Author Topic: DoJ on Heller...  (Read 2699 times)

Offline bsdaddict

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1108
Re: DoJ on Heller...
« Reply #45 on: March 11, 2008, 02:35:33 PM »

Go here Im not going to start over but thanks
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,220172.0.html

However you should include the whole provision

you asked "to see a definition of the unorganized militia as the organized militia is defined."  I answered.  Your followup adds nothing to the answer.

Quote
As to your 9th amendment argument, I have said the same and maybe the 10th and possible the 14th as well.

Well, if you agree that the right to self-defense is covered by the 9th, why were you so adamant that it wasn't in the Constitution? 

Offline bustr

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 12436
Re: DoJ on Heller...
« Reply #46 on: March 11, 2008, 02:43:11 PM »
Thank you Laz,

For a moment I thought Bing had let someone else use his/her account since he/she had been supporting the right to keep and bare arms with restrictions.

Unless,, Laz,,  his/her account is a shill for several persons trying to troll 2ndA discussions. This last posting of Bing's is out of character to the person who has been discorsing with you for most of the argument. It is 100% anti individual right as opposed to the previous postings were individual right but accepting the government has a vital interest in being able to control gun ownership for national security and public safety purposes. But the overall discource by the Bing account has read like anti 2ndA shills on other sites who were found out to be volunteers and staffers for anti gun public interest groups during election, bill passing and SCOTUS case review cycles.

posted by Bingolong

No.. Lazie I was just saying take out the militia part so it will read how you want it to. Without the militia part it would be an individual right.  Right? The only one who need it amended is you and the rest of the whacko gun freaks.
I'm happy the way it is. At the moment it does not read as an individual right. There are no militias of one.
You get so bent about it, and have stated they should have never put the militia part in. The fact that you say that means, it is just a bumb in the road to your percived gun rights, that you know its not an individual right and wish it to be changed.

I would just like to see a definition of the unorganized militia as the organized militia is defined.

Na ....  anyone who reads it from left to right can see that a militia is involved in the right to bear arms... Why did they frame the question the way they did? Who in this day and age is involved in a militia? Not to many folks.
bustr - POTW 1st Wing


This is like the old joke that voters are harsher to their beer brewer if he has an outage, than their politicians after raising their taxes. Death and taxes are certain but, fun and sex is only now.

Offline Elfie

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6142
Re: DoJ on Heller...
« Reply #47 on: March 11, 2008, 02:47:06 PM »
During the mid 80's a study of the 2nd amendment was sponsored by a university (?). Out of 36 scholars of the constitution, 34 of them concluded that it was an individual right and the other 2 concluded it was a collective right. I think it's pretty telling that 34 out of 36 came to the same conclusion, overwhelming evidence that it is an individual right.
Corkyjr on country jumping:
In the end you should be thankful for those players like us who switch to try and help keep things even because our willingness to do so, helps a more selfish, I want it my way player, get to fly his latewar uber ride.

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
Re: DoJ on Heller...
« Reply #48 on: March 11, 2008, 02:48:47 PM »
yep... get a liberal socialist mad enough and he will drop the phoney act and blurt out how he really feels...

then he will go away once he knows his covers have been pulled and.. try to find someone else to get all smarmy with.

lazs

Offline Bingolong

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 330
Re: DoJ on Heller...
« Reply #49 on: March 11, 2008, 02:52:10 PM »
finally!  at last we got you to admit that anyone (97% of the country in the USA today quick poll)  that anyone who thinks the the second is an individual right is a "rest of the whacko gun freaks"

Why did you have to be so dishonest?  why is the left always so prone to lie?  to pretend to be either on your side or.. at least.. not your enemy?   the basic dishonesty of all your posts is pretty sickening but.. typical.

It takes getting you angry before you blurt out how you really feel..  not that it was that difficult... it is just that you could have saved us a lot of time by stating your true position in the first place.

You are cornered.. the militia was every able bodied man when the second was written.. you can't change that to mean.. be meaningless.. to say it means that it is the right of the states to arm their soldiers...

It would be the same as if you changed the meaning of "peace" or "quartered" in the third amendment and made them moot without a constitutional convention.

but.. despite your fervent wishes.. I don't believe any supreme court short of one appointed by you is going to tell 98% of Americans that a right that they thought they always had if really no right at all.

lazs

 :noid Climbs drain pipe in corner  :rolleyes:

Oh common lazie I put that in just for you. I am far from angry hehe nice try :)
Seams like your the one who is upset. Your really reaching Laz :)

The militia was put into the NG in 1903 you know that .. common tell the truth. You have also said that the militia law was never really enforced from the time it was made and it was a kind of do it if you want thing. However there are still laws about it. We have been over it before.

Why wont you accept a definition of the unorganized militia? I mean why doesn't that work for you? You just assume it will be bad?

They might say "The Unorganized Militia is every able bodied person in the U.S. ."
Be honest your fear of losing your guns eats you.

As I have said before, I hope you don't.

Offline Bingolong

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 330
Re: DoJ on Heller...
« Reply #50 on: March 11, 2008, 02:56:39 PM »
yep... get a liberal socialist mad enough and he will drop the phoney act and blurt out how he really feels...

then he will go away once he knows his covers have been pulled and.. try to find someone else to get all smarmy with.

lazs
:aok

Offline AKIron

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 12770
Re: DoJ on Heller...
« Reply #51 on: March 11, 2008, 05:00:21 PM »
Seems these guys forgot that it is usually governments practicing bigotry that murder citizens en masse. How can we be so stupid as to trust our government without recourse?

http://www.nraila.org//Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?ID=3387
Here we put salt on Margaritas, not sidewalks.

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
Re: DoJ on Heller...
« Reply #52 on: March 12, 2008, 08:41:03 AM »
poor bingie...  you are stuck with saying that "the people" means something different in the second than in every other part of the constitution..  you are stuck with saying that the "militia" that was written about in the second was then defined in 1903 and that... even tho in 1903 they defined the milita as pretty much every sane adult.. it somehow.. only means the first part.. the national guard.   How do you define the unorganized militia?

you are stuck with the fact that the union accepted the states and their constitutions..  and still does.. that clearly give the individual a right to keep and bear arms... no state constitution says that it is not an individual right.. no state says that only the state can be armed..   how do you get around that?   

What you are saying is that the constitution can be changed by simply writing an act that changes the defenition of a word that was in use when the constitution was written.

I know it irks you but..  you are in a miniscule minority of liberals who hate and fear the second.

The stretch you need to make to come up with a "collective right" is past the breaking point.

Can you, by the way, give the 18th century definition of a "collective right"?   

I know that they had one for "people" and for "state" back then.   I believe that if they had meant "state" they would have said that "the right of the state to keep and bear arms shall not..."   I believe that if they had meant for the militia to be the sole and exclusive reason for having a right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms they would have said so.. it would have read.....

"for the sole purpose of having the state militia, the right of the state to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

What you are saying is that if some act next year defines "quartered" as any installing of troops in private houses where they are served a continental breakfast..  then.. the government could throw out the third so long as they didn't make you serve the soldiers coffee and a pastry in the morning.

You can't modify the constitution by some act defining a term.   only a few pitiful liberals take that route.. you are in the extreme minority.   

As for your outburst on how you really feel about people who believe in the individual right to own and bear arms... I don't think your dancing about how it only applied to me in some personal attack cuts it with anyone... pretty sure that every gun owner here was offended by your "whacko" outburst.

lazs


Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
Re: DoJ on Heller...
« Reply #53 on: March 12, 2008, 08:48:40 AM »
But..  it is useful to look at how people phrased things back then.. these from state constitutions...

" Some Other Contemporaneous Constitutional Provisions With a Similar Grammatical Structure
13

              Rhode Island Free Press Clause:  The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish sentiments on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty . . . . 14

              Massachusetts Free Press Clause:  The liberty of the press is essential to the security of freedom in a state it ought not, therefore, to be restricted in this commonwealth. 15

              Massachusetts Speech and Debate Clause:  The freedom of deliberation, speech and debate, in either house of the legislature, is so essential to the rights of the people, that it cannot be the foundation of any accusation of prosecution, action or complaint, in any other court or place whatsoever. 16

              New Hampshire Venue Clause:  In criminal prosecutions, the trial of the facts in the vicinity where they happen is so essential to the security of the life, liberty, and estate of the citizen, that no crime or offence ought to be tried in any other county than that in which it is committed . . . . 17


as can be seen... and according to the reasoning of the great liberal thinkers of of today like bingie and 2% of the population....

the right to free speech is only a "collective right"   only the press has it for instance in some cases.. only criminals while at trial in others... only in a debate in others..

The first part of the second amendment is exactly like those.. it is an example of why a right can't be taken away.. it is not the end all and be all of the right.

what kind of idiot would think otherwise?

lazs


Offline gunnss

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 632
      • https://grantvillegazette.com/wp/lastname-firstname/evans-kevin-h/
Re: DoJ on Heller...
« Reply #54 on: March 12, 2008, 05:06:11 PM »
According to the USC, Title 10, Subtitle A, Part 1, Chapter 13, Section 311

Section 311. Militia: composition and classes

      (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.

U.S. Code as of: 01/19/04


Regards,
Kevin









I would just like to see a definition of the unorganized militia as the organized militia is defined.

Na ....  anyone who reads it from left to right can see that a militia is involved in the right to bear arms... Why did they frame the question the way they did? Who in this day and age is involved in a militia? Not to many folks.


5,486 HP 110 MPH @500 tons
My other "ride"
http://nmslrhs.org/Photos/photos.php
Alt History, The butterfly made me do it.....
https://grantvillegazette.com/wp/lastname-firstname/evans-kevin-h/

Offline Bingolong

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 330
Re: DoJ on Heller...
« Reply #55 on: March 12, 2008, 10:11:52 PM »
According to the USC, Title 10, Subtitle A, Part 1, Chapter 13, Section 311

Section 311. Militia: composition and classes

      (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.

U.S. Code as of: 01/19/04


Regards,
Kevin

http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

III. And be it further enacted, That within one year after the passing of the Act, the militia of the respective states shall be arranged into divisions, brigades, regiments, battalions, and companies, as the legislature of each state shall direct; and each division, brigade, and regiment, shall be numbered at the formation thereof; and a record made of such numbers of the Adjutant-General's office in the state; and when in the field, or in serviced in the state, such division, brigade, and regiment shall, respectively, take rank according to their numbers, reckoning the first and lowest number highest in rank. That if the same be convenient, each brigade shall consist of four regiments; each regiment or two battalions; each battalion of five companies; each company of sixty-four privates. That the said militia shall be officered by the respective states, as follows: To each division on Major-General, with two Aids-de-camp, with the rank of major; to each brigade, one brigadier-major, with the rank of a major; to each company, one captain, one lieutenant, one ensign, four serjeants, four corporals, one drummer, and one fifer and bugler. That there shall be a regimental staff, to consist of one adjutant, and one quartermaster, to rank as lieutenants; one paymaster; one surgeon, and one surgeon's mate; one serjeant-major; one drum- major, and one fife-major.

IV. And be it further enacted, That out of the militia enrolled as is herein directed, there shall be formed for each battalion, as least one company of grenadiers, light infantry or riflemen; and that each division there shall be, at least, one company of artillery, and one troop of horse: There shall be to each company of artillery, one captain, two lieutenants, four serjeants, four corporals, six gunners, six bombardiers, one drummer, and one fifer. The officers to be armed with a sword or hanger, a fusee, bayonet and belt, with a cartridge box to contain twelve cartridges; and each private of matoss shall furnish themselves with good horses of at least fourteen hands and an half high, and to be armed with a sword and pair of pistols, the holsters of which to be covered with bearskin caps. Each dragoon to furnish himself with a serviceable horse, at least fourteen hands and an half high, a good saddle, bridle, mail-pillion and valise, holster, and a best plate and crupper, a pair of boots and spurs; a pair of pistols, a sabre, and a cartouchbox to contain twelve cartridges for pistols. That each company of artillery and troop of house shall be formed of volunteers from the brigade, at the discretion of the Commander in Chief of the State, not exceeding one company of each to a regiment, nor more in number than one eleventh part of the infantry, and shall be uniformly clothed in raiments, to be furnished at their expense, the colour and fashion to be determined by the Brigadier commanding the brigade to which they belong.

V. And be it further enacted, That each battalion and regiment shall be provided with the state and regimental colours by the Field-Officers, and each company with a drum and fife or bugle-horn, by the commissioned officers of the company, in such manner as the legislature of the respective States shall direct.

VI. And be it further enacted, That there shall be an adjutant general appointed in each state, whose duty it shall be to distribute all orders for the Commander in Chief of the State to the several corps; to attend all publick reviews, when the Commander in Chief of the State shall review the militia, or any part thereof; to obey all orders from him relative to carrying into execution, and perfecting, the system of military discipline established by this Act; to furnish blank forms of different returns that may be required; and to explain the principles of which they should be made; to receive from the several officers of the different corps throughout the state, returns of the militia under their command, reporting the actual situation of their arms, accoutrements, and ammunition, their delinquencies, and every other thing which relates to the general advancement of good order and discipline: All which, the several officers of the division, brigades, regiments, and battalions are hereby required to make in the usual manner, so that the said adjutant general may be duly furnished therewith: From all which returns be shall make proper abstracts, and by the same annually before the Commander in Chief of the State.

The States revise the military codes - 1881 to 1892
Concern over the militia's new domestic role also led the States to reexamine their need for a well-equipped and trained militia, and between 1881 and 1892, every state revised the military code to provide for an organized force. Most changed the name of their militias to the National Guard, following New York's example.

The Militia Act, 1903
affirmed the National Guard as the primary organized reserve force.
Between 1903 and the 1920's, legislation was enacted that strengthened the Army National Guard as a component of the national defense force. The Dick Act of 1903 replaced the 1792 Militia Act and affirmed the National Guard as the Army's primary organized reserve.

The National Defense Act, 1916
guaranteed the State militias as the primary reserve force; gave the President the authority to mobilize the Guard during war or national emergency; made use of the term "National Guard" mandatory; authorized drill pay for the first time.
The National Defense Act of 1916 further expanded the Guard's role and guaranteed the State militias' status as the Army's primary reserve force. Furthermore, the law mandated use of the term "National Guard" for that force. Moreover, the President was given authority, in case of war or national emergency, to mobilize the National Guard for the duration of the emergency. The number of yearly drills increased from 24 to 48 and annual training from five to 15 days. Drill pay was authorized for the first time.

The National Defense Act Amendments, 1920
put the National Guard on the general staff; reorganized the divisions.

The National Guard Mobilization Act, 1933
made the National Guard a component of the Army.

The Total Force Policy, 1973
Requires all active and reserve military organizations be treated as a single integrated force; reinforced the original intent of the founding fathers (a small standing army complemented by citizen-soldiers.)

Regards,
 
 
 
 











Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
Re: DoJ on Heller...
« Reply #56 on: March 13, 2008, 08:58:40 AM »
bingie.. you keep bringing up definitions of militia that were made up after the second amendment was written and...  did you notice?  not one.. none of them....

ever mention their relevance to the second.   why do you suppose that is?  A logical man would see that they don't mention it because they don't see any relevance to the second when they wrote the acts defining militias.. that "militia" was not the end all and be all reason for the second any more than freedom of the press and public debate being necessary to a free state means that free speech is only for the press or debates..   It matters not if the US comes up with some act to define "the press"

This is consistent with how things worked out..  when the states with second amendment type constitutions but... without the "militia" part joined the union..  that would have been the time for you liberals to crush the second.. you should have not allowed their constitutions to stand if you believed in "collective rights" but....

of course you didn't because.. no one like you existed back then.. no one back then thought the second was anything but an individual right.

No one back then believed that there was anything in the constitution that was a "collective right"  or.. to put it plainly.. no right at all.

please give the definition of "collective right" from the 18th century.   

Even so... even if you accept a militia as the main reason for the second.. the only reason even..  the militia at the time was defined as every able bodied man.

Now.. I don't recall any constitutional convention that changed the second from it's original meaning or intent. 

but... even if you stretch (as you have) past the breaking point...  if you say that all the state constitutions are illegal and were just somehow... not noticed.. even if you think that the second was only a right of the state to arm it's soldiers as militia... even if you think that the word "militia" is the hinge and that the second can change from day to day depending on how the current congress is willing to define it...

Even at that.. the "unorganized militia" still exists today.. it is everyone not in the organized militia... it is.. well..  the people.. and we come full circle.

lazs

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
Re: DoJ on Heller...
« Reply #57 on: March 13, 2008, 09:04:14 AM »
and bingie... not to pound on you too much but from your own cut and paste..."The National Defense Act, 1916
guaranteed the State militias as the primary reserve force; "

notice how it said "primary"?

do you know what primary means?  do you know what "only" means.. it is not a trick question like "state" and "people"

I would even go so far as to say that in the original intent.. the militia... every able bodied man being able to form a militia... was, if not "primary" at least very important reason for the second...enough that they gave it as an example.

I have seen nothing that you have said that...

proves that the militia is the sole purpose of the second nor...

anything that says that the militia was not or even is not..  every able bodied citizen.

lazs

Offline Bingolong

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 330
Re: DoJ on Heller...
« Reply #58 on: March 13, 2008, 10:10:24 AM »
bingie.. you keep bringing up definitions of militia that were made up after the second amendment was written and...  did you notice?  not one.. none of them....

ever mention their relevance to the second.   why do you suppose that is?  A logical man would see that they don't mention it because they don't see any relevance to the second when they wrote the acts defining militias.. that "militia" was not the end all and be all reason for the second any more than freedom of the press and public debate being necessary to a free state means that free speech is only for the press or debates..   It matters not if the US comes up with some act to define "the press"

This is consistent with how things worked out..  when the states with second amendment type constitutions but... without the "militia" part joined the union..  that would have been the time for you liberals to crush the second.. you should have not allowed their constitutions to stand if you believed in "collective rights" but....

of course you didn't because.. no one like you existed back then.. no one back then thought the second was anything but an individual right.

No one back then believed that there was anything in the constitution that was a "collective right"  or.. to put it plainly.. no right at all.

please give the definition of "collective right" from the 18th century.   

Even so... even if you accept a militia as the main reason for the second.. the only reason even..  the militia at the time was defined as every able bodied man.

Now.. I don't recall any constitutional convention that changed the second from it's original meaning or intent. 

but... even if you stretch (as you have) past the breaking point...  if you say that all the state constitutions are illegal and were just somehow... not noticed.. even if you think that the second was only a right of the state to arm it's soldiers as militia... even if you think that the word "militia" is the hinge and that the second can change from day to day depending on how the current congress is willing to define it...

Even at that.. the "unorganized militia" still exists today.. it is everyone not in the organized militia... it is.. well..  the people.. and we come full circle.

lazs

your not pounding on me lazzie

whats your membership #, who's your commanding officer, who's your paymaster. It says members of the militia lazzie. What register militia are you a member of?

Offline bsdaddict

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1108
Re: DoJ on Heller...
« Reply #59 on: March 13, 2008, 10:29:15 AM »
is the word "unorganized" confusing to you?