What is a Militia?

[Arlo]

Originally posted by bj229r
I may be the only one who finds it troubling that the voting majority can now TAKE money from high-earners and use it for themselves

Bottom 50%.............................<$30,881..............................3.07%

link

I find it troubling that you post statistics that show 50% of the citizens taxed earn right above the poverty threshold and your instinctive reaction is how unfair it is that they pay less tax and receive more benefit.

[Arlo]

Originally posted by lazs2
arlo... what makes you think that the second gives you the right to demand that other people pay for your gun of choice?  (Then sideissue)  I guess you think it is like that amendment that says that everyone is entitled to free health care..  

which one was that again? (Who knows, that's a different subject entirely)

lazs

Other people? I pay taxes, lazzie. AAMOF I've paid more than enough in taxes to have way more than an mere M-16 out of it. And if I want some of my leftover taxes to be used to make sure the "Divinely mandated militia for the defense of this nation from itself and criminals" is fully armed and ready for the threat (and not just the wealthier selfish bass-tards who just want themselves armed against the poor they fear and hate so much), so be it. Granted, my government does use taxes for infrastructure and other things. But, as I've clearly shown, my government also pays a helluva lot for a war I, as a taxpayer, didn't vote to get us into.

But voters aren't asked before a war is "declared." Congress apparently isn't even needed for that, anymore. But congress does fund them. And I, as a taxpayer, have every right to demand my taxes be used for whatever I want them used for other than wars. I'm sure you've heard the phrase "write your congressman."As I've obviously illustrated, for what my government pays for the war in Iraq they could arm everyone in the nation with an M-16 and have plenty left over.

I thought you were all for unimpeded gun ownership. Just `cause you have issues about you wanting them but you don't want your poor neighbor to have one is no reason to flip-flop now, boyo.

[john9001]

Originally posted by Arlo
As I've obviously illustrated, for what my government pays for the war in Iraq they could arm everyone in the nation with an M-16 and have plenty left over.
 

you lost me, what does arming every american with a M16 have to do with the "war" in Iraq?

[Arlo]

Originally posted by john9001
you lost me, what does arming every american with a M16 have to do with the "war" in Iraq?

My, you are lost. It's the God mandated right ...  nay duty .... of every American to be armed well enough to protect this country from itself. Alas, not every American can afford it. Matter of fact, just the rich, spoiled kids can afford the deadliest of toys. Therefore what better use for tax dollars than to balance the playing field and make America a better, well-armed place to live, in liberty and M-16s for all? Costs less than a war in Iraq.

I know, you're still lost. That's ok, I'll be your advocate for liberty and firepower.

[sgt203]

well this went to heck in a hand basket....

When I logged into this thought this was a debate about the 2nd amendment so im going to try and bring it back to that..

Nothing in the 2nd MANDATES you to own a gun, it does however protect your right to own one if you choose.

In reality it is that simple nothing more, nothing less.

The framers of the constitution were extremely wary of overly broad and powerful government having to much control over their everyday lives. With NO ability to keep that government in check. Allowing Citizens to keep and bear arms was their form of checks and balances, no more than they built into the government itself with the separate braches.

For those people who take a constitutionalist view of the amendments it is very clear that the "right of the people" means just that... You and I, we are the people.

I do feel however when the case from Washington DC is heard by the Supreme Court it will not be an undivided court. There will be a dissenting opnion issued in this case.

I further believe that the nature of this case leaves the court with little avenue to not address the issue of if the second amendment is an individual right.

Personally I think it needs addressed at this time while judicial conservatives(with a moderate swing vote) are in a position of power.

I fear to wait and address this issue at another time may allow for "international laws" or other nations courts to influence the outcome. It would not be the first time judicial liberals have allowed international law and precedent to have a say in what is constitutional or not in our country.

This is a case that is about what our rights, as american citizens are, not what some "international community consensus" may be. I am a citizen of the United States first and foremost, then a citizen of the international community.

Do I believe that every home should have a firearm NO. Do I believe that it is a right of every law abiding citizen of the United States to own and possess a firearm if they so choose. MOST CERTAINLY.

$.02

<>

[vorticon]

Some things do not change, your rights are not one of them.

your rights do not ever change. only the laws regarding them, and peoples willingness to accept breaches of them.

[lazs2]

bingalong...  I guess that you have lost me.. you give an example of how dangerous normal guns and ammo are to store that... well... doesn't prove your point at all... you give an example of how easily a safe can be pulled through the wall of a house and dragged away by criminals that is no example at all.

You get mad at me when I point out that you have no point and "answer" your error filled statements and then say... "you have an answer for everything"

reminds me of my ex (see a pattern there?)

lazs

[lazs2]

arlo... you are off in pot land I fear...  You are saying that you have paid enough taxes... taxes that were never intended by the constitution in the first place...

That you have paid enough taxes that you should get an M16 from the government?   I have paid enough taxes that the government should buy me a new vette... what is your point?

Is your point that we need more socialism or we need more m16's?    I don't want to pay for your gun.

Now.. we do have a program that I agree with and you would like....

CMP.. civilian markmanship program (why would they have such a thing?  look it up for revealing answer).

This program sells surplus military rifles to CITIZENS at a reduced price... many have bought 45 auto HANDGUNS and M1 garand SEMIAUTO HIGH POWERED RIFLES from the government.  

This seems fair.. the guns are reconditioned and sold at very reasonable prices.

you take your M16 and I will take my garand and we will shoot at each other at 800 yards and see who wins.

Should I be allowed to have this gun?  Do you think this is an effective gun?  some were even found in Iraq.   Those old ought six rounds will go right through body armor.

lazs

[Bingolong]

Originally posted by lazs2
bingalong...  I guess that you have lost me.. you give an example of how dangerous normal guns and ammo are to store that... well... doesn't prove your point at all... you give an example of how easily a safe can be pulled through the wall of a house and dragged away by criminals that is no example at all.

You get mad at me when I point out that you have no point and "answer" your error filled statements and then say... "you have an answer for everything"

reminds me of my ex (see a pattern there?)

lazs

okay laz
lets start again

The Militia Act of 1792, Passed May 8, 1792, providing federal standards  for the organization of the Militia.
http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm
read this
The militia act of 1903 or the Dick act,

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903>

The Militia Act of 1903 organized the various state militias  into the present National Guard system. The Army National Guard is part of the United States Army, comprising approximately one half of its available combat forces and approximately one third of its support organization. The Air National Guard is part of the United States Air Force.

 it dose not say the RESERVE militia its says the UNORGANIZED militia. In either event what is the name of your militia?
when you get past this one we will move on to the next.

your interpretation:
"the "militia" is still defined as every able bodied man between the age of 18 and 45 sooo...

That is the "people" you cant' infringe.

Now.. the one sticking point is the "man" part and the "45" part. I have a feeling that womens groups and AARP might get a little bit upset with the gender and age discrimination. Federal law now prohibits discrimination based on age and/or gender.

So the militia would be..... everone who is able bodied (that would have to be "not insane") that is over 18.

that would include those who had been criminals but had served their time.

That would also be historical as... taking away a free mans rights because of his past record is only a recent obscenity."

Lets say it is reserve:

TITLE 10--ARMED FORCES Subtitle E--Reserve Components PART I--ORGANIZATION AND ADMINISTRATION CHAPTER 1003--RESERVE COMPONENTS GENERALLY Sec. 10101. Reserve components named:
The reserve components of the armed forces are: (1) The Army National Guard of the United States. (2) The Army Reserve. (3) The Naval Reserve. (4) The Marine Corps Reserve. (5) The Air National Guard of the United States. (6) The Air Force Reserve. (7) The Coast Guard Reserve
c) Reserve Components. - The following definitions relating to the reserve components apply in this title: (1) The term "National Guard" means the Army National Guard and the Air National Guard. (2) The term "Army National Guard" means that part of the organized militia of the several States and Territories, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia, active and inactive, that - (A) is a land force; (B) is trained, and has its officers appointed, under the sixteenth clause of section 8, article I, of the Constitution; (C) is organized, armed, and equipped wholly or partly at Federal expense; and (D) is federally recognized.

TITLE 10--ARMED FORCES Subtitle E--Reserve Components PART I--ORGANIZATION AND ADMINISTRATION CHAPTER 1003--RESERVE COMPONENTS GENERALLY Sec. 10102. Purpose of reserve components:
The purpose of each reserve component is to provide trained units and qualified persons available for active duty in the armed forces, in time of war or national emergency, and at such other times as the national security may require, to fill the needs of the armed forces whenever more units and persons are needed than are in the regular components.

TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES Subtitle A - General Military Law PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA -HEAD- Sec. 312. Militia duty: exemptions -STATUTE:
 (a) The following persons are exempt from militia duty: (1) The Vice President. (2) The judicial and executive officers of the United States, the several States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands. (3) Members of the armed forces, except members who are not on active duty. (4) Customhouse clerks. (5) Persons employed by the United States in the transmission of mail. (6) Workmen employed in armories, arsenals, and naval shipyards of the United States. (7) Pilots on navigable waters. (8) Mariners in the sea service of a citizen of, or a merchant in, the United States. (b) A person who claims exemption because of religious belief is exempt from militia duty in a combatant capacity, if the conscientious holding of that belief is established under such regulations as the President may prescribe. However, such a person is not exempt from militia duty that the President determines to be noncombatant.

2006
(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.

Once again what is the name of your registered UNORGANIZED militia THAT YOU ARE PART OF?

[john9001]

Bingolong, you misread the 2nd amendment.

the militia and ownership of guns are two different things, what the 2nd says is, because we need a militia the people should have guns.

it does not say because we need a militia the militia shall be armed, because that makes no sense.

arming of the military is covered in the main part of the constitution, they did not need a separate amendment to say that.

[Bingolong]

Originally posted by john9001
Bingolong, you misread the 2nd amendment.

the militia and ownership of guns are two different things, what the 2nd says is, because we need a militia the people should have guns.

it does not say because we need a militia the militia shall be armed, because that makes no sense.

arming of the military is covered in the main part of the constitution, they did not need a separate amendment to say that.

The title of this thread is "what is a militia." not ownership of guns.
Keep up please.
The SC did not ask what is the meaning of owenership of guns, they ask, AGAIN, “violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with with any state-regulated militia , but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes.”

[AKIron]

Originally posted by Bingolong
The title of this thread is "what is a militia." not ownership of guns.
Keep up please.
The SC did not ask what is the meaning of owenership of guns, they ask, AGAIN, “violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with with any state-regulated militia , but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes.”

Just in case you're assuming a non-existent connection, "state-regulated" is not synonomous with "well regulated".

[john9001]

sorry, the thread got so long i forgot what it was about. i think a state militia is what ever the state says it is.

[lazs2]

bingalong..  the acts still refer to the militia as both the organized and the unorganized militia.   for instance... you and I are part of the unorganized militia.

Again.. there is nothing in any federal ruling or anything in the constitution that says that the militia is anything other than every free man.  

Also.. as was stated.. the militia was not the conditional to having the right to keep and bear arms but simply one reason..  it is obvious that the militia is every free man and that the second protects the god given right of every citizen to keep and bear arms.

Again... The original intent and purpose of the Second Amendment was to preserve and guarantee, not grant, the pre-existing right of individuals to keep and bear arms. Although the amendment emphasizes the need for a militia, membership in any militia, let alone a well-regulated one, was not intended to serve as a prerequisite for exercising the right to keep arms.

The Second Amendment preserves and guarantees an individual right for a collective purpose. That does not transform the right into a "collective right." The militia clause was a declaration of purpose, and preserving the people's right to keep and bear arms was the method the framers chose to, in-part, ensure the continuation of a well-regulated militia.

There is no contrary evidence from the writings of the Founding Fathers, early American legal commentators, or pre-twentieth century Supreme Court decisions, indicating that the Second Amendment was intended to apply solely to active militia members.


lazs

[Tigeress]

Originally posted by lazs2
bingalong..  the acts still refer to the militia as both the organized and the unorganized militia.   for instance... you and I are part of the unorganized militia.

Again.. there is nothing in any federal ruling or anything in the constitution that says that the militia is anything other than every free man.  

Also.. as was stated.. the militia was not the conditional to having the right to keep and bear arms but simply one reason..  it is obvious that the militia is every free man and that the second protects the god given right of every citizen to keep and bear arms.

Again... The original intent and purpose of the Second Amendment was to preserve and guarantee, not grant, the pre-existing right of individuals to keep and bear arms. Although the amendment emphasizes the need for a militia, membership in any militia, let alone a well-regulated one, was not intended to serve as a prerequisite for exercising the right to keep arms.

The Second Amendment preserves and guarantees an individual right for a collective purpose. That does not transform the right into a "collective right." The militia clause was a declaration of purpose, and preserving the people's right to keep and bear arms was the method the framers chose to, in-part, ensure the continuation of a well-regulated militia.

There is no contrary evidence from the writings of the Founding Fathers, early American legal commentators, or pre-twentieth century Supreme Court decisions, indicating that the Second Amendment was intended to apply solely to active militia members.


lazs

I totally agree with you on this, Lazs. That is how I see it.

TIGERESS