylvania.

Have fun.

Understanding the Right to Bear Arms

miksilvr
Joined:
Jul. 7, 2011 11:13 am
Quote Pierpont:
Quote mjolnir:
Quote Pierpont:It doesn't matter what someone SAID[...]
Of course it matters what a founder said, not as precedent but as a matter of context. This is of course a reply to #44 not #43

It doesn't matter what was said in debate IF that sentiment didn't prevail. We are discussing LAW here, right? Not some Framer's OPINION? The latter can't be passed off as some "proof" a law exists when it doesn't. That's what fundies do trying to "prove" the US is a Christian nation when the Constitution is entirely secular.

It's all about opinion. That's all there really is.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 6:53 am
Quote Bush_Wacker:
Quote Pierpont:
Quote mjolnir:
[quote=Pierpont]It doesn't matter what someone SAID[...]
Of course it matters what a founder said, not as precedent but as a matter of context. This is of course a reply to #44 not #43

It doesn't matter what was said in debate IF that sentiment didn't prevail. We are discussing LAW here, right? Not some Framer's OPINION? The latter can't be passed off as some "proof" a law exists when it doesn't. That's what fundies do trying to "prove" the US is a Christian nation when the Constitution is entirely secular.

It's all about opinion. That's all there really is.

I'll be sure to quote you next time you pass off historical opinion as fact.

Of course your position is we can never know anything. It's not a tenable position. While there may be historical mysteries, we should not place everything in that category especially when there's an abundance of material to wade through.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm

It appears that even the "unorganized militias" were a reserve to back up the well regulated, not some yeast of revolution set loose to take down tyrants as an alternative Constitutional method to elections.

If we can only be clear that the Constitution did not establish armed citizens to take down elected representatives or to become an undercover resistance to established authority. They were to be mobilized by these authorities to resist invaders, not to be a threat to these authorities.

Which renders most of this quibbling moot. The 2nd Amendment has been hijacked by the NRA et al to establish a faux Constitutional "right" to gun ownership for a lot of crap other than the defense of the state under a chain of command.

While a strong case can be made for an equal access argument for the privilege of gun ownership, the guns involved ought to be for civil appropriate activities. Gun ownership ought to be open to all with only functional disqualifications, as with the right to drive a car. I think the blind ought not to drive or shoot. Gun ownership involves serious responsibilities, and the state has an interest in that which has nothing to do with tyrannical state control of potential patriots.

What we do about the move from citizen soldiers to an economic draft? Opposition to the Vietnam War was much more than opposition to the draft, but it is a lot harder to mobilize against the wars when we are not the troops and are faced with "supporting them." As we and soldiers become strangers, how do we honor them while condemning their mission? In the sickness of our souls, having assault weapons of war lying around is complicity in murder.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 11:15 am

Currently Chatting

The other way we're subsidizing Walmart...

Most of us know how taxpayers subsidize Walmart's low wages with billions of dollars in Medicaid, food stamps, and other financial assistance for workers. But, did you know that we're also subsidizing the retail giant by paying the cost of their environmental destruction.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system