Author Topic: What is a Militia?  (Read 18040 times)

Offline wrag

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3499
What is a Militia?
« Reply #45 on: November 21, 2007, 11:11:03 AM »
Hmmm...........

Lets hope the timing isn't going along with this...........

and that there is NO truth to any of this...................

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58778

you can even find out who is or isn't...................

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58425

Just out of curiosity ....

IF the supremes find the 2nd Amendment doesn't mean what many of us believe.

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed- unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." - James Madison


If they say the right to keep and bear arms isn't an individual right.

What you gonna do?

Cause now if the powers that be wish it they can send the Marines door to door to collect weapons.

The 4th has pretty much been gutted by the Patriot act.

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined." - Patrick Henry

Sadly many SEEMED to cheer it on in hopes of being defended from the terrorist.

"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the rights of the people by the gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." James Madison, fourth US president (1751-1836)


"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in guise of fighting a foreign enemy." James Madison, fourth US president (1751-1836)





Hmmm................

GUN CONTROL: "The gun control debate generally ignores the historical and philosophical underpinnings of the Second amendment. The Second amendment is not about hunting deer or keeping a pistol in your nightstand. It is not about protecting oneself against common criminals. It is about preventing tyranny. The Founders knew that unarmed citizens would never be able to overthrow a tyrannical government as they did. They envisioned government as a servant, not a master, of the American people. The muskets they used against the British Army were the assault rifles of that time. It is practical, rather than alarmist, to understand that unarmed citizens cannot be secure in their freedoms." -- libertarian U.S. Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX), "Gun Control on the Back Burner," Nov. 6, 2006.


Edited here!!! found it!!!

"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

been lookin for the above.
« Last Edit: November 21, 2007, 11:15:26 AM by wrag »
It's been said we have three brains, one cobbled on top of the next. The stem is first, the reptilian brain; then the mammalian cerebellum; finally the over developed cerebral cortex.  They don't work together in awfully good harmony - hence ax murders, mobs, and socialism.

Offline Bingolong

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 330
What is a Militia?
« Reply #46 on: November 21, 2007, 11:44:42 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Cypher
IIRC somewhere in the constitution it says that a militia consists of all males ages 18 to 45.


The militia act of 1903 or the Dick act,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903

The Militia Act of 1903 organized the various state militias into the present National Guard system. The Army National Guard is part of the United States Army, comprising approximately one half of its available combat forces and approximately one third of its support organization. The Air National Guard is part of the United States Air Force.

Title X of the US Code states:

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Offline Tigeress

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1260
What is a Militia?
« Reply #47 on: November 21, 2007, 12:25:03 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Golfer
There is not really any reason to be afraid of a firearm.  In my experience those who actually have a legitimate "fear" of guns are the ones who don't know the first thing about using and handling them safely.

Then again I've grown up shooting and now instruct others how to shoot.  One of my absolute favorite things to do is take someone who may have no experience with a firearm and help them break targets on a trap or skeet range.  Same goes for the more, stigmatic I guess, handgun.   The first time someone handles a hangun they're typically nervous, timid and unsure of what to actually expect.  When they put a few rounds through it, they're usually not happy to wait for me to reload the magazine!

Sounds like it could be something fun for you to do, Tigress!


My fear and dislike for guns has to do with people using poor judgement much more so than anything else although they are loud. I have actually fired a gun at a target under supervision and it was fun.

I do like firing the simulated 20mm Hispanos on my simulated Hurricane MkII-C when I am on the six of a badboy's simulated WWII fighter. :rofl

TIGERESS

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
What is a Militia?
« Reply #48 on: November 21, 2007, 02:40:14 PM »
bingolong..  you are correct... the act defined militia as....

"The Militia Act of 1903--together with its 1908 amendment--was, in the words of a leading historian of the National Guard, "the most important national legislation in militia history." The act, also known as the Dick Act in honor of Dick, repealed the Militia Act of 1792 and divided the militia into two groups: the Reserve Militia, defined as all able-bodied men between 18 and 45, and the Organized Militia, defined as state units receiving federal support. "

the "militia" is still defined as every able bodied man between the age of 18 and 45 sooo...

That is the "people"  you cant' infringe.

Now.. the one sticking point is the "man" part and the "45" part.   I have a feeling that womens groups and AARP might get a little bit upset with the gender and age discrimination.    Federal law now prohibits discrimination based on age and/or gender.

So the militia would be..... everone who is able bodied (that would have to be "not insane") that is over 18.

that would include those who had been criminals but had served their time.

That would also be historical as... taking away a free mans rights because of his past record is only a recent obscenity.

lazs

Offline Arlo

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24759
What is a Militia?
« Reply #49 on: November 21, 2007, 03:08:04 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by lazs2
arlo.. I think toad hit all the historical stuff.   I think it is common sense tho... especially given the wording of the second as originally written that...

The reason the peoples right to bear arms shall not be infringed is that without an armed populace you can't form a militia..  take away their arms and the people can't come together to form a militia.

 


Timothy McVeigh thought he was part of a "militia." ;)

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
What is a Militia?
« Reply #50 on: November 21, 2007, 03:08:15 PM »
also.. I think that we are getting too caught up in who is the militia.. it matters not who they are ..   someone said it quite well

The original intent and purpose of the Second Amendment was to preserve and guarantee, not grant, the pre-existing right of individuals to keep and bear arms. Although the amendment emphasizes the need for a militia, membership in any militia, let alone a well-regulated one, was not intended to serve as a prerequisite for exercising the right to keep arms.

The Second Amendment preserves and guarantees an individual right for a collective purpose. That does not transform the right into a "collective right." The militia clause was a declaration of purpose, and preserving the people's right to keep and bear arms was the method the framers chose to, in-part, ensure the continuation of a well-regulated militia.

the amendment merely states WHY it is necessary for the peoples natural right to keep and bear arms should not be infringed.

The militia needed to be drawn on from the ranks of armed citizens.    One was not obligated nor was his right dependent on... the militia.

lazs

Offline Tigeress

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1260
What is a Militia?
« Reply #51 on: November 22, 2007, 08:53:06 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by lazs2
also.. I think that we are getting too caught up in who is the militia.. it matters not who they are ..   someone said it quite well

The original intent and purpose of the Second Amendment was to preserve and guarantee, not grant, the pre-existing right of individuals to keep and bear arms. Although the amendment emphasizes the need for a militia, membership in any militia, let alone a well-regulated one, was not intended to serve as a prerequisite for exercising the right to keep arms.

The Second Amendment preserves and guarantees an individual right for a collective purpose. That does not transform the right into a "collective right." The militia clause was a declaration of purpose, and preserving the people's right to keep and bear arms was the method the framers chose to, in-part, ensure the continuation of a well-regulated militia.

the amendment merely states WHY it is necessary for the peoples natural right to keep and bear arms should not be infringed.

The militia needed to be drawn on from the ranks of armed citizens.    One was not obligated nor was his right dependent on... the militia.

lazs


Quite so, and I so agree.

Every citizen is either a member of a state militia, or potential member of a state militia when so needed, unless they are members of the federal armed services, or federalized state militias, acting on command from the commander-in-chief.

With this in mind, We The People, own and bear arms if we, individually, so choose.

TIGERESS
« Last Edit: November 22, 2007, 09:01:24 AM by Tigeress »

Offline Coshy

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 545
What is a Militia?
« Reply #52 on: November 22, 2007, 09:47:36 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Tigeress
My fear and dislike for guns has to do with people using poor judgement much more so than anything else although they are loud.  


Then you dont have a fear and dislike of guns, you have a fear and dislike of people with poor judgement USING guns.

I have a dislike of people with poor judgement using an automobile, not a fear and dislike of automobiles.

The difference there is important.
Currently flying as "Ruger"

Offline Bingolong

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 330
What is a Militia?
« Reply #53 on: November 22, 2007, 09:59:05 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by lazs2
also.. I think that we are getting too caught up in who is the militia.. it matters not who they are ..  lazs


No, I think this is the question to be answered most of the other parts have been handled.

well regulated
the people
keep and bear arms

Every citizen can not own the latest arms.

The framers did not set rules for space travel, television, cars etc.. Likewise a flintlock pistol is a far cry from a Mac-10.

Are M.A.D or A.A., WeightWatchers, V.A., VNVMC anything with a national membership a militia? Are you in a militia?

I am for the 2nd, but I think a good lawyer could make a damn good case with existing law through the militia port hole.

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
What is a Militia?
« Reply #54 on: November 22, 2007, 10:10:50 AM »
bingalong...  I think that the framers were very farsighted.. I think the fact that they used the "militia" to describe why, or one of the reasons why we needed to preserve every mans inherent right to own firearms can only be interpreted as...

explicit approval for arms that would work for militia duty.   I don't know what kind of support you have for the second but.. one that only allows say... single shot rifles or.. as the UN wishes... ones that won't shoot past 100 meters!  well..

That is not what I would call useful arms to come together and form a militia to fight tyranny with...  Of course the meant for us to have the latest hand held firearms (arms).

What do you think they meant?   do you think that every 20 years... say if cell phones get invented.. we should scrap our bill of rights or maybe the 1st amendment because... well.. how could they have seen cell phones even 50 years ago?

no, the framers were inspired and they were brilliant..  they knew that so long as we were human.. the document would be relevant since it did nothing but guarantee inherent human rights could not be stomped on by a tyranny.

Now.. if you want to argue that humans have less rights now or that tyranny no longer exists or that human nature is different somehow then you might have a case.

lazs

Offline Bingolong

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 330
What is a Militia?
« Reply #55 on: November 22, 2007, 10:57:08 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by lazs2
bingalong...  I think that the framers were very farsighted.. I think the fact that they used the "militia" to describe why, or one of the reasons why we needed to preserve every mans inherent right to own firearms can only be interpreted as...

explicit approval for arms that would work for militia duty.   I don't know what kind of support you have for the second but.. one that only allows say... single shot rifles or.. as the UN wishes... ones that won't shoot past 100 meters!  well..

That is not what I would call useful arms to come together and form a militia to fight tyranny with...  Of course the meant for us to have the latest hand held firearms (arms).

What do you think they meant?   do you think that every 20 years... say if cell phones get invented.. we should scrap our bill of rights or maybe the 1st amendment because... well.. how could they have seen cell phones even 50 years ago?

no, the framers were inspired and they were brilliant..  they knew that so long as we were human.. the document would be relevant since it did nothing but guarantee inherent human rights could not be stomped on by a tyranny.

Now.. if you want to argue that humans have less rights now or that tyranny no longer exists or that human nature is different somehow then you might have a case.

lazs


I am not making my own interpretation of the 2nd here just stating what is on the books.

I would argue all of those in context to a militia. I would replace "Humans" with "the People".

When you say "can only be interpreted as..." Bye who? and "explicit approval for arms" From who? and for what? the rush at the boarder?
Hell there are 3 million capable to fight in LA alone. Now we need 100,000,000 million m-16's to back our national militia. common!

Offline Tigeress

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1260
What is a Militia?
« Reply #56 on: November 22, 2007, 11:05:15 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Coshy
Then you dont have a fear and dislike of guns, you have a fear and dislike of people with poor judgement USING guns.

I have a dislike of people with poor judgement using an automobile, not a fear and dislike of automobiles.

The difference there is important.


Good point.

I fear and respect the power of death automobiles provide drivers as does anyone who realizes the deadly potential they represent.

Guns are designed for the purpose of killing and evolved as a technology of war. Therein lies the difference.

There are people who should never drive an automobile and those who should never be in possession of a gun.

With all that said, a responsible person should not be prevented from owning a gun.

I just don't want guns residing in my house.

TIGERESS
« Last Edit: November 22, 2007, 11:07:53 AM by Tigeress »

Offline Tigeress

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1260
What is a Militia?
« Reply #57 on: November 22, 2007, 11:16:53 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Bingolong
I am not making my own interpretation of the 2nd here just stating what is on the books.

I would argue all of those in context to a militia. I would replace "Humans" with "the People".

When you say "can only be interpreted as..." Bye who? and "explicit approval for arms" From who? and for what? the rush at the boarder?
Hell there are 3 million capable to fight in LA alone. Now we need 100,000,000 million m-16's to back our national militia. common!


With a bit of Googling... we find the below in print.

TIGERESS

from --> http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2007-08-28T174254Z_01_L28348938_RTRUKOC_0_US-WORLD-FIREARMS.xml&src=rss&rpc=22&sp=true

"U.S. most armed country with 90 guns per 100 people

By Laura MacInnis

GENEVA (Reuters) - The United States has 90 guns for every 100 citizens, making it the most heavily armed society in the world, a report released on Tuesday said.

U.S. citizens own 270 million of the world's 875 million known firearms, according to the Small Arms Survey 2007 by the Geneva-based Graduate Institute of International Studies.

About 4.5 million of the 8 million new guns manufactured worldwide each year are purchased in the United States, it said.


"There is roughly one firearm for every seven people worldwide. Without the United States, though, this drops to about one firearm per 10 people," it said.

India had the world's second-largest civilian gun arsenal, with an estimated 46 million firearms outside law enforcement and the military, though this represented just four guns per 100 people there. China, ranked third with 40 million privately held guns, had 3 firearms per 100 people.

Germany, France, Pakistan, Mexico, Brazil and Russia were next in the ranking of country's overall civilian gun arsenals.

On a per-capita basis, Yemen had the second most heavily armed citizenry behind the United States, with 61 guns per 100 people, followed by Finland with 56, Switzerland with 46, Iraq with 39 and Serbia with 38.

France, Canada, Sweden, Austria and Germany were next, each with about 30 guns per 100 people, while many poorer countries often associated with violence ranked much lower. Nigeria, for instance, had just one gun per 100 people.

"Firearms are very unevenly distributed around the world. The image we have of certain regions such as Africa or Latin America being awash with weapons -- these images are certainly misleading," Small Arms Survey director Keith Krause said.

"Weapons ownership may be correlated with rising levels of wealth, and that means we need to think about future demand in parts of the world where economic growth is giving people larger disposable income," he told a Geneva news conference.

The report, which relied on government data, surveys and media reports to estimate the size of world arsenals, estimated there were 650 million civilian firearms worldwide, and 225 million held by law enforcement and military forces.


Five years ago, the Small Arms Survey had estimated there were a total of just 640 million firearms globally.

"Civilian holdings of weapons worldwide are much larger than we previously believed," Krause said, attributing the increase largely to better research and more data on weapon distribution networks.

Only about 12 percent of civilian weapons are thought to be registered with authorities."

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
What is a Militia?
« Reply #58 on: November 22, 2007, 11:52:06 AM »
well... in the miller decision of 39 the SC was interested only in if the arm in question (a sawn off shotgun) could be used for any reasonable defenition of a military arm.

Since, at that point.. miller, had died and could not speak..  the feds said that nooo.. it was not a military arm and the SC said that, that being the case.. it's use could be regulated by the government.  They were of course wrong as sawn off shotguns have been used in wars.. and.. effectively.

The other part of the law was the government regulation of machine guns but that was not argued at the time by either side.. only the sawn off shotgun issue was heard.

some believe that the SC was just being mislead by the feds.. I don't believe that this was the case... I think that they breathed a sigh of relief that they could avoid the issue so easily.   They didn't have to hear on machine guns or individual rights but.. they seemed willing to imply that it was indeed an individual right.. They did not care if miller belonged to any "organized" militia.. only that the "arms" he had could be used if he were ever need them.

I think it may be a lot harder for the supremes to duck this one tho...   maybe the "DC is not a state" thing.. who knows?

As I have said earlier.. the second only recognizes an inherent right and gives a reason why this right is needed to not be infringed on.    

even if you could say the reason (militia formed from the body of the people) has gone away (which it hasn't)  that would not mean that the inherent right had gone away.    The right is not dependent on how the militia is defined.

for instance...even if you were to say that the militia has morphed.   that it is now not of the body of the people but only say... the national guard...or people signed up for duty.   That would only mean that right now that was the case.   The "right" is inherent because no matter what contracts or changes our government goes through.. change is the only constant.   The right must remain defended throughout all the changes or...

It must be removed through a process that was, btw, provided for.   It can't be skirted around until it is meaningless for sooner or latter.. it will be meaningful again.. the founders seen that tyrants would try to remove this right and meant for people to always retain it and have the ability to bring their own arms to a militia.   even if that meant fighting the national guard say...

you say that you are not giving your interpretation but only stating what is on the books... I say that you are wrong because the militia has always and still is defined as the body of the people... no court has ever said that formal membership is required to have the right other than to be "the people".

I say that you are wrong because the militia is not a condition of the right but only an expanation (one explanation) as to why it is so important.. it is an individual right that protects a collective one... not the other way around... that would make no sense.

lazs

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
What is a Militia?
« Reply #59 on: November 22, 2007, 11:58:19 AM »
tigress.. when it is said that 49% of all households have a firearm in them.. it is pretty certain that this is a very low number.  

We all know several households that have (legally or otherwise) firearms in them that the government knows nothing about.. this is as it should be in my opinion but.. be that as it may...

We all know people who have guns that the government knows nothing about.

We all know people who don't own guns now that.. if they thought they might not be able to.. would rush out and get one.

The feds are very well aware of this.. they know how much we love our freedom to defend ourselves and..  I guess.. in that respect.. the fact that they have not disarmed us....

pretty much proves that the founders knew exactly what they were talking about don't it?

lazs