What is a Militia?

[wrag]

Originally posted by Bingolong
Look I have posted the "Militia" subject because i think thats the hindge.  If you  dont like the way the law reads today not in 1776 well I dont know what to tell ya.
Today's truth is not yesterdays ideal. I have said what I think the SC is going to possible do and why I think they ask all I've heard is a bunch of bloviating .

So I got a little Shoot me!

OK

For the record.  Many think there is NO other way for the Supremes to go but to rule that the 2nd is for individuals.

I however am concerned.  I've read information on 2 of the Judges, that are supposed to be conservatives, that COULD indicate they will decide otherwise.

Something that also SEEMS convenient is the timing, our next Pres could start out by signing a law banning personal firearms.

Hopefully I'm just seeing phantoms where nothing exist.

A point that MIGHT be worth consider, IF the decision is AGAINST individual ownership................

WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO?

[lasersailor184]

I'm going to declare that any who attempt or actually do take any gun from any legal american is guilty of treason, with the punishment of Death, with no chance of reprieve, ever.  Then I will enact it.

[wrag]

Originally posted by lasersailor184
I'm going to declare that any who attempt or actually do take any gun from any legal american is guilty of treason, with the punishment of Death, with no chance of reprieve, ever.  Then I will enact it.

Interesting..............

and now there is a definite possibility that you have just placed yourself completely under the control of the Patriot Act!

You are defying the LAW, the Government, and that which has been declared by our LEGAL system to be correct.

SOOOOO they decide to declare you a terrorist/enemy of the state and then declare that it is open season on terrorist/enemies of the state.


The founders of this Nation understood some things.....


“There is in all of us a strong disposition to believe that anything lawful is also legitimate. This belief is so widespread that many persons have erroneously held that things are ‘just’ because the law makes them so.” —Frederic Bastiat


And the people, because the Government says you are a terrorist, will believe you are a terrorist.  Your neighbors when told by the AUTHORITIES of your status may even help them bring you under control.  Sadly the following SEEMS to be too often, and at times even popular, but true....


“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.” —Giordano Bruno



There are ALWAYS present in every age, every country, individuals that SEEK to control others, aka the people.  AND sadly there are always those that will follow them and do their bidding, at times with a seemingly great JOY.

"When bad men combine, the good must associate, else they will fall one by one, an un-pitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle"

[Bingolong]

Sheessszzz! I feel like I just went through dentallobotomy class! Well thanks finally I try to answer and I will a few.

"I don't think that what is the militia has anything to do with the second... whatever it is... if we need it.. we need to draw from a people who's right to keep and bear arms is not infringed."

Well I think you are wrong here. I think they asked about the states well-regulated militia, exactly because DC is not a state. Not to slither out of rendering an opinion. Sort of like the "Free zone" or "no mans land" so to speak.


"as for your... well.. your sites.. 7 questions.. I have answered most throughout this thread.. yes, the second is an individual right.. no..it does not include hand grenades and such although I would say a state had a right to license and regulate them if they desired.. same for cannon and such.. that was around then and not considered "arms"."

I hope they do make it an individual right. I agree with most of this  however...

"now.. on the ruling.. I would be happy if the sc concluded that the second was an individual right and that the federal government had no right to make any laws.. this, as tribe suggests, would get rid of broad, sweeping bans like the magazine and "assault weapons" ban..."
"Further... if they concluded that the states had the right to regulate/control guns .. so long as the control did not infringe on the peoples right to keep and bear arms that were useful to his defense or the defense of his fellows. In other words... they could regulate (or not) machine guns and such but not entirely.. they could not ban them say."
 
I don’t think any one in the "Population" needs a machine gun or a cannon > registered or not.


"This would get rid of the federal bans now in place and things like the DC ban but still allow the states some room.. they could permit .50 cal guns or high capacity mags say without banning them. They could "regulate" but not ban "arms"."

Are you not allowed 50 caliber guns> you surely don’t need a >50 Barret or a BMI for home protection.. yes? But you can own a Model 500 or an Eagle no problem or the even more powerful .454!  but then again  

http://videos.emule.com/play/drunk-woman-vs---50-caliber-pistol-(-qRJzpQXb7c
Maybe not, maybe more regulation is required.

[Bingolong]

cont.
"I see a net relaxing of the unfair laws and bans with rights protected from being simply legeslated or voted away. I have seen guns that were perfectly legal suddenly make their owners criminals with the stroke of a pen."

Yes...I would like them to relax the unfair laws as well. I think were a little apart on the unfairness however. The Pen is mightier than the sword?


"No.. the brookings guy takes the only logical out.. he admits that the second is as it looks.. a protection for the individual and that trivializing it is a bad move... soooo..
He suggests that we get rid of it entirely..
I partially agree.. As I have said.. if you don't like the amendment then repeal it."

Yep.. That’s what is provided for I agree. But most parts are defined already the unorganized/private militia is/are not. I hope they do the minimal...just define that. Get rid of the yahoo paramilitary think they are badass militia its my right types with machine guns. I don’t see any mention of one of the reasons to own a gun as being fun to own. You know what I mean?

"That is really the showdown that is needed.. not some obvious affirmation that the second is about protecting individual rights and then figuring out ways to skirt those rights."

I agree here as well. Removing the "militia" part makes it easier to attack Sooo... you should want that to stay. It is really the most important part of the questions asked by the SC.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Bingolong

You getting the idea or should I continue?  

Originally linked by Bingolong Nov. 20 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Supreme Court will consider whether individuals have a constitutional right to own firearms, agreeing to decide an election-year fight over the District of Columbia's decades-old handgun ban.

"a constitutional right to own firearms" I was under the impression that the thread was about the 2nd amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, a document written a decade later than 1776.

So I made an offhand humorous remark. I humbly apologize.

[lazs2]

ok.. now we are making some progress... seems that the only points that we differ on is what is the militia and what arms you think I "need" (read can be banned).

"need" has nothing to do with it.. the people who like to shoot 2,000 yard competitions "need" a .50... If there is a tyrant in power..you "need" a .50 to take out his and his henchmens limmo's.

Machine guns?  they are fun... fun fulfills a "need" for some.. no one "needs" to climb mountains for instance.  I don't want you or anyone else defining "need" so far as recreation and defense goes.

As to the militia..  the earlier act that you are so fond of still puts me in the militia as it is every able bodied free man.. It is not my problem that my state is lax in organizing it.

this was exactly the problem... the states didn't do it.  soooo.. the current defenition.. the one we are bound by right this minute... says that I am in the "unorganized militia"

either way.. I am in the militia.. as are you.   The age and physical stuff would not stand civil rights scrutiny.  

Further.. I have a draft card.   At one time we all did.  It said that I could be called to service...  even tho I did nothing but sign up.   In fact.. the draft still looms over all of us.   it could happen again next week.   If a militia is so outdated then so is the draft.  we don't need to draw from the citizens.

We will see a relaxing of gun bans but we will see more differences in the states gun laws but the feds will have to protect our absolute right to keep and bear arms.. no DC bans for instance.

lazs

[lazs2]

And.. another interesting thing will happen if the SC rules it as an individual right..

The AntiamericanCommieLawyersUnio n will be in a bind of their own making...

Their only excuse for selling second amendment rights down the river is (besides being commies) that it is a "collective right".. not worth them getting into.. nothing they can do about it.

Their real agenda will be out in the open if they don't take individual rights cases based on the second as newly interpreted.

lazs

[Bingolong]

Originally posted by lazs2
"ok.. now we are making some progress... seems that the only points that we differ on is what is the militia and what arms you think I "need" (read can be banned)."

I think you went backwards again.


"need" has nothing to do with it.. the people who like to shoot 2,000 yard competitions "need" a .50... If there is a tyrant in power..you "need" a .50 to take out his and his henchmens limmo's.

Okay I like to shoot 3 mile competitions . There is a new gun out that can shoot that far .75 caliber all the sudden I have a "Need" for that gun, NO, thats laughable. What did they "need" to kill the tyrant when the constitution was written? Hinckley didn't need a 50, either did Booth or Oswald. Are you saying you only "need" a 50 for a tyrant? So you can shoot him at 2000 yrds, you cant shoot him at 1000?


"Machine guns?  they are fun... fun fulfills a "need" for some.. no one "needs" to climb mountains for instance.  I don't want you or anyone else defining "need" so far as recreation and defense goes."

Again nice try. Mountains don't shoot people. You don't have a need for those Guns . You do have a "want" I want to shoot 2000, and I "Want" a 50 that can do it. Hell I "want" to shoot 3 miles guess I need a cannon?  My Dad had a good saying for "want". "Want in one hand, crap in the other, see which one fills up first."


"As to the militia..  the earlier act that you are so fond of still puts me in the militia as it is every able bodied free man.. It is not my problem that my state is lax in organizing it.
this was exactly the problem... the states didn't do it.  soooo.. the current defenition.. the one we are bound by right this minute... says that I am in the "unorganized militia" either way.. I am in the militia.. as are you.   The age and physical stuff would not stand civil rights scrutiny. "

No, its not but until the state does organize it you aren't in it!
Nope, the framers state what your duty as a militia men is. If it was not fully implemented is "Not my problem".
 

"Further.. I have a draft card.   At one time we all did.  It said that I could be called to service...  even thou I did nothing but sign up.   In fact.. the draft still looms over all of us.   it could happen again next week.   If a militia is so outdated then so is the draft.  we don't need to draw from the citizens."

Yep me too, are you trying to say that draftees are the militia?
when you get drafted for whom do you serve?


"We will see a relaxing of gun bans but we will see more differences in the states gun laws but the feds will have to protect our absolute right to keep and bear arms.. no DC bans for instance."

I think some guns will be outright banned. Not allowing you to have 50 is not an intrusion of your rights/needs. You have the right to be armed, just with what will be answered, you don't need a 50 or a machine gun, you want them and again I don't see "Need/Want" to have "Fun" at a "competition" in there as a reason for a gun either. Lets stick to what the documents say huh? I have proven your not the militia. Now lets work on your "Needs".

[Bingolong]

btw,

Un-organized Militia dose not mean no organization its the difference between Fed/State and the people... however it still has organized, trained and registered componets thats what the contitution says!

[john9001]

who will decide my "needs", Barbara Boxer?


boxer at senate news show, "with this gun you don't have to aim, you just spray and shoot." Then she tries to insert the magazine in backwards.

[Bingolong]

Originally posted by john9001
who will decide my "needs", Barbara Boxer?


boxer at senate news show, "with this gun you don't have to aim, you just spray and shoot." Then she tries to insert the magazine in backwards.

some "need" insulin an 85 year old man "wants" to have sex he "needs" viagra he also so wants a 50, he cant even lift it,  he dont need it.

I need to shoot 2000yrds. If I "want" the "need to" that bad there is a place I can do it. I'm joining the service.

[john9001]

Bingolong, the question i asked was who would decide my needs, you side stepped the question.

[Bingolong]

Originally posted by john9001
Bingolong, the question i asked was who would decide my needs, you side stepped the question.

you do of course just dont confuse your "needs" with your "wants".

I want many things do I need them? no.

[Charon]

Un-organized Militia dose not mean no organization its the difference between Fed/State and the people... however it still has organized, trained and registered componets thats what the contitution says!

Says you. Unfortunately for that position, even mainstream liberal thought on the issue, including Lawrence Tribe, who is broadly considered to be a Constitutional Icon even by most conservatives in those circles, has shifted. Tribe actually received no small amount of hate mail from gun control supporters after he changed his position on the issue. They realized the ramifications of his scholarship to their crusade.

And, as noted by Brookings (and others), he is not alone on the issue among liberal leaning scholars. They seem to agree with a much looser definition of what constitutes a militia, just as the Framers were clear in a far more loose view of why "the people" should have arms independent of government control, even if it's a state government. The people may decide to support the state against the fed. government, or the fed. government against the state, but they would need their own firearms to make that choice. They may decide to support neither.

I'm not aware of the constitution spelling out a restrictive and definitive  definition of militia, even in the Federalist Papers where you see more general discussion. However, there is abundant and clear support for the right of the people to bear arms against enemies, foreign and domestic. Some of us swore an oath to that effect, and even though we got to "play" with some serious weapons in the service we have a very personal connection to the underlying meaning of that oath. That firearm ownership is enjoyable is an unrelated bonus, just like using firearms for hunting.

Now as to wants and needs, you seem to want a variety of restrictions on firearms you feel others do not need. So, just exactly which classes of firearms would you personally like to see restricted and why (and provide facts and statistics to show the common good arguments). This is certainly an issue that will come up after the case is decided, regardless of which way it is decided.

Charon