What is a Militia?

[lazs2]

arlo.. now we are getting somewhere...  

You are trying to "help" me in the only way you know how... get the government to give me something.

While I appreciate the thought and the fact that you really can't be expected to understand anything but socialism...  it is indeed pretty disgusting to me.

I don't need you to buy me a rifle.... I don't need you to force some doctor to take care of me with other peoples money...  I just need you to get out of my way when I do for myself.

Sooo... no, socialism, no matter what the cause.. does not thrill me.   You are again, having trouble convincing me that the end justifies the means.

Just allow me to exercise my rights and we will have no trouble... I won't even use your money to do it.

How bout that?  pretty fair eh?

lazs

[Bingolong]

"yep.. I admit that in order to make the point I had to quote a tiny amount of the writings of the time.    Look at who said these things.. you won't see... "arlo guthrie" or "phiniyus t hip" or "al gore".. these were the founders and it is indisputable what they meant.

What they meant in 1776

By quoting them I had hoped to lay to rest the arguement of intent."

The law has changed and reads differently now. you have not laid to rest anything

"As for the militia... who cares?  the intent was also that it be the whole body of the people but...  even so... the "militia" is not a condition of a right just as education is not a condition of free speech."

As you wish

"Being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


your arguments just dont hold water they are not up to date or current with todays law. You can site the framers all you want it dose not change the existing law.
The only ruling made has been to declare it a collective right not an individual right, It has not been reversed. I dont care if you agree or not with miller it's wht the SC has said. I'm sure you dont agree with roe VS wade either.


Here's another Quote from HalBrook:

"There is a hidden history of the Second Amendment which is long overdue to be written. It is this: during the ratification period of 1787-1791, Congress and the states considered two entirely separate groups of amendments to the Constitution. The first group was a declaration of rights, in which the right of the people to keep and bear arms appeared. The second group, consisting of amendments related to the structure of government, included recognition of the power of states to maintain militias. The former became the Bill of Rights, while the latter was defeated. Somehow, through some Orwellian rewriting of history, as applied to the issues of the right of the people to keep and bear arms and the state militia power, that which was defeated has become the meaning of that which was adopted".

George Washington, letter to the Continental Congress, September 24, 1776:
 To place any dependence on Militia, is, assuredly resting upon a broken staff. Men just dragged from the tender scenes of domestick life; unaccustomed to the din of Arms; totally unacquainted with every kind of military skill, which being followed by a want of confidence in themselves, when opposed to Troops regularly train'd, disciplined, and appointed, superior in knowledge and superior in Arms, makes them timid, and ready to fly from their own shadows. (-- 6 The Writings of George Washington 110, 112, J. Fitzpatrick, ed., 1931-44)  

Alexander Hamilton, Here I expect we shall be told that the militia of the country is its natural bulwark, and would beat all times equal to the national defense. This doctrine, in substance had like to have lost us our independence. It cost millions to the United States that might have been saved. The facts which from our own experience forbid any reliance of this kind are too recent to permit us to be the dupes of such a suggestion. The steady operations of war against a regular and disciplined army can only be successfully conducted by a force of the same kind. Considerations of economy, not less than of stability and vigor, confirm this position. The American militia, in the course of the late war, have, by their valor on numerous occasions, erected eternal monuments to their fame; but the bravest of them feel and know that the liberty of their country could not have been established by their efforts alone, however great and valuable they were. War, like most other things, is a science to be acquire and perfected by diligence, by perseverance, by time, and by practice. (-- Rossiter, p. 166)

John Randolph to St. George Tucker, 11 September 1789
A majority of the Senate for not allowing the militia arms & if two thirds had agreed it would have been an amendment to the Constitution. They are afraid that the Citizens will stop their full Career to Tyranny & Oppression.

[Bingolong]

cont.
Read IT: the whole thing
The Militia Act of 1792, Passed May 8, 1792, providing federal standards for the organization of the Militia. An ACT more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States.
I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and power-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a power of power; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.

II. And be it further enacted, That the Vice-President of the United States, the Officers, judicial and executives, of the government of the United States; the members of both houses of Congress, and their respective officers; all custom house officers, with the clerks; all post officers, and stage-drivers who are employed in the care and conveyance of the mail of the post office of the United States; all Ferrymen employed at any ferry on the post road; all inspectors of exports; all pilots, all mariners actually employed in the sea service of any citizen or merchant within the United States; and all persons who now are or may be hereafter exempted by the laws of the respective states, shall be and are hereby exempted from militia duty, notwithstanding their being above the age of eighteen and under the age of forty-five years.

III. And be it further enacted, That within one year after the passing of the Act, the militia of the respective states shall be arranged into divisions, brigades, regiments, battalions, and companies, as the legislature of each state shall direct; and each division, brigade, and regiment, shall be numbered at the formation thereof; and a record made of such numbers of the Adjutant-General's office in the state; and when in the field, or in serviced in the state, such division, brigade, and regiment shall, respectively, take rank according to their numbers, reckoning the first and lowest number highest in rank. That if the same be convenient, each brigade shall consist of four regiments; each regiment or two battalions; each battalion of five companies; each company of sixty-four privates. That the said militia shall be officered by the respective states, as follows: To each division on Major-General, with two Aids-de-camp, with the rank of major; to each brigade, one brigadier-major, with the rank of a major; to each company, one captain, one lieutenant, one ensign, four serjeants, four corporals, one drummer, and one fifer and bugler. That there shall be a regimental staff, to consist of one adjutant, and one quartermaster, to rank as lieutenants; one paymaster; one surgeon, and one surgeon's mate; one serjeant-major; one drum- major, and one fife-major.

IV. And be it further enacted, That out of the militia enrolled as is herein directed, there shall be formed for each battalion, as least one company of grenadiers, light infantry or riflemen; and that each division there shall be, at least, one company of artillery, and one troop of horse: There shall be to each company of artillery, one captain, two lieutenants, four serjeants, four corporals, six gunners, six bombardiers, one drummer, and one fifer. The officers to be armed with a sword or hanger, a fusee, bayonet and belt, with a cartridge box to contain twelve cartridges; and each private of matoss shall furnish themselves with good horses of at least fourteen hands and an half high, and to be armed with a sword and pair of pistols, the holsters of which to be covered with bearskin caps. Each dragoon to furnish himself with a serviceable horse, at least fourteen hands and an half high, a good saddle, bridle, mail-pillion and valise, holster, and a best plate and crupper, a pair of boots and spurs; a pair of pistols, a sabre, and a cartouchbox to contain twelve cartridges for pistols. That each company of artillery and troop of house shall be formed of volunteers from the brigade, at the discretion of the Commander in Chief of the State, not exceeding one company of each to a regiment, nor more in number than one eleventh part of the infantry, and shall be uniformly clothed in raiments, to be furnished at their expense, the colour and fashion to be determined by the Brigadier commanding the brigade to which they belong.
 
V. And be it further enacted, That each battalion and regiment shall be provided with the state and regimental colours by the Field-Officers, and each company with a drum and fife or bugle-horn, by the commissioned officers of the company, in such manner as the legislature of the respective States shall direct.
VI. And be it further enacted, That there shall be an adjutant general appointed in each state, whose duty it shall be to distribute all orders for the Commander in Chief of the State to the several corps; to attend all publick reviews, when the Commander in Chief of the State shall review the militia, or any part thereof; to obey all orders from him relative to carrying into execution, and perfecting, the system of military discipline established by this Act; to furnish blank forms of different returns that may be required; and to explain the principles of which they should be made; to receive from the several officers of the different corps throughout the state, returns of the militia under their command, reporting the actual situation of their arms, accoutrements, and ammunition, their delinquencies, and every other thing which relates to the general advancement of good order and discipline: All which, the several officers of the division, brigades, regiments, and battalions are hereby required to make in the usual manner, so that the said adjutant general may be duly furnished therewith: From all which returns be shall make proper abstracts, and by the same annually before the Commander in Chief of the State.

VII. And be it further enacted, That the rules of discipline, approved and established by Congress, in their resolution of the twenty-ninth of March, 1779, shall be the rules of discipline so be observed by the militia throughout the United States, except such deviations from the said rules, as may be rendered necessary by the requisitions of the Act, or by some other unavoidable circumstances. It shall be the duty of the Commanding Officer as every muster, whether by battalion, regiment, or single company, to cause the militia to be exercised and trained, agreeably to the said rules of said discipline.

VIII. And be it further enacted, That all commissioned officers shall take rank according to the date of their commissions; and when two of the same grade bear an equal date, then their rank to be determined by lots, to be drawn by them before the Commanding officers of the brigade, regiment, battalion, company or detachment.
IX. And be it further enacted That if any person whether officer or solder, belonging to the militia of any state, and called out into the service of the United States, be wounded or disabled, while in actual service, he shall be taken care of an provided for at the publick expense.

[Bingolong]

cont.
X. And be it further enacted, That it shall be the duty of the brigade inspector, to attend the regimental and battalion meeting of the militia composing their several brigades, during the time of their being under arms, to inspect their arms, ammunition and accoutrements; superintend their exercise and maneuvres and introduce the system of military discipline before described, throughout the brigade, agreeable to law, and such orders as they shall from time to time receive from the commander in Chief of the State; to make returns to the adjutant general of the state at least once in every year, of the militia of the brigade to which he belongs, reporting therein the actual situation of the arms, accoutrement, and ammunition, of the several corps, and every other thing which, in his judgment, may relate to their government and general advancement of good order and military disciple; an adjutant general shall make a return of all militia of the state, to the Commander in Chief of the said state, and a duplicate of the same to the president of the United States. And whereas sundry corps of artillery, cavalry and infantry now exist in several of the said states, which by the laws, customs, or usages thereof, have not been incorporated with, or subject to the general regulation of the militia.
XI. Be it enacted, That such corps retain their accustomed privileges subject, nevertheless, to all other duties required by this Act, in like manner with the other militias. [Act of February 28, 1795, made small revisions in Sections 2, 4, 5, and 10 of Act of May 2, 1792. The 1795 act was the authority for ruling in Houston v. Moore, 1820. Other revisions were enacted April 18, 1814]

Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act, [words requiring notification by an associate justice or district judge were omitted in 1795 revision. The revision gave the President more authority] the same being notified to the President of the United States, by an associate justice or the district judge, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia of such state to suppress such combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed. And if the militia of a state, where such combinations may happen, shall refuse, or be insufficient to suppress the same, it shall be lawful for the President, if the legislature of the United States be not in session, to call forth and employ such numbers of the militia of any other state or states most convenient thereto, as may be necessary, and the use of militia, so to be called forth, may be continued, if necessary, until the expiration of thirty days after the commencement of the ensuing session.
 
Sec. 4. And be it further enacted, That the militia employed in the service of the United States, shall receive the same pay and allowances, as the troops of the United States, [omitted in 1795: "who may be in service at the same time, or who were last in service, and shall be subject to the same rules and articles of war"]: And that no officer, non-commissioned officer or private of the militia shall be compelled to serve more than three months in any one year, nor more than in due rotation with every other able-bodied man of the same rank in the battalion to which be belongs.
 
Sec. 5. And be it further enacted, That every officer, non-commissioned officer or private of the militia, who shall fail to obey the orders of the President of the United States in any of the cases before recited, shall forfeit a sum not exceeding one year's pay, and not less than one month's pay, to be determined and adjudged by a court martial; and such officers shall, moreover, be liable to be cashiered by sentence of a court martial: [words added in 1795:] and be incapacitated from holding a commission in the militia, for a term not exceeding twelve months, at the discretion of the said court: and such non-commissioned officers and privates shall be liable to be imprisoned by the like sentence, or failure of payment of the fines adjudged against them, for the space of one calendar month for every five dollars of such fine. Sec. 10. [revised to read:] And be it further enacted, That the act, intitled "Act to provide for calling forth the militia, to execute the laws of Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions," passed the second day of May one thousand seven hundred and ninety-two, shall be, and the same is hereby repealed.

During the War of 1812, neither the standing army nor the militia acquitted themselves well. The one bright spot in the land engagements of that war was the victory at New Orleans. Militia consisting of backwoodsmen and pirates under Andrew Jackson, at that point a regular army officer, handily defeated the regular British army. During this war the militias of several states refused to leave the United States to invade Canada. The New York militia refused to cross over into Canada. Their mission to repel invasions did not include moving onto alien soil.  Massachusetts Governor Caleb Strong refused to honor President James Madison's request to call up the militia to support the regular army. As the crisis grew, the Governor of Connecticut joined in the boycott. They found support in the state court.  The United States Supreme Court disagreed, calling this an act of nullification, and ordering that the states comply with a reasonable action of the President in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief.
During the Spanish-American War, one militia unit refused to serve abroad because service in Cuba had nothing to do with the powers extended to the national government under the Militia Clause of the United States Constitution.  Fighting with Spain in Cuba had nothing to do with repelling invasions.
In the Mexican War, the militia was not a factor because its service was limited to the territorial confines of the United States. Volunteers appeared to swell the ranks of the military from both  the enrolled and unenrolled militia. Many volunteers were frontiersmen who had considerable experience in both the Texas War for Independence of a decade earlier and fighting the Amerindians. Likewise, the Spanish-American War of 1898 enrolled volunteers because service was outside the national territories. And, again, some militia, notably western frontiersmen, acquitted themselves as well as the standing army.
The Civil War was a clear application of the Militia Clause in that the militia was called to quell civil insurrection. The Union Army fought the war with an odd and often ill-defined mixture of regular army, militia, and volunteers. It is difficult to say whether the officers of the regular army, those of the volunteers, or those of the militia, acquitted themselves worst overall. Few Union commanding officers, at least in the first two years of the war, are remembered for their outstanding generalship. The major weakness of the militia was that its members were enlisted for only three months' service. The day before the first battle of Manassas (or First Bull Run); two union militia regiments left the field since their ninety day enlistment had expired.

[Bingolong]

cont.
Between 1865 and 1898, without any threat of war, save for the Indian skirmishes, there was little interest in either the regular army or the militia. Most militiamen and regular soldiers trained only for parade service and guard duty. A recent historian of the army called this period "the twilight of the old army." Professor Wiener,  commenting on the Militia Clause in his highly significant article,  noted that "the States relied more and more upon select bodies of men trained after a fashion ... and dressed in harlequin uniforms."
Although Wiener singled out the militia for ridicule, it was no more the proper subject of criticism for lapses in training than was the standing army. Following the lead of his professional military sources, Wiener argued for greater federal control over the organization, discipline, and equipment of the state militias.

The first major revision of the 1792 Militia Act came in 1901 with the Army Reorganization Act  which, among other things, reorganized the militia. This law was the brain child of Elihu Root, Secretary of the Army under President Theodore Roosevelt.
 
The Dick Act  followed. It organized the militia so that the enrolled militia of the states was to be known now as the National Guard. These units were to be trained by regular army instructors and equipped through federal funding. Militia officers were to be trained at regular army schools. The militia was to attend regular drills and army camps. Still sensitive to the problems of federalism, the national government provided a number of escape clauses and provisions for approval by the states of training schedules. Militia called out under the Militia Clause of the Constitution were limited to nine months of service.

In 1908 Congress again amended the basic militia law.  The National Guard was to be called out before an order for volunteers was issued. The nine month enlistment rule was repealed and Congress authorized itself to determine, by appropriate legislation, the length of service. The militia was to be available for deployment anywhere, without territorial or geographic limitations. However, in 1912 the United States Attorney General advised that there was no constitutional authority to order militiamen to serve outside the  United States.  The military authorities got around this limitation by getting militiamen to volunteer for service outside the continental United States.

The National Defense Act of 1916  provided for the training of militia officers and created a system of training for civilians, especially college students. The National Guard attained dual status. Each guardsman took an oath of allegiance to his state and to the federal government. Each man agreed to a simultaneous dual enlistment, in the national and the state National Guard. All cooperating state National Guard units were to receive federal money for training and equipment. They were to consist of trained, tactical units.

As war in Europe came, Congress, acting under the 1916 law, drafted national guardsmen into federal service. The act allowed for the creation of an army reserve. No serviceman had to accept the new oath and those who had previously enlisted could refuse to take the new dual obligation oath.

In June 1920 Congress responded to states' rights arguments and refined the legal conception of the militia. The Army Reorganization Act of 1920  allowed states to refuse to release National Guardsmen to a national draft. In peacetime the state National Guard units were separated from the United States Army.

In 1933, the National Defense Act Amendment  placed the "one army" concept into the law. National Guard units were henceforth to be considered integral parts of the United States Army. The well regulated militia was to be attained only by placing the militia under the Army, not the Militia, Clause of the Constitution.
With the Act, Congress made several changes to the militia system. The Act served to reaffirm the system of dual service. National  Guardsmen were enrolled simultaneously in the National Guard of their states and the National Guard of the United States, a reserve component of the armed forces of the United States. Now whole units of the state National Guard could be called into federal service.

In 1952 the federal government acted to bring state organized militia training under federal standards.  For reasons that were purely political, he act contained a clause that said that " t he Army National Guard of the United States or the Air National Guard of the United States may not be ordered to active duty under this subsection without the consent of the governor...."  Many state officials and officers in state National Guard units had wished to limit the federalization of the enrolled state militias. These officers had argued that the Militia Clause limited the Army Clause. Rather than debate the constitutional questions at that moment, Congress agreed to place this restriction on the training of the state militias.

In the 1960s Congress considered cutting the appropriations to the Office of the Director of Civilian Marksmanship (DCM) and the National Board for the Promotion of Rifle Practice (NBPRP). These programs provided low cost ammunition for civilian rifle practice and assisted citizens in obtaining obsolete and obsolescent small arms which would otherwise be destroyed. They also sponsor national rifle and pistol shooting matches and support the United States Olympic and other international shooting teams. The Secretary of the Army authorized a study to be done on contract by a private consulting firm to determine the value of its support to the unenrolled militia.
The Arthur D. Little firm won the contract. The firm was headed by former General James Gavin.
The report was prepared during 1965 and submitted to the United States Army in 1966. It concluded that among the unenrolled militia, when comparing those which had  prior training with firearms with those who had not had such expose, the trained militiamen: (a) had fewer casualties in battle, (b) were more likely to use their weapons in battle, (c) qualified in training more quickly with their small arms, (d) learned how to field strip their weapons and learned the nomenclature of the parts more quickly, and (e) were able to clear jammed or obstructed weapons more rapidly. In short, arms- trained unenrolled militiamen made a better reservoir of manpower for the enrolled militia or army than untrained men and the program was cost- effective.

There was no further legislative activity until the Montgomery Amendment  was passed in 1986. That amendment to the armed forces appropriation bill of 1986 was offered in response to the action taken by several governors who withheld their permission for their state National Guard units to participate in federally scheduled training exercises in Honduras.

[Bingolong]

cont.
The militias were instituted in America, as they had been in Europe two millennia earlier, as a means of protecting the citizens, their families, and their property from barbarian marauders. On both cases, the citizens had both a right and an obligation to keep and maintain their own arms and to bear these arms in defense of the nation and in defense of their own lives, families, and property. As in Europe, the great, or unenrolled, militia was used only locally. These citizen-soldiers seldom had uniforms or uniform weaponry,  and fought as much as levees en masse as militia. In America there was democracy shown both in the formation of militias and in the selection of militia officers.
Centralized control of colonial militias, rejected at first in Benjamin Franklin's proposed military union, the Albany Plan, became partially a reality during the Revolution, as a matter of necessity and not of principle. The new Constitution created a vehicle, the Militia Clause, which allowed for some minimal centralized control over the militias. The Anti-Federalists objected because they feared that even greater centralization of control over the state militias would follow. That centralization did not occur until the twentieth century, but, once begun, it proceeded in a rapid fashion.
Three major factors are important in the reconstruction of the militia at the federal level. First, after nearly one hundred years of benign neglect, the national government began to take an interest in the state militias. The movement was spearheaded by Secretary of War Elihu Root, backed by professional military men whose biased histories of the armed forces led to the conclusion that the militias as constituted in 1900 were of little practical military value.
Second, Root's ideas, and General Emory Upton's martial histories, were accepted by Professor Wiener. These materials formed the basis of his article. Since none rose to challenge Wiener, his article, in turn, was accepted by successive Supreme Courts and formed the base of their post-1940 decisions.
A third major factor in the reformulation of the militia was the reinterpretation of the Second Amendment in the federal appeals courts. Before 1939 the federal courts had done little with the Second Amendment. In 1939 the United States Supreme Court found it to be a source of protection of individual rights to keep and bear arms. The armed citizenry was to be coveted and protected as a reservoir of trained manpower for the armed services. But the 1942 appeals court decision reinterpreted the Second Amendment, making it into a collective, not an individual, right. Its exclusive function after Cases was to buttress the Militia Clause.
The traditional role of the unenrolled militia had been that of providing a steady supply of manpower already trained in the use  of current small arms. After centralization through early twentieth century law, and after Cases, the national government looked at the state National Guard units as the sole reservoir of trained manpower for the regular armed forces. The enrolled state militias, rather than the unenrolled militia, are now viewed as a primary source of manpower for the standing army.
Economic inducements supplemented federal law in making the enrolled militia into the National Guard, which has both state and federal standing. Legislation affected only the enrolled militia. The role of the unenrolled militia is ill-defined today, except that it may still be regarded as a secondary reservoir of manpower for the regular army and a primary reservoir for the states' National Guard units.
Federal legislation and court decisions, notably Perpich, have reduced state control over militias, while expanding the national role in controlling and deploying these military units. Because of the dual enlistment provision, and because the national government provides arms, training, remuneration, equipment, and other support for the militias, the traditional state controls over the militia have been reduced. National Guard units are still composed of residents of a state or territory, but are subject to significant federal controls, including training when, where and under what conditions the national government may set. The nation has completed a cycle, moving from a wholly state controlled militia system to a militia that, for all intents and purposes, belongs to the federal government, and is under its orders, whenever and however the national government wills and legislates. The state militias have moved over into the select militias favored initially by George Washington and many Federalists and feared and opposed by the Anti-Federalists.
The fears of the Anti-Federalists, and of a few Federalists, that a strong national government would necessarily be tyrannical, especially if backed by a standing army, have proved to be unfounded. The states, at least since the American Civil War, had not found it necessary to defend their power, or the liberties of their citizens, by force of arms, against the national government.In the twentieth century, no one seriously suggests that the primary defense of the nation should be entrusted to the militia in any guise. Modern military technology and advanced military training techniques alone require more standardized training than the states can give on their own.

[Arlo]

Originally posted by lazs2
arlo.. now we are getting somewhere...  

You are trying to "help" me in the only way you know how... get the government to give me something.

Not really. I can think of quite a few ways ta help ya.

Prozac probably the cheapest.

And .... yeah .... the argument that it's all about militias to protect us from our own government must mean all it takes are the few, the proud, the one's able to afford expensive toys. I know you think you got Dixon, Ca. covered all by your lonesome but ..... Laz, darlin' .... militia of one .... not unlike `ol Tim McVeigh .... I'm doubtful.

Not onboard, Laz? Beech on, honey.

[john9001]

Originally posted by Arlo
Prozac probably the cheapest.

Laz, darlin' .... .

 Beech on, honey.

arlo at his best.

[Arlo]

Originally posted by john9001
arlo at his best.

Not really but let me warn ya. Jealosy is an ugly thing, john. No need for you to grovel. Or bluster.

[sgt203]

Bingalong posted::

In the twentieth century, no one seriously suggests that the primary defense of the nation should be entrusted to the militia in any guise. Modern military technology and advanced military training techniques alone require more standardized training than the states can give on their own.

I wholeheartedly agree with this point. Any militia unit would overmatched in any engagement with an organized and trained armed force. As such defense of the nation should not be entrusted alone to the states or militia units.

Well trained, well equipped units are needed to defend this nation. As such we have the Army, Navy, Airforce and Marines.

What you are basically arguing here is we no longer need the 2nd, as we no longer need the "militia".

This requires us to accept the notion that one armed citizen has no hope of making any difference during a armed conflict. I wholeheartedly reject this argument.

In WWII do you think one armed citizen with the opportuinity to kill Hitler would not have made a difference??

Did all the resistance fighters in both Europe and the Pacific, with inferior firepower, not make a difference??

They could have and did make a difference.

I believe in my right to possess a firearm, not merely for the defense of my country, but for the defense of myself, my family and my loved ones.

We have guns, the world has guns, the criminals have guns. To take away my right to own and possess a firearm leaves me and those I love at the mercy of those who choose to prey on the weak and defenseless.

I refuse to silently allow myself or my family to be at the mercy of those who have no mercy.

God bless those who do.

[Arlo]

Originally posted by sgt203
In WWII do you think one armed citizen with the opportuinity to kill Hitler would not have made a difference??

Not a good argument. Hitler gave head to a pistol when divisions of organized armies from the United States, Russia and the United Kingdom were closing in. Pretty sure a farmer in Raleigh, North Carolina wouldn't have had the remotest opportunity.

Originally posted by sgt203
Did all the resistance fighters in both Europe and the Pacific, with inferior firepower, not make a difference??

That's just it. They didn't require a collector's arsenal of exotic guns. If the U.S. was invaded I'm sure there's a way the citizenry could figure out how to arm itself with whatever it took. Pretty much exactly how the resistance in any theater of war during WWII did. Sporting weapons first. Captured exotic weapons from the invading army next. Arms shipped in from supporting alliances with the means as a possible third.

But let's get realistic, rationalizing the 2nd as the last line of national defense without enforcing and equipping those you expect to do so is just a method of helping the gun industry make a bigger buck from exotic arms.

Originally posted by sgt203
I believe in my right to possess a firearm [snip] for the defense of myself, my family and my loved ones.

If you require an exotic military weapon to do so and can afford to collect them then I see your living in a location that requires such for self/home defense and putting your family at risk more irresponsible than your right to collect such weapons for such a "neccessity."

Originally posted by sgt203
We have guns, the world has guns, the criminals have guns. To take away my right to own and possess a firearm leaves me and those I love at the mercy of those who choose to prey on the weak and defenseless.

Who's outlawing all firearms in the U.S.? Who's even suggesting it?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I like guns. Most all of `em. I don't like bogus rationalization.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Exotic guns should be legal cause Americans like dangerous toys and we're all about liberty. But they should be damned hard to get cause Billy Jo Bob's as crazy and pizzed as a socially retarded whacked out college student in Virginia.

[sgt203]

Originally posted by Arlo

Who's outlawing all firearms in the U.S.? Who's even suggesting it?

Exotic guns should be legal cause Americans like dangerous toys and we're all about liberty. But they should be damned hard to get cause Billy Jo Bob's as crazy and pizzed as a socially retarded whacked out college student in Virginia.

 EDITED...

In fact Arlo I believe that is exactly what is at stake in the current DC case the Supreme Court is about the hear. Call it whatever you want but if the Supreme Court says that the 2nd Amendment is not applicable as an individual right you can bet the farm there will be wholesale passages of laws in Town's, Cities, Counties and States. They will restrict your right to own and possess any firearms as you will no longer have the protection of the 2nd amendment.

If you mean by "exotic" full auto weapons, I agree with you they should be, and to an extent are, difficult to get. If you get any more general than that you are going to have extreme difficulties with those who are going to define "exotic".

I think you are may have missed my point though with my reference to WWII and Hitler. It was meant only to illustrate that a single individual with a firearm could make a difference. I only used Hitler to illustrate that had "John Q Public" had a firearm and the opportunity to kill him, do you think that would have made a difference in world events, had he been assasinated by someone.Not having any firearm would mean ZERO chance to make that difference.  It was meant as a illustration only, no more than say the actual assasination of John F Kennedy. Did that impact world events, that was 1 man 1 gun ( not trying to open up a can of worms). That is the only point.

And yes Resistance Fighters didnt require a collectors arsenal of weaponry to start, they could have used Muskets to start. But they did need firearms. If you or I were in that situation today wouldnt it be more comforting to start this resistance with say a Semi-Auto Rifle other than a six shooter. To an extent I agree this make the firearms industry wealthy and is quite far fetched this would ever become a reality, but this is in my opinion what the 2nd amendment was for... to provide the citizens with the means for common defense. From within and without.

And yes I certainly do not need a full auto belt fed machine gun for self defense nor would I say 99.9% of this country. I personally only own a handgun. For personal self defense I find this and/or shotgun more than adequate for protecting myself and my family.

But my concern is simply this current case will render firearms ownership illegal and jsut as concerning, impracticle for self defense, if D.C. wins this case. I am even weary of allowing people to decide what is "exotic" for as with most anything else the politicos do they will screw it up or make no sense in what they do happen to do.

Let me just give you a simple idea of why I say this. Years ago there was ammunition on the market called "Black Talons". These rounds received some nasty press and the "Brady Bill" outlawed this ammunition. I know I carried it.  It was produced by Winchester. Well you could no longer purchase "Black Talons" it was illegal. The exact same bullet was renamed the "Ranger SXT". Exact same Ballistics, configuration, penetration, weight... everything.... No modifications other that changing the name. It was now instantly legal and I still carry it today.

I had no problems with the 5 day waiting period, I have no problems with the insta-check system, I have no problems with the current laws as to purchasing Automatic Weapons for those who like to do this type of shooting.

I am concerned in allowing those with political and personal agendas deciding "what is good and what is bad" in respect to firearms.  

If someone can come up with some decent common sense laws in relation to firearms, that could protect both the rights of the individual and serve as a legitimate deterent to gun related crimes I would not put up a big fuss.

However, that is a very far fetched ideal, linking common sense to anything that take place in our Nations Capital, for if it is there im certainly not seeing very much of it.

And I dont not think I was making "bogus rationalzations" I think we are looking at this from differing points of view as to what is at stake. It is simply my point of view that should the Supreme Court say the 2nd does not apply to the individual ownership of any firearm by a private citizen is in dire peril of becoming illegal.

[lazs2]

bingalong... washington was no fan of the militia and... I don't care what "serious thinker" today dismisses an armed populace giving trouble to an army..  a few thousand arabs here and there have done wonders tho against armies..russians might tell you.

Be that as it may..  you have not disproven the fact that the militia is or isn't outdated... it still exists.   As it exists today it is two parts.. it is the organized (national guard or whatever) and the unorganized which.. is still defined as every able bodied man.

So far as me being in the militia or even worrying about the government.. It is moot.. I don't worry and.. I don't care to join a militia other than by default.   I don't think that any war.. civil or revolution would be good for anyone.  

But the point remains that the founders all expected that every free man who wished would have his right to keep and bear arms protected.

now.. arlo may think that it is all about the government and such and that I am worried about that..  tyranny is not just about governments tho.. the reason to be armed is not just against your own government... there happen to be bad people in the world who like to prey on others that they percieve to be helpless.

If arlo thinks that the bad people do not exist anymore or that we need to be armed against them.. then I would say that he does not need prozac... he does need to cut down on the dose tho.

These "exotic" weapons he speaks of... what would they be?   why... could they be the evil "assault weapon" that has killed so many?  oops.. wait.. it never really did.. maybe the machine gun?   oops.. it never did either?

well.. I guess he means the "potential" to cause harm?   sorta like the "potential" of giving out concealed carry permits.. you all recall right?   there was gonna be shootings at every fender bender!

Arlo and his lefty friends thrive in the world of hysteria and lies and exaggeration..   the off hand blown out of proportion jon stewart immitation...  but.. he seems to be losing it.. three name callings in one post!  you can almost see the spittle fly.

But.. arlo or bingalong.. show me one thing that the founders said that even hints that the second was not simply an individual right.

lazs

[john9001]

"exotic" weapons?

must be a new buzz word for the gun ban people.

[lazs2]

Yep... which "exotic weapons" have been a problem?   Which ones would arlo ban and why?   oh wait.. he doesn't want to say other than the M16... which.. so far as I know.. has killed no one in this country.

lazs