What is a Militia?

[Arlo]

Originally posted by bsdaddict
My only "agenda" is that rights belong to individuals, not groups.  That concept is pretty core to libertarian philosophy.

I didn't single you out.

Originally posted by bsdaddict
The Constitution and BoR DO NOT recognize the rights of GROUPS, they simply enumerate some INDIVIDUAL rights, admonishes the FedGov to not mess with said rights, defines the scope of the FedGov and leaves everything else up to the States.  They even recognize that the list of rights they're covering isn't exhaustive, as a saftey net. They do not create rights, nor do SCOTUS rulings. They simply RECOGNIZE them.

Rights aren't "created" by anything, other than me being a living, breathing human being. That's the concept behind "inalienable rights" and "All men are created equal". I own them. So do you. They're ours. Gov't doesn't "give" them to us, nor can it take them away. Furthermore, accepting any Gov't interference with my exercising my rights (registration, permits, licenses, etc...) is akin to having to ask permission. If you have to ask permission to do something or register prior to exercising a right, then you're not truely free to do it, are you?

Debateable opinion and ranging in scale of reason depending on the specifics being argued. Automobiles and assault weapons didn't exist when this nation was formed.

If you want a moral definate .... God commanded thou shall not kill. Now if you want to discuss the context and particulars, that's where the details lay.

[Toad]

Originally posted by Bingolong
 Shotgun.:The term "shotgun" means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder  

Counterpoint of order.

I'm not the one who said it was a defining element.

[bsdaddict]

Originally posted by Arlo
Debateable opinion and ranging in scale of reason depending on the specifics being argued. Automobiles and assault weapons didn't exist when this nation was formed.

First of all, the Founders provided a means to alter the Constitution if required, via amendments...  Secondly, IMO only a communist would debate that opinion.  Thirdly, way to change the subject...  

[Arlo]

Originally posted by Toad
Counterpoint of order.

I'm not the one who said it was a defining element.

Recognized (though you're apparently responding as you accepted such). I further recognize that there are sources limiting shotguns to said definition (to my surprise). Even the NRA supports said definition:

"SHOTGUN"
 
"A shoulder gun with smooth-bored barrel(s) primarily intended for firing multiple small, round projectiles, (shot, birdshot, pellets), larger shot (buck shot), single round balls (pumpkin balls) and cylindrical slugs. Some shotgun barrels have rifling to give better accuracy with slugs or greater pattern spread to birdshot."

POO retracted.

[Arlo]

Originally posted by bsdaddict
First of all, the Founders provided a means to alter the Constitution if required, via amendments...  Secondly, way to change the subject...  

First of all ... of course they did and such bears contextual application to all.

Secondly, there's lots of things been discussed with marginal relationship in this thread. I've not deviated anymore (or less) than anyone else.

[bsdaddict]

Originally posted by Arlo
First of all ... of course they did and such bears contextual application to all.

say what?

Secondly, there's lots of things been discussed with marginal relationship in this thread. I've not deviated anymore (or less) than anyone else.

That's OK, I thought WE were debating individual vs. collective rights.  If you want to move on to the next topic that's cool...

[Arlo]

Originally posted by bsdaddict
say what?

Living document ... yes. Making sure all arguments over this are viewed within that context .... wise.

Originally posted by bsdaddict
That's OK, I thought WE were debating individual vs. collective rights.  If you want to move on to the next topic that's cool...

I can discuss more than one relational topic at a time. Do it all the time. So have most in this thread to this point.

[Bingolong]

BTW, Bingolong, you never answered this question either. Please do.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Toad
Is it your position that Miller is somehow linked solely to weapons that were US military issue in 1939?

"NO"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bingolong: just pointing out what makes a shotgun for ya, it also says smooth bore as well as shoulder fired.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"And how do you explain Miller's gun being considered a shotgun? Clearly it wasn't shoulder fired. The buttstock was cut down to basically a pistol grip."

It wasnt, it was illegal, it was "any other weapon". So is the stevens 410.
If you need to know anything else look it up  yourself K  Try the NRA the have all the gun laws, be my guest. Oh and there is a registration. You can look that up too.

[bsdaddict]

Originally posted by Arlo
Living document ... yes. Making sure all arguments over this are viewed within that context .... wise.

The "The Constitution is a Living Document" propenents hardly endorse amending the Constitution, they prefer the judicial to the legislative.  Amending the Constitution IS constitutional.  If you want to twist that into implying support for the "Living Document" crowd then you're either being intentionally ambiguous or flat-out deceitful.

[Arlo]

Originally posted by bsdaddict
The "The Constitution is a Living Document" propenents hardly endorse amending the Constitution, they prefer the judicial to the legislative.  Amending the Constitution IS constitutional.  If you want to twist that into implying support for the "Living Document" crowd then you're either being intentionally ambiguous or flat-out deceitful.

Hmmmm .... *scratches chin*. I agree with you on the amendable nature of the document as a wise decision by the national forefathers regarding their recognition that the world changes and any form of government that expects to last better have the flexibility to change with it and you interpret me as being "deceitful" because the architecture of our government also allows for judicial interpretation of legislation as it relates to the current form of the constitution?

I don't know if I'd be prone to rush to judgement back your direction regarding your own apparent deception (self or otherwise). It may have been just an honest mistake.

[Bingolong]

Originally posted by lazs2
In fact... you can buy shot loads for many popular caliber handguns including .22

lazs

and I did, cci had them .22 shot shells.... 30 years ago!

[Bingolong]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Bingolong
Shotgun.:The term "shotgun" means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



"Counterpoint of order.

I'm not the one who said it was a defining element."

post the whole quote next time!:rolleyes:

(d) Shotgun.:The term "shotgun" means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed shotgun shell to fire through a smooth bore either a number of projectiles (ball shot) or a single projectile for each pull of the trigger, and shall include any such weapon which may be readily restored to fire a fixed shotgun shell.
http://www.nraila.org/federalfirearms.htm#TITLE%20II

[Toad]

It makes no difference either way.

You still haven't explained this. Is this a shotgun?




Is this a shotgun? 14" barrel, shoulder fired, fired the  M576 buckshot round containing twenty pellets of #4 buckshot (M576E1) or twenty-seven pellets of #4 buckshot (M576E2).

[Bingolong]

Originally posted by Toad
It makes no difference either way.

You still haven't explained this.



Is this a shotgun?

 THAT is a Stevens .410

(e) Any other weapon.:The term "any other weapon" means LOOK IT UP!

[Arlo]

Originally posted by Toad
It makes no difference either way.

You still haven't explained this.



Is this a shotgun?

Not directed at me but going for a strict legal definition and finding:

SHOTGUN - A weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed shotgun shell to fire through a smooth bore either a number of ball shot or a single projectile for each single pull of the trigger. 18 USC

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s046.htm

SHORT-BARRELED SHOTGUN - A shotgun having one or more barrels less than eighteen inches in length and any weapon made from a shotgun if such a weapon as modified has an overall length of less than twenty-six inches. 18 USC

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s044.htm

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

Was it made from a pre-existing shotgun? What's the barrel length? Is the overall length less than 26"?

Originally posted by Toad
Is this a shotgun? 14" barrel, shoulder fired, fired the  M576 buckshot round containing twenty pellets of #4 buckshot (M576E1) or twenty-seven pellets of #4 buckshot (M576E2).

M79s are legal. Seems to be a trendy weapon of choice for survivalists as of late. But is ownership of 40mm grenades legal? There are plenty of optional types of rounds for that weapon:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_40_mm_grenades

Should they all be legal if the round's specific purpose cannot be defined as practical for defense? Guess that goes right back to the questions of militia and divine right to ownership of exotic weaponry.