What is a Militia?

[john9001]

Originally posted by Bingolong
Who said you have inalienable rights?

The government of the United States is the result of a revolution in thought. It was founded on the principle that all persons have equal rights, and that government is responsible to, and derives its powers from, a free people. To Jefferson and the other Founding Fathers, these ideas were not just a passing intellectual fad, but a recognition of something inherent in the nature of man itself. The very foundation of government, therefore, rests on the inalienable rights of the people and of each individual composing their mass. The Declaration of Independence, written by Thomas Jefferson, is the fundamental statement of what government is and from what source it derives its powers. It begins with a summary of those inalienable rights that are the self-evident basis for a free society and for all the powers to protect those rights that a just government exercises.

[lazs2]

bingie.. we shall have to see.   I don't believe that there is such a thing as a collective right..  that is no right at all.   I don't think that such a thing was ever even dreamed of up till a few decades ago by liberal socialists and activist judges.

I believe that either we have rights or that we don't.. if we can have them spelled out as to "not be infringed" and that not be worth the paper it is printed on then.. you are correct.. we are only fooling ourselves that we are a free people and that we are nothing more than subjects of our government.. the grand experiment ends now.

As for militia?   well.. it matters not but.. the current code and the original intent are the same.. it is everyone.  every able bodied man.   The current code gets a little more detailed than the founders ever cared about but..  it is all just saying the same thing.. the "unorganized militia" is by the code...311... everyone.

Now you can squirm and twist all you want but even by your own logic.. until they change the code then we are all the "unorganized militia"

There are few besides yourself tho that even care since almost everyone agrees  that the first part of the amendment about the militia is not conditional to the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

The only thing the militia part does is help my case.. it pretty much says that you can't take away guns that would be good for use in war.   That is really what the miller case said.. they only made his sawn off shotgun illegal because it was not "useful as a military arm" (they were of course wrong).

The case won't have anything to do with the militia.   What is the militia... will not even be discussed except in passing.

lazs

[Bingolong]

Originally posted by lazs2
bingie.. we shall have to see.   I don't believe that there is such a thing as a collective right..  that is no right at all.   I don't think that such a thing was ever even dreamed of up till a few decades ago by liberal socialists and activist judges.

I believe that either we have rights or that we don't.. if we can have them spelled out as to "not be infringed" and that not be worth the paper it is printed on then.. you are correct.. we are only fooling ourselves that we are a free people and that we are nothing more than subjects of our government.. the grand experiment ends now.

As for militia?   well.. it matters not but.. the current code and the original intent are the same.. it is everyone.  every able bodied man.   The current code gets a little more detailed than the founders ever cared about but..  it is all just saying the same thing.. the "unorganized militia" is by the code...311... everyone.

Now you can squirm and twist all you want but even by your own logic.. until they change the code then we are all the "unorganized militia"

There are few besides yourself tho that even care since almost everyone agrees  that the first part of the amendment about the militia is not conditional to the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

The only thing the militia part does is help my case.. it pretty much says that you can't take away guns that would be good for use in war.   That is really what the miller case said.. they only made his sawn off shotgun illegal because it was not "useful as a military arm" (they were of course wrong).

The case won't have anything to do with the militia.   What is the militia... will not even be discussed except in passing.

lazs

311 says Members laz! Members of a group.
I have been saying you want the militia to stay all along as it does boost your case.
What is the militia... I bet we will find out.
Its the Main reason you get to keep and bear arms.

[john9001]

Originally posted by Bingolong

What is the militia... I bet we will find out.
Its the Main reason you get to keep and bear arms.

now you are confused, i keep and bear arms and i never joined a organized/disorganized/unorganized militia.

how do you explain that?

[wrag]

Originally posted by Bingolong
311 says Members laz! Members of a group.
I have been saying you want the militia to stay all along as it does boost your case.
What is the militia... I bet we will find out.
Its the Main reason you get to keep and bear arms.

There as been an argument going on for the last 20 years or so about militia.

The left and those leaning that way have repeatedly tried to claim that the militia portion of the 2nd Amendment is the controlling factor of that Amendment.

“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 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

"Some people were put on this earth to be slaves. They're unhappy if they're not a slave, and they'll keep searching until they find someplace where they can be one."~~SM 101

"If someone is so fearful that, that they're going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, it makes me very nervous that these people have these weapons at all!"~~Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) On MSNBC

"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"




They even did a study..........

"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





I'm inclined toward thinking that statements such as the following had a affect on that study.................

[Ah, Congress: Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people. — Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788]

"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

"The fundamental force behind the Second Amendment is to empower the people and give them the greatest measure of authority over the tyranny of runaway government." - U.S. Rep. Bob Schaffer, 2002

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." - George Mason, during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution (1788)

"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." - George Washington

"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that the people preserve the spirit of resistance?" - Thomas Jefferson, 1787

As Thomas Paine once asked, —¦If a thief breaks into my house, burns and destroys my property, and kills or threatens to kill me, or those that are in it, and to 'bind me in all cases whatsoever' to his absolute will, am I to suffer it?" To say one must allow such destruction of one's life, liberty and property, and to not allow for the means to protect such rights, is to say that the individual does not hold these natural rights, and that whoever holds the power shall decide what "rights" will be granted. Such an idea is preposterous.

"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

"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"





A ruling has been made and statements have been made regarding the 2nd.

Wish I could still find the net address for those court rulings that came out in favor of the 2nd being an INDIVIDUAL right.

It is possible the SC will come out AGAINST the individual right reading of the 2nd but IMHO that COULD prove to be a disastrous thing to do for this nation at this time.

[wrag]

Originally posted by john9001
now you are confused, i keep and bear arms and i never joined a organized/disorganized/unorganized militia.

how do you explain that?

Your an American right?

Your over 14 right?

Your under 60 right? (or is it 50?)

YOU ARE IN THE MILITIA!

IF you ever served in the military HONORABLY you're in the militia as an OFFICER until active military arrive and releave you of command and this continues until you're nearly in the grave age wise!

[Arlo]

Originally posted by wrag
MY MY MY

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

IMHO [you're] nothing more [than] a troller looking for a reaction so here you go [:]

So all betters now[,] are you?

I guess that means you're nothing but a reaction waiting for an excuse to happen. *ShruG*

I'm fine. Hope your knee gets better.

Wouldn't it be a rather interesting experiment if people could dis-cuss gun control without getting overly emotional and letting that hump their brain into misfiring?

[Arlo]

Originally posted by wrag
Your an American right?

Your over 14 right?

Your under 60 right? (or is it 50?)

YOU ARE IN THE MILITIA!

IF you ever served in the military HONORABLY you're in the militia as an OFFICER until active military arrive and releave you of command and this continues until you're nearly in the grave age wise!

Are you making this up as you go?

Cite an official source. I so wanna be a militia officer.

And why are you so focused on the militia bit if it's a non-factor?

[Arlo]

Originally posted by lazs2
... that "the people" simply means any organization the state says it recognizes and not individuals.
 

I submit that the word "individual" existed even before all the documents penned by our national forefathers came to be and that the penning of the documents was done with great painstaking. I further submit that the phrase "the People" illustrates more than one and further describes the citizenry of the nation, as a whole. And lastly, I submit that the phrase "the People" was used in the formation of this nation's government to illustrate that there would be no seperation of a government and it's people though, obviously, there is a need for legal jurisdiction and authority for a civilized society to have law and order.

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

"People of the United States"

The phrase "People of the United States" has been construed synonymously with "citizens",[4] but has also been construed as "all under the sovereign jurisdiction and authority of the United States."[5] The phrase has been construed as bearing witness to the fact that the Constitution emanated from the people and was not the act of sovereign and independent States,[6] and that it was made for, and is binding only in, the United States of America.[7] Thus, this language implies that the power and authority of the federal government of the United States does not come from the various states, or even from the peoples of the various states, but rather from the greater entity identified as the people of the United States of America.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[4] ^ See Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857) (stating that the Preamble protected only U.S. citizens, and did not give Dred Scott, a citizen of Missouri but not a U.S. citizen, the right to sue in federal court). But see id. at 581–82 (Curtis, J., dissenting) (arguing that the Preamble applies to the people of the states, and dictates that people born in any state are automatically U.S. citizens). Scott was superseded by the 13th Amendment and 14th Amendment.

[5] ^ Jacobson, 197 U.S. at 22.

[6] ^ McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316, 403 (1819); Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 14 U.S. (1 Wheat.) 304, 324 (1816); Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 419, 471 (1793),

[7] ^ Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, 251 (1901); In re Ross, 140 U.S. 453, 464 (1891).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The formation of the Republic was deliberate. A representative Democracy. Not a state of individuals where each person was the law unto themselves.

Never-the-less, the very nature of human desire (selfishness, if you will) has driven man to reinterpret even the most benign and straightforward law to fit one's own individual ends since before the formation of the United States. Take, for example, what the Pharisees ans Sadducees had managed to do to Hebraic law by the time Christ entered the scene.

So here we are, reliant on the Supreme Court of the United States to offer a definitive interpretation on the second amendment of our Constitution with citizens of differing opinions running the gamut from claiming divine right to be armed to the teeth with whatever they desire (as "plainly stated" in the amendment) all the way to citizens desiring the government implement laws to control widespread ownership of anything but sporting weapons (as the amendment "plainly" allows). Perhaps the lobbyists on both ends are akin to the Pharisees and Sadducees of Biblical times, each pandering to use law for gain or for power. I'm sure there's plenty to be had, either way.

May the presiding justices avoid extremism of any kind. We should all know, by now, what that leads to.

And may arguments of a legal nature be less emotionally and more logically driven, for everyone's sake.

(all smileys omitted to avoid eliciting knee-jerks)

"Disclaimer": That was a lot of reading, wasn't it? Does that make the additional effort of reading more into it than was there worth it?

[john9001]

the right to self defense predates the constitution, the united states, and the supreme court. It also predates any man made laws.

If a govt says you can defend yourself they are not giving you a right, they are just reaffirming a right you already have.

i understand some people do not/will not defend themselves, that is their choice, not the choice of the govt.

[Arlo]

Is that a yes or a no?

Who's taking your right to defend yourself away by requiring you to register a gun in the event you use it for more than just that? Gun control isn't just about taking your guns away, john. Gun control can also be tools that help the authorities investigate and prosecute a criminal. We can't have that, can we?

[john9001]

Originally posted by Arlo
Is that a yes or a no?

Who's taking your right to defend yourself away by requiring you to register a gun in the event you use it for more than just that? Gun control isn't just about taking your guns away, john. Gun control can also be tools that help the authorities investigate and prosecute a criminal. We can't have that, can we?

So you think it's OK to register guns?  That's what the German republic said in the 1930's, "register your guns to help fight crime", sounds good huh, who is against fighting crime? When the Nazi's came into power they got the  registration lists and just collected all the guns.

[Arlo]

Originally posted by john9001
So you think it's OK to register guns?  That's what the German republic said in the 1930's, "register your guns to help fight crime", sounds good huh, who is against fighting crime? When the Nazi's came into power they got the  registration lists and just collected all the guns.

Then I suggest not letting the Nazi party rise to power here. No, john, handgun registration is not proof that the government is out to oppress you. Nor is a background check. And neither will "always" be the first step towards such if there really is no sinister conspiracy behind it all. Your correlation comes across as hyperbole to me. Let's not go there if we're both sincere about coming to an understanding. No offense and no insult in that. Thanks.

[lazs2]

wrag explained it to you guys quite well.    The militia is everyone.. they don't have to do a thing to be in it.   by bingies flawed reasoning then you really can't say you are a "member of the human race" unless you have a card and pay dues to the "human race" or.. worse.. that the government tells you if you are allowed to join the human race.

311 simply recognizes that organized militias can  exist and can be under some control.. it  says.. at the end tho that everyone else is part of the unorganized militia..  it has the exact same spirit and defines it the same way as the founders.

just as we are all members of the human race.. we are, all of us able bodied citizens, members of the unorganized militia..

To ask for rules and regulations and organized out of the "unorganized militia" is silly on the face of it.

arlo is trying to say that "the right of the people" can mean the rights of not the people but of groups of people only with the ability to exclude anyone the government wants from being "the people"  that would not bode well for all the other amendments.    The constitution is very clear on what is the people and what is the state.

The 1982 congressional study was important since..  it made of mockery of bingies whole arguement.. it stated that the right could not be seen as anything but an individual one.

That throws out.. or puts in perspective.. the whole militia thing in the second...  it pretty much means that a militia sure would be nice sometimes but it has nothing to do with if we are allowed as individuals to have guns or not..  that part is spelled out quite plainly..  the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

"the right of the people to be secure in their persons...."  is that a collective right too?   how does "people" mean one thing in one amendment and the oppossite in another?  

A right of "the people" is an individual one..  an individual right is a real right.

A "collective right" is no right at all.   It is 1984 newspeak   it is the same as saying slavery is freedom.

lazs

[Bingolong]

Originally posted by lazs2
wrag explained it to you guys quite well.    The militia is everyone.. they don't have to do a thing to be in it.   by bingies flawed reasoning then you really can't say you are a "member of the human race" unless you have a card and pay dues to the "human race" or.. worse.. that the government tells you if you are allowed to join the human race.

311 simply recognizes that organized militias can  exist and can be under some control.. it  says.. at the end tho that everyone else is part of the unorganized militia..  it has the exact same spirit and defines it the same way as the founders.

just as we are all members of the human race.. we are, all of us able bodied citizens, members of the unorganized militia..

To ask for rules and regulations and organized out of the "unorganized militia" is silly on the face of it.

arlo is trying to say that "the right of the people" can mean the rights of not the people but of groups of people only with the ability to exclude anyone the government wants from being "the people"  that would not bode well for all the other amendments.    The constitution is very clear on what is the people and what is the state.

The 1982 congressional study was important since..  it made of mockery of bingies whole arguement.. it stated that the right could not be seen as anything but an individual one.

That throws out.. or puts in perspective.. the whole militia thing in the second...  it pretty much means that a militia sure would be nice sometimes but it has nothing to do with if we are allowed as individuals to have guns or not..  that part is spelled out quite plainly..  the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

"the right of the people to be secure in their persons...."  is that a collective right too?   how does "people" mean one thing in one amendment and the oppossite in another?  

A right of "the people" is an individual one..  an individual right is a real right.

A "collective right" is no right at all.   It is 1984 newspeak   it is the same as saying slavery is freedom.

lazs

Like a SS card? that allows you to pay all the nice taxes? You are a member of the US. I'll give you this there is still no Tea Tax, unless you put sugar in it then you can tax tea.

Once more for 311, btw wrag you just lost 18 years off your militia.

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.

Members of the Militia! I don't know why this is so hard for you.

Like the gentleman in the VDF that is not the national guard nor the Navel Militia is it? But it is a militia. Yes or No? 25 states have a militia that's it. The rest saying it's the National Guard. How is that? This certainly cant be because of the state laws can it?
The Framers also talked about no need for a standing army. What happened to that ? The national guard is not supposed to go out of the country?

The earliest historical record of militia is found in the Old Testament and particularly the Book of Judges, when the Israelites fought as militia against threatening neighboring tribes. A prominent instance of that was the militia led by Deborah  against the Caananites


The Militia Clauses gave Congress authority for "organizing, arming, and disciplining" the militia, and "governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States", with the States retaining authority to appoint officers and to impose the training specified by Congress To ensure that the militia could not be disarmed , a right of the people to keep and bear arms was recognized in the Second Amendment

The first legislation on the subject was The Militia Act of 1792 which provided, in part:

That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be "enrolled" in the militia, ... every citizen, so "enrolled" and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock....

After he enrolls he gets a gun.

So if you want to talk in the day or today. your still wrong. You cant just say" Oh well that law was never adhered to and it does not apply to me."

Like you say "it is or it is not!"