What is a Militia?

[lazs2]

It is encouraging that at least 3 and probly 4 of the SC judges know their real job.. that of upholding the constitution as it was written.

I do believe that they will wimp out tho.. I do hope that they rule it as an individual right.    I imagine that they will.. how can they otherwise?   I think that they will rule that states and cities have the right to have some restrictions so long as people are able to own arms that are useful in the defense of themselves and the country.  

Look at the swiss... they have their service full autos in the closet at home.. nothing bad happens.  

I am not sure that I have ever understood the left and why they want gun control so badly.... Is it because they fear that they can never impose their kind of restrictions on an armed society?

All government is clumsy and brutal.. you obey or they take everything you have... if you resist... they kill you.   all governments...  some just have fewer rules.. so.. people don't get to the point of resisting till they kill or be killed.

The government did a study once and found that 16% of the population.. and an even higher percent of gun owners would be willing to take up arms against the government if they had to.   It scared the crap out of em.

They also realize that there are close to 300,000,000 guns out there in private hands.   most of which.. they have no idea who owns.

lazs

[Hornet33]

Originally posted by Tigeress
The US Federal Government is not the master of We The People, rather the servant.

TIGERESS

I agree, but the current crop of politicians probably don't see things that way. Anyone who thinks it's a good idea to regulate any freedom given to us in the Bill of Rights is not trying to serve the people, they are trying to control them.

Passing laws that tells people what they cannot say because it might be considered hatefull to someone else = control.

Passing laws that tells people that they cannot own a certain type of gun, or magazine for a gun, or ammunition for a gun = control.

I'm just wondering when the people in this country are going to say enough is enough and get rid of all the idiots that have been elected to office. I'd love to see a law passed that makes it illegal for a politician to accept money from any lobbiest, and to put a maximum amount cap on what they can accept from a private citizen, say $2000. I hate watching the news and seeing all the reports talking about who is going to win the ellection because that person raised the most money for their campain. It makes no sense to me why that should be used as an indicator of anything.

What we need in this country is a serious canadate that is not affiliated with any party, that can slam the party line doctrine and show it for what it truely is.

[lazs2]

I suppose that if they can make you wear a seat belt or a helmet of a life jacket in the river... they can make you do about anything.

lazs

[Tigeress]

Originally posted by lazs2
I suppose that if they can make you wear a seat belt or a helmet of a life jacket in the river... they can make you do about anything.

lazs

They can't really make anyone wear a seatbelt or a life jacket.

All they can do is provide some form of penality for not doing so.

Shoot, they can't prevent murder by passing laws either.

TIGERESS

[john9001]

Originally posted by Tigeress
They can't really make anyone wear a seatbelt or a life jacket.

All they can do is provide some form of penality for not doing so.

 

[Tigeress]

Originally posted by Hornet33
I agree, but the current crop of politicians probably don't see things that way. Anyone who thinks it's a good idea to regulate any freedom given to us in the Bill of Rights is not trying to serve the people, they are trying to control them.

Passing laws that tells people what they cannot say because it might be considered hatefull to someone else = control.

Passing laws that tells people that they cannot own a certain type of gun, or magazine for a gun, or ammunition for a gun = control.

I'm just wondering when the people in this country are going to say enough is enough and get rid of all the idiots that have been elected to office. I'd love to see a law passed that makes it illegal for a politician to accept money from any lobbiest, and to put a maximum amount cap on what they can accept from a private citizen, say $2000. I hate watching the news and seeing all the reports talking about who is going to win the ellection because that person raised the most money for their campain. It makes no sense to me why that should be used as an indicator of anything.

What we need in this country is a serious canadate that is not affiliated with any party, that can slam the party line doctrine and show it for what it truely is.

"What we need in this country is a serious canadate that is not affiliated with any party, that can slam the party line doctrine and show it for what it truely is." I completely agree with this, Hornet.

Additionally...

In my view, it is incumbent on We The People to collectively ensure our proper representation.

Democracy is a flower among weeds thus needs constant attention paid to it by We The People directly; left to fend for itself, it will get choked out and succumb.

Infringement by government, or by citizens, upon the rights of each citizen of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness can not be allowed to stand.

The infringement of citizen's rights of black Americans by other citizens finally required the US Federal Government to intervene when State governments failed its own citizens in this regard.

Although I would not marry a black man I would not infringe upon the right of a man and woman to marry if they so choose nor would I publicly or privately disparage them for doing so.

Although I would not have a sexual relationship with another woman, I would not infringe upon the right of two women to do so if they so choose nor would I publicly or privately disparage them for doing so.

Rights are rights... thus they have to be rights for We The People else we are damaging our own democracy, thus damaging ourselves collectively and individually.

TIGERESS

[Bingolong]

Originally posted by Toad
I'm just pointing out that the only thing that matter is what the SC thinks.

We can have all the opinions on the Constitution that we care to have. Our opinions do not make the law.

The opinions of the SC make the law. All one has to do is look around the nation and see the restrictions on gun ownership at the state and local levels that DO exist to see what stands as the law right now. Clearly, the states and locals CAN restrict (infringe) the right to bear arms. They are doing so.

That is what I've been trying to point out.

[Tigeress]

Originally posted by lazs2
It is encouraging that at least 3 and probly 4 of the SC judges know their real job.. that of upholding the constitution as it was written.

I do believe that they will wimp out tho.. I do hope that they rule it as an individual right.    I imagine that they will.. how can they otherwise?   I think that they will rule that states and cities have the right to have some restrictions so long as people are able to own arms that are useful in the defense of themselves and the country.  

Look at the swiss... they have their service full autos in the closet at home.. nothing bad happens.  

I am not sure that I have ever understood the left and why they want gun control so badly.... Is it because they fear that they can never impose their kind of restrictions on an armed society?

All government is clumsy and brutal.. you obey or they take everything you have... if you resist... they kill you.   all governments...  some just have fewer rules.. so.. people don't get to the point of resisting till they kill or be killed.

The government did a study once and found that 16% of the population.. and an even higher percent of gun owners would be willing to take up arms against the government if they had to.   It scared the crap out of em.

They also realize that there are close to 300,000,000 guns out there in private hands.   most of which.. they have no idea who owns.

lazs

Any gun that can kill a person can be used in a militia as a firearm... that includes handguns.

Weapons such as explosives, field guns, tanks, armed aircraft, missiles and the like, needs serious safeguarding and that is beyond an individual's ability to adequately provide.

Also, accidental or purposeful use of these weapons poses risk of widespread harm thus these weapons need to be regulated and controlled to mitigate potential widespread harm.

A fully automatic firearm might well be considered more of a danger to large numbers of citizens than the militia asset such a weapon represents when privately owned and stored.

Thus, each state must provide arsenals of, and for, such widely destructive weapons and provide training and control of them within the active duty militia of each state.

TIGERESS

[Tigeress]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Toad
I'm just pointing out that the only thing that matter is what the SC thinks.

We can have all the opinions on the Constitution that we care to have. Our opinions do not make the law.

The opinions of the SC make the law. All one has to do is look around the nation and see the restrictions on gun ownership at the state and local levels that DO exist to see what stands as the law right now. Clearly, the states and locals CAN restrict (infringe) the right to bear arms. They are doing so.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 

Originally posted by Bingolong
That is what I've been trying to point out.

There are consequences provided for by the constitution to overcome a serious infringement of the rights of We The People as stated within the constitution.

Outlawing private ownership of guns would prevent all citizens from protecting themselves from a government gone rabid.

If gun ownership were to be outlawed I would expect to see an armed revolution to occur by State Militias and private citizens acting as a militia against the Federal Government and any State Government supporting such an outlaw of guns.

It's just that serious because it is just that important.

TIGERESS

[lazs2]

I have no problem with restrictions on bombs, rockets tanks etc..  these are not "arms"..   there is also the danger that can't be controlled by the owner...  a bunch of explosives in an apartment for instance.. in the event of a fire say..

No matter how safe the owner of the explosives was.. no matter his intentions.. the ordinance itself is a danger beyond his control and it is only right that he not be allowed to endanger others with it.

lazs

[Bingolong]

Originally posted by lazs2
I have no problem with restrictions on bombs, rockets tanks etc..  these are not "arms"..   there is also the danger that can't be controlled by the owner...  a bunch of explosives in an apartment for instance.. in the event of a fire say..

No matter how safe the owner of the explosives was.. no matter his intentions.. the ordinance itself is a danger beyond his control and it is only right that he not be allowed to endanger others with it.

lazs

And a militia is supposed to be armed with the weapons of the time we cannot just walk in and "check out" these weapons. You are starting to make my points. I've shown you how you lost/losing control of your rights. I was not trying to define militia, that is the question the SC asks. If I were you, I would take a different tact. Find the laws the stick up for you point of view, other than the 2nd itself. Trying to refute what is allready law is silly and will not change the law presently. So far the most damaging case bye far is the silvera case. No, I would be looking for state rights at this point. Maybe why the state has the right to keep and maintain their militias. Or, the states right to define its own state constitution. There is plenty to defend with.

[lazs2]

Obviously you are not paying attention...  even in colonial times.. arms were not considered to be cannon and rockets.

Now.. let's take your point.. that unless you can have rockets and bombs.. you are useless as a militia..  that is like saying a rifle company without rockets and bombs should just give up their small arms too.   silly.

Any battle would not be over in some eye blink.   weapons would be captured.  Of course.. you would have to have small arms to do so.   You are basically saying that the ak 47 is useless in the conflicts across the globe.  

We have lost our rights because the SC has refused to rule and allowed these things to happen.   It is not impossible to roll back the laws.   If nothing else..it is good to stop new ones.   the trend to ban firearms in cities for instance.

I am not getting your point I guess.   You seem to be saying that if we can't have rockets then why have anything for... if an M4 (m16) or m60 is not good enough to defend freedom then why have anything?  that seems to be your point.  that since we can't have nukes that we really don't have rights other than what our gracious government allows us at the time.

My thinking is just as the founders.. no standing army.. no matter what can long stand against an armed populace.... 100,000,000 men with m16's will be 100,000,000 armed with tanks and rockets within a week.

My point was not so much if it were legal to own rockets and bombs but that it would be legal to restrict their storage.   Their storage is restricted in our own military.. not because we are afraid a soldier will get one and go berserk..

but because they are a hazard in and of themselves.  they can cause great damage without human involvement.. fire etc.    Your freedom to be secure in your home would be infringed if the neighbor had 2 tons of c4 in his garage for instance..  A fireman would be in grave danger if a home was full of RPG's

If m16's and ak47's and handguns were useless then they would not be issued to every army in the world..  

I do not believe that you are a supporter of the second in any way but... What firearms would you allow me to have?

I have asked this before.. I believe you are being dishonest in this debate and that you are a gun control advocate.

lazs

[lazs2]

also.. I think that the SC will have a hard time not hearing on the "individual right" of the second.   How can they not?   The lower court already said that it was an individual right.   The whole case in DC is about DC violating individual rights to keep and bear arms.

A ruling that it is indeed an obvious individual right will stop the flood tide of unconstitutional and near unconstitutional gun bans and restrictions that (mostly) cities are making.

The "militia"part of the second is not a condition of the right to keep and bear arms.. merely an explanation for why it is so important.    Since the original intent was that the "militia" be merely a term for every able bodied man... that is how they must rule.    It is simply a reason for not infringing on an inherent and an individual right.    Even if you take away the reason you do not take away the right.

No.. I believe you and the other gun control people are on the wrong tract by trying to gut the second on such a weak arguement.  

If you want to ban guns and take away our rights you should simply amend the constitution.

lazs

[Bingolong]

Originally posted by lazs2
Obviously you are not paying attention...  even in colonial times.. arms were not considered to be cannon and rockets.

Now.. let's take your point.. that unless you can have rockets and bombs.. you are useless as a militia..  that is like saying a rifle company without rockets and bombs should just give up their small arms too.   silly.

Any battle would not be over in some eye blink.   weapons would be captured.  Of course.. you would have to have small arms to do so.   You are basically saying that the ak 47 is useless in the conflicts across the globe.  

We have lost our rights because the SC has refused to rule and allowed these things to happen.   It is not impossible to roll back the laws.   If nothing else..it is good to stop new ones.   the trend to ban firearms in cities for instance.

I am not getting your point I guess.   You seem to be saying that if we can't have rockets then why have anything for... if an M4 (m16) or m60 is not good enough to defend freedom then why have anything?  that seems to be your point.  that since we can't have nukes that we really don't have rights other than what our gracious government allows us at the time.

My thinking is just as the founders.. no standing army.. no matter what can long stand against an armed populace.... 100,000,000 men with m16's will be 100,000,000 armed with tanks and rockets within a week.

My point was not so much if it were legal to own rockets and bombs but that it would be legal to restrict their storage.   Their storage is restricted in our own military.. not because we are afraid a soldier will get one and go berserk..

but because they are a hazard in and of themselves.  they can cause great damage without human involvement.. fire etc.    Your freedom to be secure in your home would be infringed if the neighbor had 2 tons of c4 in his garage for instance..  A fireman would be in grave danger if a home was full of RPG's

If m16's and ak47's and handguns were useless then they would not be issued to every army in the world..  

I do not believe that you are a supporter of the second in any way but... What firearms would you allow me to have?

I have asked this before.. I believe you are being dishonest in this debate and that you are a gun control advocate.

lazs

"My thinking is just as the founders.. no standing army.. no matter what can long stand against an armed populace.... 100,000,000 men with m16's will be 100,000,000 armed with tanks and rockets within a week."

Won't happen


"but because they are a hazard in and of themselves.  they can cause great damage without human involvement.. fire etc.    Your freedom to be secure in your home would be infringed if the neighbor had 2 tons of c4 in his garage for instance..  A fireman would be in grave danger if a home was full of RPG's"

They will be just as indangered with cases < I mean you wouldnt want to run out right?> of "ammo" in the house.

"I do not believe that you are a supporter of the second in any way but... What firearms would you allow me to have?"

Your government has allready decided that for you.


You don't get it. Your still in 1700's! I think you are in denial

[Hap]

Well, read the whole thing.  Something Maverick said made great sense.  I think I'm doomed.

Well, here's what I say:

You're wrong about "militia."
Wrong about "well regulated" too.

Here's my prediction: there will be great hand wringing up to the decision.  Much money spent.  

Oh, about the "rights of the people" y'all are right.

I've owned guns.  Don't own them now.  

Oh, this might make some happy.  A few months ago, some guy waltzed into the grocery store with a sidearm on his hip.  Wasn't a news story.  I happen to work there.  Perfectly legal in Wyoming.

I want to know of all the people who have been killed with guns over the last 50 years, how many have been good guys and how many have been bad guys?

My own personal view has nothing to do with national policy.  The only "pool" of gun owners I "know" is y'all.  Probably not the best pool upon which to base anything.