|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
April 28, 2009, 11:35 AM | #26 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 4, 2007
Location: Shenandoah Valley
Posts: 3,276
|
Quote:
I guess what I'm saying is that the need for a localized, grass roots, ability to respond to an emergency hasn't gone away in spite of political brainwashing attempts to say it has and that only "the government" could possibly handle situations. The media demonizing of the term "militia" has been very effective so folks shy away from that term now, but go out into rural America and you'll find that local "committees" still exist aplenty. |
|
April 28, 2009, 12:00 PM | #27 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
The Militia that the 2A speaks of no longer exists. It has become the National Guard. The anti-gunners knew this and so tried to link the private ownership of firearms with the said defunct militia. Heller took care of that problem by decoupling the two clauses and declared that the individual citizen had the RKBA independent of service in the militia.
The "unorganized" militia defined in the Militia Act of 1903 is but a statutory construct that has no rights, duties, or responsibilities. It is merely a pool of people that might be drawn from to fill the organized militia which is the National Guard. BTW that pool by law is defined as able bodies males between the ages of 17 and 45.
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted." Anonymous Soldier. |
April 28, 2009, 12:08 PM | #28 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 21, 2000
Location: Minnesota, Twin Cities
Posts: 1,076
|
peetzakilla posted:
Quote:
1. can the government prevent you from expressing your opinion, with a pencil and paper, in your own house? No way! (analogous to the right to "keep" arms"). 2. can the government prevent you from having a pencil and a notebook to write your opinion, in plain view, in public, even if your opinion disagrees with a government policy? No way. (analogous to the right to "bear arms"). 3. can the government prevent you from flying an airplane, for which you do not have a pilots license, and sky writing your opinion above New York City airspace? Yes they can! "analogous to "can I keep and bear any arms I darn well please". Now, on point #3, you can certainly "keep" an airplane on your property with no pilots license. You could probably legally fly it on your own property without a license. But you can not necessarily fly it off of your own property, even it you intend to use it to skywrite a political message. Also, you could not have a nuclear bomb on board that aircraft, whether it left your property or not. I know this is not a perfect explanation, but it has some relevance, IMHO.
__________________
"If you love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." Samuel Adams. |
|
April 28, 2009, 12:53 PM | #29 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 6,141
|
I think there still exists a need for a good, old-fashioned militia, at least in places. It might be that very few people would care to be part of it but it might be that was the case in 1800, too, but that's a different problem, though not insignificant. On this particular point, it could be noted that during the colonial period in North America, not counting Mexico, there weren't many people and everyone was needed when called. That's not so much the case anymore and that puts the whole concept of the militia as the whole body of the people, otherwise limited by age, etc., up in the air.
Sometimes I think "we" (gun owners) think that government is the problem and that, somehow, "we" have nothing to do with government, which is simply not so. If "we" are just a small minority, then, well, that's a different problem. But I really don't care to see any sort of local self-appointed group of people start enforcing their own laws. No such group is a militia in the American sense of the word. That sounds like something from a third-world country, complete with war lords. I wrote in another thread some of my thinking on the militia a few months ago but it went nowhere. I guess may it is irrelevant these days. But private ownership of firearms should not hang on an interpretation of the 2nd admendment.
__________________
Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands! Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag, and return us to our own beloved homes! Buy War Bonds. |
April 28, 2009, 01:30 PM | #30 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 21, 2000
Location: Minnesota, Twin Cities
Posts: 1,076
|
The states should still be able to call forth their citizens to help protect vital areas in case of emergencies. Those citizens may need firearms and could bring their own. Will we always be able to rely on the federal govt. to keep us safe? Ask the folks down in New Orleans. Ask the folks in LA during the Rodney King riots. Ask the folks in Florida who defended their neighborhoods after a hurricane devasted them. Should we always rely on the federal government to keep us safe? God, no! If it comes to repelling a foreign enemy attacking our shores, then yes, they are our first line of defense. But what if the federal govt. would fail at some point? It's not likely to happen at this point in time, but what about at some point in the future? Hubert Humphrey had a famous quote about the second amendment.
Quote:
In the nation we live in today, the militia has become an anachronist idea for the most part. However, there could be a future event where it will be required that men stand up and be counted to defend their families, their communities, their states, and their lives. No one holds a crystal ball. At the very least, militia or no militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms still exists in the United States. The right was deemed a natural right by the founders and they claimed that governments were formed to SECURE those natural rights. The right exists outside of any government, even though certain forms of governments do not seek to SECURE it.
__________________
"If you love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." Samuel Adams. |
|
April 28, 2009, 01:36 PM | #31 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 24, 2009
Location: RGV, Tx
Posts: 787
|
as found on merriam-webster.com
mi·li·tia Listen to the pronunciation of militia
Pronunciation: \mə-ˈli-shə\ Function: noun Etymology: Latin, military service, from milit-, miles Date: 1625 1 a: a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency b: a body of citizens organized for military service 2: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service
__________________
And death climbs the steps one by one, To give you the rose that's been burnt by her son, Point me to the sky above I can't get there on my own, Walk me through the graveyard Dig up her bones |
April 28, 2009, 01:37 PM | #32 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 24, 2009
Location: RGV, Tx
Posts: 787
|
as found on wikipidea
The term militia is commonly used today to refer to a military force composed of ordinary citizens[1] to provide defense, emergency law enforcement, or paramilitary service, in times of emergency without being paid a regular salary or committed to a fixed term of service. It is a polyseme with multiple distinct but related meanings. Legal and historical meanings of militia include:
* Defense activity or service, to protect a community, its territory, property, and laws.[2] * The entire able-bodied population of a community, town, county, or state, available to be called to arms. * A subset of these who may be legally penalized for failing to respond to a call-up. * A subset of these who actually respond to a call-up, regardless of legal obligation. * A private, non-government force, not necessarily directly supported or sanctioned by its government. * An official reserve army, composed of citizen soldiers. Called by various names in different countries such as; the Army Reserve, National Guard, or State Defense Forces.
__________________
And death climbs the steps one by one, To give you the rose that's been burnt by her son, Point me to the sky above I can't get there on my own, Walk me through the graveyard Dig up her bones |
April 28, 2009, 01:38 PM | #33 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
Quote:
Quote:
The rest of your statements about RKBA I agree with.
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted." Anonymous Soldier. |
||
April 28, 2009, 01:41 PM | #34 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
Quote:
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted." Anonymous Soldier. |
|
April 28, 2009, 01:42 PM | #35 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 21, 2000
Location: Minnesota, Twin Cities
Posts: 1,076
|
Tenn. Gentle. wrote:
Quote:
__________________
"If you love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." Samuel Adams. Last edited by USAFNoDak; April 28, 2009 at 01:57 PM. |
|
April 28, 2009, 01:49 PM | #36 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 21, 2000
Location: Minnesota, Twin Cities
Posts: 1,076
|
Tenn Gentle wrote:
Quote:
This is not taking into account the fact that many military personell and members of the guard would defect or refuse to obey orders which they believed were in violation of their oath to faithfully defend the US Constitution. I don't believe you can just wave a magic wand and say that in 1903, the national guard became the citizen militia referred to in the Second Amendment. Outside of that, it's a moot point as to whether individuals retain the right spelled out in the second amendment. Militia or no militia, individuals still own the right, and the USSC has concurred. The Ninth US Circuit Court has stated that the Second Amendment also applies to the states and local governments. We are steadily making progress on this issue.
__________________
"If you love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." Samuel Adams. Last edited by USAFNoDak; April 28, 2009 at 01:55 PM. |
|
April 28, 2009, 01:58 PM | #37 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Quote:
Way too many folks, both pro-gun and anti-gun seem to be stuck in some sort of time-warp. The entire militia clause is now a moot point. It no longer has anything to do with the RKBA, in the context the battles we are and will be engaged in. Yes, at some point this clause may be visited by the Supreme Court. But not today, nor in any reasonable and foreseeable future. Get over it. Continued discussion of this clause shows a distinct lack of understanding the current situation. A situation placed in motion by the Heller decision. |
|
April 28, 2009, 02:25 PM | #38 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 6,141
|
I don't think the militia clause is a moot point any more than the part about a free press would be if newspapers disappeared. Imagine that!
In reading over these posts you might think the only government is the Federal government. There are state governments, county governments, city governments, town governments, and so on. All of these entities exist for the benefit of the population and, in theory, the whole population. All government is local. Which government failed in New Orleans--or was it just the levee that failed? Unfortunately I might agree that perhaps in some instances all of them may have failed (not referring here to New Orleans) for the simple reason that governments seem to be avoiding their responsibilities. It isn't so easy to say why that might be the case but it might be a matter of elected (mostly elected, I suspect) officials taking the easy way out. There's always the little matter of money and we all know how people hate paying taxes. It isn't the same everywhere, to be sure, but sometimes you have to wonder just who runs the government. Who the government answers to, that is. It certainly doesn't answer to people who want nothing to do with government.
__________________
Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands! Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag, and return us to our own beloved homes! Buy War Bonds. |
April 28, 2009, 02:33 PM | #39 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 9, 2002
Posts: 1,936
|
http://www.guncite.com/second_amendment_commas.html
There is no single version that anyone can identify as "THE" official version that was ratified, because the amendment was floating around with anywhere from 1 to 4 commas, and sometimes even different wording, during the ratification process. Sorry, Antipitas, couldn't resist, though I know it's over. |
April 28, 2009, 03:00 PM | #40 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,446
|
A very slight rephrasing of the Second Amendment makes its meaning much clearer. Scalia noted in the Heller decision that, in slightly more modern language, the Second Amendment could be read as "Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Preservation of the people's ability to effectively organize a militia was the main purpose behind the Second Amendment so the right was guaranteed not to the states or to the militia but to the people. Therefore, as Scalia noted, membership to the militia, organized or otherwise, is not necessary to enjoy the rights enumerated by the Second Amendment.
|
April 28, 2009, 03:29 PM | #41 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 21, 2000
Location: Minnesota, Twin Cities
Posts: 1,076
|
I've forgotten the math theorems by name but I seem to recall that there is one that states:
If A=B, A=C, and C=D, then B=D. Maybe we can apply this to the Second Amendment in some way. A well regulated militia (A) is necessary to a free state (B). A=B A well regulated militia (A) must be comprised of an armed section of "the people" (C). A=C To ensure that there is always an armed section of "the people" (C), their right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed (D). C=D. Thus, what is necessary to a free state (B) is that the people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infinged (D). B=D. Well, it works for me anyway.
__________________
"If you love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." Samuel Adams. |
April 28, 2009, 03:36 PM | #42 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted." Anonymous Soldier. |
||
April 28, 2009, 03:38 PM | #43 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
Quote:
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted." Anonymous Soldier. |
|
April 28, 2009, 04:12 PM | #44 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 21, 2000
Location: Minnesota, Twin Cities
Posts: 1,076
|
As far as who the miltia are or what it is comprised of, this article below might help.
http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/20...tia_act_of.php Quote:
1. those who are in the national guard or Naval Militia, including any females. 2. all males 17-45 who are not part of the national guard or the Naval Militia. So, it would seem to me that there is still a body of armed citizens who are not part of the national guard, who are able to be called up by states or the federal government, if necessary, to perform localized military type duties and tasks. Thus, they are militia members and they are specifically a part of what the term militia refers to in the 2nd A. To reiterate, this has nothing to do with who has the right to keep and bear arms. It is only one part of the reasoning as to why the people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The people have the right. This means each individual has the right. It was given to them by God, or their creator, or naturally, depending upon how each individual looks at how they got here to this good earth. But the right exists outside of any established government. Government was established to protect those natural rights which are inalienable and are bestowed by our creator. Any knot head who believes that the right to keep and bear arms is some priviledge offered to us by the government, or is somehow tied to military service of some kind, is blowing peanut oil up their own colon with a hose. I hope they have an allergic reaction.
__________________
"If you love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." Samuel Adams. Last edited by USAFNoDak; April 28, 2009 at 04:17 PM. Reason: clarity and grammar. |
|
April 28, 2009, 04:27 PM | #45 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
Quote:
Here is a good link for you to use concerning the militia: http://www.adl.org/mwd/faq1.asp
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted." Anonymous Soldier. |
|
April 28, 2009, 06:02 PM | #46 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,446
|
Quote:
Regardless, it doesn't make all that much difference now because according to SCOTUS our membership and/or eligibility for the militia has no bearing on whether we enjoy 2A rights or not. |
|
April 28, 2009, 06:13 PM | #47 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted." Anonymous Soldier. |
||
April 28, 2009, 06:21 PM | #48 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
Antipitas and Tennessee Gentlemen,
If the militia is a completely dead issue, how would you characterize the capacity in which the hypothetical citizens mentioned in the Nordyke opinion are serving, when defending the country against foreign invaders, as described by the court? Isn't the preservation of the ability to raise a militia, inherent in the amendment? And if not, what about all that talk by the court of resisting a tyrannical government? Or are you suggesting that the national guard would do that on our behalf? |
April 28, 2009, 06:37 PM | #49 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 4, 2009
Posts: 322
|
I don't know if the punctuation remarks are for me, but if you're saying that I am uneducated about American History, the Constitution, and the Bill Of Rights, then you are correct. That's why I joined this forum, to learn. It's all very interesting and while it's new to me to find history "fun", I am perhaps overly enthusiastic. But you'll see from my posts that I am open to admitting fault.
If you're saying that I am uneducated about English structure, then I do take offense. Not much, but some. Regardless, I think you mistook what I was trying to say (if indeed that was aimed at me). I'm not talking legally the punctuation is important. I actually learned a lot from your post and it was incredibly interesting. I was saying that it's important for the argument between an anti and a pro, so that you can get it out of the way. The anti is arguing based on the wording, so you have to get over that first hurdle. I'm saying exactly what you are, in simpler terms, that the punctuation of the statement negates that argument. No bad blood here, I just wanted to clear that up. Dunno if I managed to do that though... =P |
April 28, 2009, 06:42 PM | #50 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,446
|
Quote:
The militia was composed of the people. It doesn't matter who regulated it, authorized it, called it forth, or disbanded it. It was made of the people. No people = no militia. At the time the Second Amendment was drafted, there was no distinction between the organized and unorganized militia. Male citizens between the ages of 17 and 45 were the militia, everyone else was not. Members of the militia were expected and required to provide their own arms. The government did not provide the arms to the militia, but everyone who was considered a member of the militia, meaning every male citizen between the ages of 17 and 45, was still expected and required to be armed. The preferatory clase states that because the militia is necessary, the people cannot be deprived their right to arms. Because the people, or at least a large segment of them, were the militia, the purpose of the Second Amendment at the time of its drafting was to ensure that the militia could be armed. Whether or not that remains its purpose is another issue that we've already debated, but it is a simple fact that at the time of its introduction, arming the militia was the purpose of the Second Amendment. |
|
|
|