Check this load of crap ...

[midnight Target]

OK, IF the militia is a safeguard against a tyrannical federal government, then why does the Constitution say this:

"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 officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress." -- Article I, Section 8, U.S. Constitution


Now if the Militia(s) are to be controlled by Congress how can they be deemed a deterent to tyrrany?

hmmmmmmmmmmm?

[lazs2]

two seperate things mt.

the second is talking about an individal right (the people) like all the other amendments... the example you gave is simply giving the government the right to form militias also.  Mostly, the constitution recognizes that the government has no rights unless they are called out.   The founders needed the abilty to raise a government army or "militia".   This did not abrigate the rights of the individual as called out in the second tho.

lazs

[Shuckins]

MT, that statement, if one reads it closely, refers to the training of militia units that might be used by the national government to carry out special duties or assignments.  Notice, the training and appointment of officers and overall control of the militia units in question are specifically and undeniably left under the control of the STATES.

[john9001]

Originally posted by midnight Target

The question isn't whether or not shotguns are useful to a militia. It is whether or not a MILITIA is necessary for the 2nd amendment to allow arms to be born. Miller obviously says YES.
.

you have it backwards, in order to organize a milita you must first have armed citizens.
 also according to you , i should be able to carry a full auto M-16, as that is the "standard weapon" used by the military.

[mietla]

Originally posted by midnight Target
When you two finish your french kiss you might want to pick up a book.  

another one? I've already read a book.

[Toad]

Originally posted by midnight Target
It is whether or not a MILITIA is necessary for the 2nd amendment to allow arms to be born. Miller obviously says YES.

And then Miller goes on to state that

the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense

Pretty universal inclusion of all able-bodied males into a MILITIA.

Tough luck for the ladies, though.  

[culero]

Originally posted by Sandman
Funny as in not neccessary.

Exactly. Ross Perot said it best when he said we have no need to enact term limit laws because we already have term limits...they are called "elections".

culero

[weaselsan]

Originally posted by Shuckins
MT, that statement, if one reads it closely, refers to the training of militia units that might be used by the national government to carry out special duties or assignments.  Notice, the training and appointment of officers and overall control of the militia units in question are specifically and undeniably left under the control of the STATES.

Tell that to the Governor of Arkansas in the mid 1950's when Dwight Eisenhower took control of the Arkansas National guard to stop them from being used to prevent the desegregation of the schools. The National Guard or (Militia), is nothing more than the Army Reserves. Any ultra melon ruling stateing that the second amendment gives the right to the States is Bull****. The President has full control of the Army National Guard and only allows the States use of it at his pleasure. Furthermore, any ruling by any court, now or in the future dening that the second amendment is a right NOT directly given to the people, would totally destroy the meaning of the Bill of Rights, and I think not be looked up on favorably by the American people.

[Toad]

If there's something that prevents an individual State from forming its own Militia, I'm unaware of it.

The Guard and Reserves are not necessarily a State Militia.

The Militia Act of 1903, also known as the Dick Act, organized the various state militias into the present National Guard system.

I don't think it says the State can't have any other Militia.

And there's still this fine point:

The National Guard remains under the authority of the states (unless called into federal service).

This is NOT true of the reserves of the various services which serve primarily as training units for replacements to active component (Federal) forces.

[weaselsan]

Originally posted by Toad
If there's something that prevents an individual State from forming its own Militia, I'm unaware of it.

The Guard and Reserves are not necessarily a State Militia.

The Militia Act of 1903, also known as the Dick Act, organized the various state militias into the present National Guard system.

I don't think it says the State can't have any other Militia.

And there's still this fine point:

The National Guard remains under the authority of the states (unless called into federal service).

This is NOT true of the reserves of the various services which serve primarily as training units for replacements to active component (Federal) forces.

But thanks for the legal heads up. We can petition the Florida Senate to form a Militia of good ol boys. Maybe a 100,000 or so in case them Yankees start any crap.

What do you think "unless called into Federal Service" means? It simply means you can use the ARMY National Guard unless I take it away at my pleasure. It is not UNLAWFUL for a State to secede from the Union or for say 10 or 12 southern States cause they don't like them nasty blue States. Does civil war ring a bell.

[Maverick]

Weasel,

The Guard is first a state organization. It requires a federal order (federalization) to bring it to active duty for use outside of the state. That order, by law, can only be for 90 days UNLESS congress approves it and appropriates funding for it, otherwise it reverts back to the state.

Toad,

The Reserves, specifically Army, aren't a "repl depot" any more. The Army with DOD sanction mandated that Army Reserve units missions be changed to Combat Support (MP's Engineers etc) and Combat Service Support (transportation, maintenance units etc.) so that the Regular Army could be freed from those missions that are not required on a regualr or constant basis. That allows the Active Army to concentrate on the combat missions. It was requested that the Combat Arms Reserve units assets be realocated to National Guard units.

Part of this is due to poor readiness for combat missions due to lack of time and assets to train with on the part of the Reserves. For the most part the Reserves did a creditable job given the restraints they operated under but it is hard to maintain manning for a part time Combat Arms unit.

[Toad]

Bottom line is that the Guard is not necessarly the "militia" referred to by the 2nd.

The militia referred to by the second is, as has been noted:

comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense

So, I'm in the Militia.

[culero]

Originally posted by Toad
Bottom line is that the Guard is not necessarly the "militia" referred to by the 2nd.

The militia referred to by the second is, as has been noted:


So, I'm in the Militia.

Absolutely.

Also, weaselsan, quoting examples of Federal abuse of states' rights as justification is IMO faulty logic.

Abraham Lincoln (an otherwise good man who I consider to be a war criminal) was IMO the first and most notable example of a Federal official trampling upon the Constitution and beginning the lengthy process of the usurpation of state' rights that has resulted today in a complete and total imbalance of the shared powers of government (in favor of the Feds now). There are many ways this can be illustrated as fact. Its still not right.

culero (power to the people, or as close to them as possible!)

[lazs2]

the second says that the right of "the people" to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed  "the people" is used many more times in the document and allways means an individual right.  Those rights shall not be infringed so that... if need be... "the people" can form a militia for the common defense.   That would be anything from a man defending his home from crooks to a posse formed to chase down bad guys to the state forming an army.  

The constitution also calls for the federal government to have powers to form an army in the form of a federal militia if we need to invade iraq or something.

lazs

[Maverick]

Originally posted by Toad
Bottom line is that the Guard is not necessarly the "militia" referred to by the 2nd.

The militia referred to by the second is, as has been noted:


So, I'm in the Militia.

Me too. We need to get to the range and practice some more.