What is a Militia?

[Bingolong]

Originally posted by indy007
Purchased. They were a commodity, sold by other Africans.

Traded at 1st.

to me being captured and taken away would be stolen.

Africans who had made a business out of capturing other Africans and selling them.

The Atlantic slave trade peaked in the late 18th century, when the largest number of slaves were captured on raiding expeditions into the interior of West Africa.

a steal of a deal if you will

[Arlo]

Originally posted by john9001
don't flatter yourself, your about as abrasive as whipped cream.

Oh, I know I'm not the most abrasive dude in the world, honey. I'm just not sure why you spill non-stop tears, dear.

[john9001]

Originally posted by Arlo
Then what's with the regular tears, dear.

tears of laughter, laughing at your futile attempts to insult people.

[Arlo]

Originally posted by john9001
tears of laughter, laughing at your futile attempts to insult people.

So futile you're fixated on whining about it all the time? *poke*

Here's a hint:

A: Some people are just naturally prone to feeling insulted and complaining about it more than others, bless their hypersensitive, bruise-prone souls.

B: Some people aren't in the habit of bubble-wrapping everything they post to protect group A, damn their evil, bully, mean, heartless "troll"-souls.

C: Some people waffle between A and B and don't seem sure if they want to cry or laugh in between proving how "brilliant" they are with every post, may medication eventually help their bi-polarness.

D: Some people aren't worried about how "bad" the other guy is and are better at concentrating on their own character and not deviating from the root of the argument, pity their sensible natures.

[john9001]

<>>

[Arlo]

Originally posted by john9001
<>>

Sure. And that wasn't a whimper you just made. Mmmmmright.  

[Arlo]

Was that a yes or a no?

[lazs2]

MT.. what you are saying is not what bingie is saying..  you are interpreting the ruling the court will make as decieding if the second is an individual right or just a worthless government right.

This would be fine with me as they have always come down... at least implied.. that it is indeed an individual right just like every other right.. that a "collective right" is no right at all.

bingie believes that the question has already been settled and that all they are going to do is decide what a "mitia" is.   That only a militia has rights.  in his opinion.. the second is only as good as what the government tells you it is.. he perscribes to the "no right at all" theory.

quite a difference.

I can't help but feel the SC will skirt the issue yet again... implying that it is indeed an individual right but the right of the government to decide what guns are appropriate...  pretty much as it stands now with one exception..  a gun that is locked up or all apart with no ammo is not a gun... A total ban on guns would not be acceptable.

The ruling will probly stop total gun bans but not restrictions.   I can't really see em going much farther than that.   Too many gun owners and constitutional scholars on the one hand who feel it is indeed a real individual right and too big a precedent to set to say that "the people" simply means any organization the state says it recognizes and not individuals.

On the other hand.. an outright admission that the government has no right to restrict would mean that thousands of gun laws would have to be looked at again.   It might open the floodgates and people might start getting uppity and think that they had some say... some rights..

lazs

[Toad]

Originally posted by midnight Target
And why did you change the subject Toad?

The subject is individual vs collective rights in the Bill of Rights. From the way the SC framed the question they will address, it is clear they are looking at to determine if it is an individual right.

That last about books illustrates the nature of the dependent clause in the 2nd.

[midnight Target]

Originally posted by Toad
The subject is individual vs collective rights in the Bill of Rights. From the way the SC framed the question they will address, it is clear they are looking at to determine if it is an individual right.

That last about books illustrates the nature of the dependent clause in the 2nd.

Actually we were discussing the specificity of the question the SC would be reviewing. You changed the subject.

Lazs admits I'm right, you may as well follow along. The right of a militia is already decided, the rights of the individual will be decided... maybe.

[wrag]

Originally posted by Arlo
So futile you're fixated on whining about it all the time? *poke*

Here's a hint:

A: Some people are just naturally prone to feeling insulted and complaining about it more than others, bless their hypersensitive, bruise-prone souls.

B: Some people aren't in the habit of bubble-wrapping everything they post to protect group A, damn their evil, bully, mean, heartless "troll"-souls.

C: Some people waffle between A and B and don't seem sure if they want to cry or laugh in between proving how "brilliant" they are with every post, may medication eventually help their bi-polarness.

D: Some people aren't worried about how "bad" the other guy is and are better at concentrating on their own character and not deviating from the root of the argument, pity their sensible natures.

MY MY MY

This kinda stuff must make you feel real good about yourself.

IMHO your nothing more then a troller looking for a reaction so here you go

So all betters now are you?

[Toad]

Originally posted by midnight Target
Actually we were discussing the specificity of the question the SC would be reviewing. You changed the subject.

Lazs admits I'm right, you may as well follow along. The right of a militia is already decided, the rights of the individual will be decided... maybe.

I think if you review my posts in the entire thread, from page one, you will see that you probably agreed with me, latecomer.

As for changing the subject, it was merely a learning aid for those confused by what a dependent clause is used to accomplish.

[Bingolong]

Originally posted by lazs2
MT.. what you are saying is not what bingie is saying..  you are interpreting the ruling the court will make as decieding if the second is an individual right or just a worthless government right.

This would be fine with me as they have always come down... at least implied.. that it is indeed an individual right just like every other right.. that a "collective right" is no right at all.

bingie believes that the question has already been settled and that all they are going to do is decide what a "mitia" is.   That only a militia has rights.  in his opinion.. the second is only as good as what the government tells you it is.. he perscribes to the "no right at all" theory.

quite a difference.

I can't help but feel the SC will skirt the issue yet again... implying that it is indeed an individual right but the right of the government to decide what guns are appropriate...  pretty much as it stands now with one exception..  a gun that is locked up or all apart with no ammo is not a gun... A total ban on guns would not be acceptable.

The ruling will probly stop total gun bans but not restrictions.   I can't really see em going much farther than that.   Too many gun owners and constitutional scholars on the one hand who feel it is indeed a real individual right and too big a precedent to set to say that "the people" simply means any organization the state says it recognizes and not individuals.

On the other hand.. an outright admission that the government has no right to restrict would mean that thousands of gun laws would have to be looked at again.   It might open the floodgates and people might start getting uppity and think that they had some say... some rights..

lazs

Not really laz just no "God" given rights to own a gun. From the time you are born you are under law, they number you right from the get go these days . The government tells you what you can and cant do. In fact the government wrote the 2nd. You are not free. We live under rule of law not feudalism. You do not pop out of the womb with a gun , you are given the right to have one by the government who wrote your rights to begin with and who have modified your rights since then and continue to do so. So, once again, you are not the militia, the militia is what the government says it is, its clear thru the rule of law bye the government, you are no longer a one man militia. I am sorry laz.

Now I have said yes the definition of the militia will have to be declared before they move on to toad and your argument. Is there and/or will be an unorganized militia? Will the militia become solely the national guard? Will the unorganized militia get renamed national defence forces? Will it stay unanswered? Will the unorganized militia be declared troops? Will the unorganized militia be made mandatory to own a gun ? Will the unorganized militia be at the sole discretion of the State? The way I see your right totally depends on what the unorganized militia is. You dont see it that way neither does toad.

As toad said the SC wrote the qusetion. It is extremely rare that happens.  MT its not only a "regulated militia" It's the "State-regulated militia" DC want to ban guns, their not a state.
Why did the SC frame the question that way? Seems it would not pertain to DC.

[john9001]

Bingolong, what does inalienable rights mean?

[Bingolong]

Originally posted by john9001
Bingolong, what does inalienable rights mean?

Who said you have inalienable rights?