What is a Militia?

[Hornet33]

Bing the differance Laz was making is that our 2nd ammendment right was not granted to us by anyone. When we became our own country our founding fathers understood that the 2nd is a right of the people not the government and the government shall not infringe on that right. It's there as a birthright granted by the Constitution alone, not a person. If your an american citizen it's your's and no one can take it away.

England on the other hand said it's your right as long as we think you deserve it. Well not to long ago they decided that the English people didn't deserve it anymore. The citizens had no recourse because it was a right granted by the government i.e. the King or Queen.

Laz didn't trip himself up, your just looking for an excuse to promote your ideals and project your morals on those of us who don't agree with you.

You don't like guns. You don't want to own guns. You don't want anyone else to own guns. Fine, you have that right to believe what you want. You DO NOT however have the right to tell me that I can't own guns. You don't get to decide what I can or cannot own anymore than I can decide what you can or cannot own.

You don't want to see me walking down the street wearing a pistol, look the other way.

[Bingolong]

Originally posted by Hornet33
Bing the differance Laz was making is that our 2nd ammendment right was not granted to us by anyone. When we became our own country our founding fathers understood that the 2nd is a right of the people not the government and the government shall not infringe on that right. It's there as a birthright granted by the Constitution alone, not a person. If your an american citizen it's your's and no one can take it away.

England on the other hand said it's your right as long as we think you deserve it. Well not to long ago they decided that the English people didn't deserve it anymore. The citizens had no recourse because it was a right granted by the government i.e. the King or Queen.

Laz didn't trip himself up, your just looking for an excuse to promote your ideals and project your morals on those of us who don't agree with you.

You don't like guns. You don't want to own guns. You don't want anyone else to own guns. Fine, you have that right to believe what you want. You DO NOT however have the right to tell me that I can't own guns. You don't get to decide what I can or cannot own anymore than I can decide what you can or cannot own.

You don't want to see me walking down the street wearing a pistol, look the other way.

Oh I thought we were under English Law before the Constitution subjects of the King?

I have no problem with guns matter fact I like them. If I saw ya walking down the street with a gun. I might try to say hello.  What type of gun is that? What would you do? How would you respond? Would that make you uncomfortable? I have a few friends that could just walk up to you and tax it. Then what? But if you wish Lazzetta to tell you my opinions. Rock On! I just feel they should be "Well Regulated" and No machine guns. That so tough a position? I think not.
Laz cant cope till he can put some one in a category. Your right in step.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Bingolong
Oh I thought we were under English Law before the Constitution subjects of the King?  

That has nothig to do with whether rights are recognized as inborn, only to be infringed by their regulation by government.

Speech, Religion, Press, and Peacable Assembly are recognized by the first amendment, and the 1st prohibits congress from passing a law infringing them.

The second prohibits the infringement of  the citizenry to be armed, although it states why the FF thought this amendment was necessary.

[Bingolong]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
That has nothig to do with whether rights are recognized as inborn, only to be infringed by their regulation by government.


Your "God" given rights?
When were the rights recognized as inborn? Before or after?

[wrag]

Originally posted by Bingolong

Originally posted by lazs2
"glad you do mt.. do you think you have a right to keep em or is it up to bingalong make that decision for ya?"


Lazetta,
Your gonna trip on yourself again

"The second did not make up a right.. the right to keep and bear arms... The right already existed before the constitution.. the amendment merely pointed out that it was a right and was not to be infringed."

Where did you get that right.... "The king"
and then you say

"If that is not the meaning then the amendment was a waste of space.   much like englands... in england.. you had the right to keep and bear arms... .so long as the government said it was ok... as you can see... a worthless (for the people) waste of ink."



Thanks

The King?

"There are three reasons to own a gun. To protect yourself and your family, to hunt dangerous and delicious animals, and to keep the King of England out of your face." - Krusty the Clown  

"Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense?" - Patrick Henry

Perhaps the King should have read this.............

"When you disarm your subjects you offend them by showing that either from cowardliness or lack of faith, you distrust them; and either conclusion will induce them to hate you"~~Niccolo Machiavelli, "The Prince"



Where did you get the right?????????

"The defense of one's self, justly called the primary law of nature, is not, nor can it be abrogated by any regulation of municipal law." - James Wilson, The Works of James Wilson, 1896




A birthright?

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American." - Tench Coxe, of Pennsylvania, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788


Historic conclusion?

"The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the Second Amendment ... as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner." - U.S. Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution, 1982


Legal stuff................

"The plain meaning of the right of the people to keep arms is that it is an individual, rather than a collective, right and is not limited to keeping arms while engaged in active military service or as a member of a select militia such as the National Guard." - U.S. vs. Emerson, 5th Circuit Federal Court




We are NOT talking the Dodge City Wild West Hollyweired KAKA here!  This is one of the closest written statements of how it's SUPPOSED to work I can recall seeing.......

"The necessary consequence of man's right to life is his right to self-defense. In a civilized society, force may be used only in retaliation & only against those who initiate its use. All the reasons which make the initiation of physical force an evil, make the retaliatory use of physical force a moral imperative. If some 'pacifist' society renounced the retaliatory use of force, it would be left helplessly at the mercy of the 1st thug who decided to be immoral. Such a society would achieve the opposite of its intention: instead of abolishing evil, it would encourage & reward it." ~~Ayn Rand "The Nature of Government" , The Virtue of Selfishness ( 1961 ), pg 108




Perhaps this is more along the lines of what the 2nd Amendment SHOULD have said...........

"Every man, woman, and responsible child has a natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil, and Constitutional right (within the limits of the Non-Aggression Principle) to obtain, own, and carry, openly or concealed, any weapon -- handgun, shotgun, rifle, machinegun, anything-- anytime, anywhere, without asking anyone's permissin"~~The Atlanta Declaration-- L. Neil Smith




Perhaps Bingolong thinks maybe would should have a Queen?

"We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society."~~Hillary Clinton, 1993

Many of you are well enough off that... the tax cuts may have helped you... We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good. -- Sen. Hillary Clinton, San Francisco, June 28, 2004 ~ or...

"...from each according to his means, to each according to his needs." -- Karl Marx, 19th Century

Always liked this statement and those like it.............

"Men who deny individual rights cannot claim, defend or uphold any rights whatsoever. ... The liberals are guilty of the same contradiction, but in a different form. They advocate the sacrifice of all individual rights to unlimited majority rule - yet posture as defenders of the rights of minorities. But the smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." ~~ Ayn Rand


And these also more clearly help those who think people carrying firearms around cause wide spread shootings, or the Dodge City Wild West at a fender bender in an intersection..............

"Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it."

"In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some."

"When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender."

"There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly."

"Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable."

"When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act."

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Bingolong
Your "God" given rights?
When were the rights recognized as inborn? Before or after?

From memory, so if not wfw, I at least am close...

"We recognize that these truths are self evident.  That all men are created equal.  That they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights.  That among these rights are life liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

This on some document dated July 4, 1776

There were other documents used as reference material by Jefferson that predate that date.

Now this doesn't prove that the bill of rights enumerate inborn rights of the individual, but it does show the mindset of an important thinker of the period.

[Bingolong]

Originally posted by wrag
The King?

"There are three reasons to own a gun. To protect yourself and your family, to hunt dangerous and delicious animals, and to keep the King of England out of your face." - Krusty the Clown  

"Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense?" - Patrick Henry

Perhaps the King should have read this.............

"When you disarm your subjects you offend them by showing that either from cowardliness or lack of faith, you distrust them; and either conclusion will induce them to hate you"~~Niccolo Machiavelli, "The Prince"



Where did you get the right?????????

"The defense of one's self, justly called the primary law of nature, is not, nor can it be abrogated by any regulation of municipal law." - James Wilson, The Works of James Wilson, 1896




A birthright?

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American." - Tench Coxe, of Pennsylvania, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788


Historic conclusion?

"The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the Second Amendment ... as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner." - U.S. Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution, 1982


Legal stuff................

"The plain meaning of the right of the people to keep arms is that it is an individual, rather than a collective, right and is not limited to keeping arms while engaged in active military service or as a member of a select militia such as the National Guard." - U.S. vs. Emerson, 5th Circuit Federal Court




We are NOT talking the Dodge City Wild West Hollyweired KAKA here!  This is one of the closest written statements of how it's SUPPOSED to work I can recall seeing.......

"The necessary consequence of man's right to life is his right to self-defense. In a civilized society, force may be used only in retaliation & only against those who initiate its use. All the reasons which make the initiation of physical force an evil, make the retaliatory use of physical force a moral imperative. If some 'pacifist' society renounced the retaliatory use of force, it would be left helplessly at the mercy of the 1st thug who decided to be immoral. Such a society would achieve the opposite of its intention: instead of abolishing evil, it would encourage & reward it." ~~Ayn Rand "The Nature of Government" , The Virtue of Selfishness ( 1961 ), pg 108




Perhaps this is more along the lines of what the 2nd Amendment SHOULD have said...........

"Every man, woman, and responsible child has a natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil, and Constitutional right (within the limits of the Non-Aggression Principle) to obtain, own, and carry, openly or concealed, any weapon -- handgun, shotgun, rifle, machinegun, anything-- anytime, anywhere, without asking anyone's permissin"~~The Atlanta Declaration-- L. Neil Smith




Perhaps Bingolong thinks maybe would should have a Queen?

"We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society."~~Hillary Clinton, 1993

Many of you are well enough off that... the tax cuts may have helped you... We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good. -- Sen. Hillary Clinton, San Francisco, June 28, 2004 ~ or...

"...from each according to his means, to each according to his needs." -- Karl Marx, 19th Century

Always liked this statement and those like it.............

"Men who deny individual rights cannot claim, defend or uphold any rights whatsoever. ... The liberals are guilty of the same contradiction, but in a different form. They advocate the sacrifice of all individual rights to unlimited majority rule - yet posture as defenders of the rights of minorities. But the smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." ~~ Ayn Rand


And these also more clearly help those who think people carrying firearms around cause wide spread shootings, or the Dodge City Wild West at a fender bender in an intersection..............

"Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it."

"In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some."

"When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender."

"There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly."

"Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable."

"When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act."

Find me somthing before 1776

[Bingolong]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
From memory, so if not wfw, I at least am close...

"We recognize that these truths are self evident.  That all men are created equal.  That they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights.  That among these rights are life liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

This on some document dated July 4, 1776

There were other documents used as reference material by Jefferson that predate that date.

Now this doesn't prove that the bill of rights enumerate inborn rights of the individual, but it does show the mindset of an important thinker of the period.

Thank you

[Hornet33]

Originally posted by Bingolong
Oh I thought we were under English Law before the Constitution subjects of the King?

Yeah before we won our independance we were subject to the King of Englands laws. Not anymore. The 2nd Ammendmant is there so that the people of this country NEVER again fall under the rule of a tyrant king or government.

[Bingolong]

Originally posted by Hornet33
Yeah before we won our independance we were subject to the King of Englands laws. Not anymore. The 2nd Ammendmant is there so that the people of this country NEVER again fall under the rule of a tyrant king or government.

Thank you

[Hornet33]

Originally posted by Bingolong
Find me somthing before 1776

Why should he??? This countries current form of government was started on July 4th 1776, the date the Consitution of the United States was ratified. Anything before that has no bearing on the 2nd Ammendment today. On that date the citizens of this country were guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms and that this government would not be allowed to infringe on that right.

[wrag]

Originally posted by Bingolong
Find me somthing before 1776

Read John Locke, Fredrick Batiste, Machiavelli, Plato, Aristotle, I know there are some others but can't remember all the names.....(OK my spelling of their names really sux)

But IIRC the writings of John Locke were of particular interest to the Founders of this Nation.

[Bingolong]

Originally posted by Hornet33
Why should he??? This countries current form of government was started on July 4th 1776, the date the Consitution of the United States was ratified. Anything before that has no bearing on the 2nd Ammendment today. On that date the citizens of this country were guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms and that this government would not be allowed to infringe on that right.

Your gonna trip on yourself again >me

"The second did not make up a right.. the right to keep and bear arms... The right already existed before the constitution.. the amendment merely pointed out that it was a right and was not to be infringed.">Laz

Where did you get that right.... "The king"
and then you say>Me

"If that is not the meaning then the amendment was a waste of space. much like englands... in england.. you had the right to keep and bear arms... .so long as the government said it was ok... as you can see... a worthless (for the people) waste of ink." >Laz

 
we were talking before the constitution thats why!
Keep up please.

Didnt you just say we were all subjects of the king?

[Hornet33]

What freaky reality do you live in???

Yes we were subjects of the King before we won our freedom. You know the English settlements and all?? That's no longer the case. We beat the British, kicked them out of North America, and created the USA with our own government and our own laws all based off the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights.

The King of England did not grant me my right to keep and bear arms. The 2nd Ammendment does however grant me that right because I am an American citizen and the Constitution and the Bill of Rights recognizes the fact that I am just as equal under the law of this land as the President of the United States and no one has the authority to take away my guns without cause.

[Bingolong]

Originally posted by Hornet33
What freaky reality do you live in???

Yes we were subjects of the King before we won our freedom. You know the English settlements and all?? That's no longer the case. We beat the British, kicked them out of North America, and created the USA with our own government and our own laws all based off the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights.

The King of England did not grant me my right to keep and bear arms. The 2nd Ammendment does however grant me that right because I am an American citizen and the Constitution and the Bill of Rights recognizes the fact that I am just as equal under the law of this land as the President of the United States and no one has the authority to take away my guns without cause.

Okay Okay I'm not disagreeing with you.
You further make my point to laz