What is a Militia?

[wrag]

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.

OOOPSSSS

2nd Amendment GRANTS nothing!

It acknowledges and reserves, or preserves, a right all creatures have!  The right to DEFEND yourself and your family among other things!

It is a right that was FULLY recognized by the Founders as NOT being given by anyone, but existed since the beginning of time for all creatures.

The WILL to survive, to FIGHT for your life, to preserve.............

In nature the stronger creature USUALLY wins!

The 2nd Amendment recognizes that God made man and Samuel Colt made em all equal............  J/K

LOOK at my earlier post, the quotes and such, and you will, or SHOULD see how it all ties in.

[wrag]

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

HUH??????????

Just what is your point?

Have you been ignoring all my post?

I've answered your question several times in several ways so what is your point?

The post I made just before this one answers your question about WHERE the 2nd Amendment originated!

[Chairboy]

I disagree with Wrag on just about anything, and I'm pretty sure we both think the other is a jerk, but I agree with his post above.

[wrag]

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

I'm starting to think you're bored or just don't like to read or perhaps you just like to stir things.

[wrag]

Originally posted by Chairboy
I disagree with Wrag on just about anything, and I'm pretty sure we both think the other is a jerk, but I agree with his post above.

< begins to wonder if there was a sudden temperature drop in Hell>


Actually Chair I don't think of you as a jerk.

A person with a different point of view YES.  Which IMHO is just fine Sir.

And the biggest grip I EVER had about your post, or more correctly their MANNER, IIRC I've already posted.

[Bingolong]

Originally posted by wrag
I'm starting to think you're bored or just don't like to read or perhaps you just like to stir things.

I suggest you do just that go back and read!

[Hornet33]

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

And what point would that be???

[Bingolong]

Originally posted by wrag
HUH??????????

Just what is your point?

Have you been ignoring all my post?

I've answered your question several times in several ways so what is your point?

The post I made just before this one answers your question about WHERE the 2nd Amendment originated!

Can you please tell me the laws/rights at that time? before 1776. Or were there any? and if they were who's law were they? Please!

[john9001]

Originally posted by wrag

2nd Amendment GRANTS nothing!

It acknowledges and reserves, or preserves, a right all creatures have!  The right to DEFEND yourself and your family among other things!

It is a right that was FULLY recognized by the Founders as NOT being given by anyone, but existed since the beginning of time for all creatures.
 

word.

[Bingolong]

Originally posted by Hornet33
And what point would that be???

Laz wrote
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?

I am pretty sure that if the SC speaks of the second in this case they will do like they always have and call it an individual right in the text of the case. Not sure what changes will happen.. if the people win over the government it will probly just mean that states and cities can't ban guns or make us keep em in a useless state.

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.

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.

I think a lot of liberals that don't like the second are a little scared of the second being a "collective" and worthless right... of "the people" meaning just the state. the liberals like some gurantees that the freedoms they like are protected.


laz
My response

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"( edit?????<---hence who made the law before the conistitution)

"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."

then you post

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."

and again you say:

"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."

then once more for good measure:

"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."


So you have answered the question in triplicate for me and I have thanked you for it... I dont see a problem here.

If I go with his and wrags definition every single time a weapon of any kind advances its my right to have one. I dont go with that reasoning. hand , rock, stick, arrow, catapult...... since the begining of time.

[Holden McGroin]

Bingolong:

Before the Constitution the right to arm onself, speak ones mind, and worship freely existed. As human beings these rights were inborn in all of us and then were infringed upon by the government.

After we won out independance and formed our own government, we wrote down in the Constitution that this new government would be prohibited from taking away our rights.

Whether there was a tyrannical government that took those rights away, or a government that was prohibited from taking these rights away,  rights are self evident, we all "endowed by our creator with certain unaleinable rights"

[wrag]

Originally posted by Bingolong
Can you please tell me the laws/rights at that time? before 1776. Or were there any? and if they were who's law were they? Please!

Law?

Rights?

OK lets do this ............

First:  there were NO LAWS, or RIGHTS, but those made by the stronger to RULE over the weaker.  Call it Law of the Jungle if you like.

Someone wrote an entire paper on how the first farmers created the first rulers.  Seems the farmers stayed in one place.  Along comes someone (probably more like a group of someones) that realized a good thing when they saw it (free food that someone else was making) and took advantage.

At first perhaps they offered to PROTECT the farmers for a cut of the profits so to speak?  But later , probably because they kept their weapons skills up and weren't exhausted from all that drudge like farm work, they took over.  At which point the farmers had now become vassals or perhaps just plan slaves.

Got that?

Now a point I'd like to make here is just because someone, who was stronger, or meaner, or more numerous, or had a tech advantage, created vassals or slaves did NOT remove the basic rights all humans have, or SHOULD have.  It just placed a hold upon, or stopped people from enjoying, those rights.

In some ways it perhaps INSURED that some day some where those rights would be REMEMBERED and HONORED!

The Founders did NOT create RIGHTS  they simply looked at societies in the past, were well read and educated for their time (IIRC it's referred to as a Classic Education and is still available in many higher learning institutions), and thought upon such things.

BTW you might wanna read up on the individuals I named in an earlier post.  as that is where many of the ideas the Founders used came from.

There we go............

So after watching the King and his minions abuse fellow Americans in not so nice ways, and listening to an ARMED populace that was probably STILL angry.  They came up with a Bill of Rights.

To them, and the people, these were Rights that ALWAYS existed!  

Rights that were for EVERYONE!

Rights that were theres because they, the PEOPLE, EXISTED!

Enumerating those Rights had a purpose.

After looking at history and reading how so many societies failed they thought upon what they hoped would be a way to preserve those Rights.  

SOOOOO ..............

They SPELLED them out so in the future someone wanting to be King or Dictator or some such would find it difficult to take those rights away.

So if you still have a problem with all this I repeat............

First:  there were NO LAWS, or RIGHTS, but those made by the stronger to RULE over the weaker.  Call it Law of the Jungle if you like.

Now a point I'd like to make here is just because someone, who was stronger, or meaner, or more numerous, or had a tech advantage, created vassals or slaves did NOT remove the basic rights all humans have, or SHOULD have.  It just placed a hold upon, or stopped people from enjoying, those rights.

Does this work for you?

[lazs2]

bingie.. you have been answered many times.  the constitution.. Like it or not simply recognized god given rights.   Now.. if you want to get into a discussion of god or human rights.. that is different.   Perhaps it is a judo christian thinking that makes us believe that a creator gave us rights as humans... one of which is to be able to defend ourselves with weapons against others with weapons.

perhaps you subscribe to the marxist ideal that there are no rights save those our government gives us.    The constitution however.. went with the former and not the latter.

But... you say that you believe we have the "right"  (collectively?) to own guns.. just not "machine guns" (for some reason not specified) but that we should be part of a "well regulated" militia in order to do so.

Please explain what "well regulated" means to you since you believe that the right of the people to keep and bear arms can indeed be infringed.

Well regulated by diane finestiens or sorros's ideal would be.. regulated out of existence except for those in power or influence.  Do you think the second meant that?  

point being.. you seem to wish to make our second be as worthless as englands..   They had no right save one granted by the people in power and.. we all see how that turned out.

If the second had wanted the state to have rights then they should have said the state instead of the people.

lazs

[Arlo]

Originally posted by lazs2
Perhaps it is a judo christian thinking ....

As taught in Christian self-defense courses that don't require being heeled 24/7 for the protection of the nation from it's own government and such.

[Arlo]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Bingolong:

Before the Constitution the right to arm onself, speak ones mind, and worship freely existed. "

As they still do "after." Much ado `bout nuthin' regarding extremist rhetoric either direction.