A well-regulated...

[HereWeGoAgain]

For you anti gun freaks:

PJTV: Assault Pressure Cooker Ban: What the Boston Marathon Attack Teaches Us about Gun Control - YouTube

I love this guy.....there I said it.

 

[BlindBoo]

.
"Some of these people join voluntary private "militias" with no chain of command to the elected government - i.e., they're just paramilitary gangs serving the commands of whatever rich anti-government nut funds them - and in which they basically play at soldiery so long as it suits them. Unless they would obey the commands of the elected government - which many, if not most of these groups explicitly exist to refuse - they have nothing to do with the "well-regulated militia" stipulated in the Constitution, and certainly

nothing to do with enhancing the "security of a free state."​

Quite the contrary: Many of these groups revel in the rhetoric of tyrants, threatening to impose ideas and practices on others by force that the American public would never consent to in a free state (e.g., reimposing racial segregation, theocracy, silencing those who speak against them, etc.) and make a hobby of issuing death threats to the elected officers of a free state."




"...the militia are not governed by federal law, they are creatures of state law. To the extent that the 'unorganized militia' exists it is part of the militia and is governed by either state or federal law. Period. Communities and individuals have no authority at all over the militia save what the federal and state governments decide to give them."

.

The term "regulated" in the 1700s meant many things: well supplied, disciplined it did not necessarily mean government controlled.

In fact I posit that the founders didn't want militias to be beholden to the government in case the government became an agent of tyranny and therefore an enemy of the people.

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;

 

[Little-Acorn]

The good news is, whether your local militia is "built right" according to the leftists trying to restrict your guns....

.... has nothing to do with the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" protected by the 2nd amendment.

Government is forbidden to infringe on that right, period. Regardless of how some local militia is structured, or whether you're a member of it etc.

 

[Skull Pilot]

.
"Some of these people join voluntary private "militias" with no chain of command to the elected government - i.e., they're just paramilitary gangs serving the commands of whatever rich anti-government nut funds them - and in which they basically play at soldiery so long as it suits them. Unless they would obey the commands of the elected government - which many, if not most of these groups explicitly exist to refuse - they have nothing to do with the "well-regulated militia" stipulated in the Constitution, and certainly

nothing to do with enhancing the "security of a free state."​

Quite the contrary: Many of these groups revel in the rhetoric of tyrants, threatening to impose ideas and practices on others by force that the American public would never consent to in a free state (e.g., reimposing racial segregation, theocracy, silencing those who speak against them, etc.) and make a hobby of issuing death threats to the elected officers of a free state."




"...the militia are not governed by federal law, they are creatures of state law. To the extent that the 'unorganized militia' exists it is part of the militia and is governed by either state or federal law. Period. Communities and individuals have no authority at all over the militia save what the federal and state governments decide to give them."

.

The term "regulated" in the 1700s meant many things: well supplied, disciplined it did not necessarily mean government controlled.

In fact I posit that the founders didn't want militias to be beholden to the government in case the government became an agent of tyranny and therefore an enemy of the people.

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;

When called into the service of the united states.

What about when NOT called into service? Militias were clearly meant to exist whether the government called them into service or not after all a militia cannot be called into service unless it already exists.

You are assuming that militias must ALWAYS be in the service of the government a condition that is not part of the Constitution.

 

[BlindBoo]

The term "regulated" in the 1700s meant many things: well supplied, disciplined it did not necessarily mean government controlled.

In fact I posit that the founders didn't want militias to be beholden to the government in case the government became an agent of tyranny and therefore an enemy of the people.

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;

When called into the service of the united states.

What about when NOT called into service? Militias were clearly meant to exist whether the government called them into service or not after all a militia cannot be called into service unless it already exists.

You are assuming that militias must ALWAYS be in the service of the government a condition that is not part of the Constitution.

When the states militia were called into service could they refuse?

 

[M14 Shooter]

.
"Some of these people join voluntary private "militias" with no chain of command to the elected government - i.e., they're just paramilitary gangs serving the commands of whatever rich anti-government nut funds them - and in which they basically play at soldiery so long as it suits them. Unless they would obey the commands of the elected government - which many, if not most of these groups explicitly exist to refuse - they have nothing to do with the "well-regulated militia" stipulated in the Constitution, and certainly

nothing to do with enhancing the "security of a free state."​

Quite the contrary: Many of these groups revel in the rhetoric of tyrants, threatening to impose ideas and practices on others by force that the American public would never consent to in a free state (e.g., reimposing racial segregation, theocracy, silencing those who speak against them, etc.) and make a hobby of issuing death threats to the elected officers of a free state."

"...the militia are not governed by federal law, they are creatures of state law. To the extent that the 'unorganized militia' exists it is part of the militia and is governed by either state or federal law. Period. Communities and individuals have no authority at all over the militia save what the federal and state governments decide to give them."

.

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home

/ Thread

 

[M14 Shooter]

And no license required to buy or own normal arms protected by the 2nd.

How so? If you are going to equate individual gun ownership with military ownership, in the military one must make it through boot camp (training) before they are issued a weapon.

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home

 

[Quantum Windbag]

.
"Some of these people join voluntary private "militias" with no chain of command to the elected government - i.e., they're just paramilitary gangs serving the commands of whatever rich anti-government nut funds them - and in which they basically play at soldiery so long as it suits them. Unless they would obey the commands of the elected government - which many, if not most of these groups explicitly exist to refuse - they have nothing to do with the "well-regulated militia" stipulated in the Constitution, and certainly

nothing to do with enhancing the "security of a free state."​

Quite the contrary: Many of these groups revel in the rhetoric of tyrants, threatening to impose ideas and practices on others by force that the American public would never consent to in a free state (e.g., reimposing racial segregation, theocracy, silencing those who speak against them, etc.) and make a hobby of issuing death threats to the elected officers of a free state."




"...the militia are not governed by federal law, they are creatures of state law. To the extent that the 'unorganized militia' exists it is part of the militia and is governed by either state or federal law. Period. Communities and individuals have no authority at all over the militia save what the federal and state governments decide to give them."

.

There is nothing in federal law about militias?

10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes | Title 10 - Armed Forces | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Anti-government extremist groups reach record levels, say experts - CNN.com

And?

 

[M14 Shooter]

.
"Some of these people join voluntary private "militias" with no chain of command to the elected government - i.e., they're just paramilitary gangs serving the commands of whatever rich anti-government nut funds them - and in which they basically play at soldiery so long as it suits them. Unless they would obey the commands of the elected government - which many, if not most of these groups explicitly exist to refuse - they have nothing to do with the "well-regulated militia" stipulated in the Constitution, and certainly

nothing to do with enhancing the "security of a free state."​

Quite the contrary: Many of these groups revel in the rhetoric of tyrants, threatening to impose ideas and practices on others by force that the American public would never consent to in a free state (e.g., reimposing racial segregation, theocracy, silencing those who speak against them, etc.) and make a hobby of issuing death threats to the elected officers of a free state."




"...the militia are not governed by federal law, they are creatures of state law. To the extent that the 'unorganized militia' exists it is part of the militia and is governed by either state or federal law. Period. Communities and individuals have no authority at all over the militia save what the federal and state governments decide to give them."

.

The term "regulated" in the 1700s meant many things: well supplied, disciplined it did not necessarily mean government controlled.

In fact I posit that the founders didn't want militias to be beholden to the government in case the government became an agent of tyranny and therefore an enemy of the people.

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;

when called into the actual Service of the United States, yes.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And no license required to buy or own normal arms protected by the 2nd.

How so? If you are going to equate individual gun ownership with military ownership, in the military one must make it through boot camp (training) before they are issued a weapon.

The expertise of people who have never been in the military never ceases to amaze me.

FYI, you are issued a weapon at the beginning of boot camp, not the end.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;

When called into the service of the united states.

What about when NOT called into service? Militias were clearly meant to exist whether the government called them into service or not after all a militia cannot be called into service unless it already exists.

You are assuming that militias must ALWAYS be in the service of the government a condition that is not part of the Constitution.

When the states militia were called into service could they refuse?

I don't know but the government does have the right to conscript soldiers.

But the issue of government control is clearly limited to when the government calls them into service. There is no implied government control during times when militias are not in government service.

 

[Star]

.
"Some of these people join voluntary private "militias" with no chain of command to the elected government - i.e., they're just paramilitary gangs serving the commands of whatever rich anti-government nut funds them - and in which they basically play at soldiery so long as it suits them. Unless they would obey the commands of the elected government - which many, if not most of these groups explicitly exist to refuse - they have nothing to do with the "well-regulated militia" stipulated in the Constitution, and certainly

nothing to do with enhancing the "security of a free state."​

Quite the contrary: Many of these groups revel in the rhetoric of tyrants, threatening to impose ideas and practices on others by force that the American public would never consent to in a free state (e.g., reimposing racial segregation, theocracy, silencing those who speak against them, etc.) and make a hobby of issuing death threats to the elected officers of a free state."




"...the militia are not governed by federal law, they are creatures of state law. To the extent that the 'unorganized militia' exists it is part of the militia and is governed by either state or federal law. Period. Communities and individuals have no authority at all over the militia save what the federal and state governments decide to give them."

.

There is nothing in federal law about militias?

10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes | Title 10 - Armed Forces | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute

.
Are you making a silly, pathetic attempt at building a strawman, or do you have a reading comprehension problem?
.

 

[BlindBoo]

When called into the service of the united states.

What about when NOT called into service? Militias were clearly meant to exist whether the government called them into service or not after all a militia cannot be called into service unless it already exists.

You are assuming that militias must ALWAYS be in the service of the government a condition that is not part of the Constitution.

When the states militia were called into service could they refuse?

I don't know but the government does have the right to conscript soldiers.

But the issue of government control is clearly limited to when the government calls them into service. There is no implied government control during times when militias are not in government service.

And in those time the citizen soldiers should have the right to posses their arm at home. It made sense back then. Not so much during the last century or so.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

.
"Some of these people join voluntary private "militias" with no chain of command to the elected government - i.e., they're just paramilitary gangs serving the commands of whatever rich anti-government nut funds them - and in which they basically play at soldiery so long as it suits them. Unless they would obey the commands of the elected government - which many, if not most of these groups explicitly exist to refuse - they have nothing to do with the "well-regulated militia" stipulated in the Constitution, and certainly

nothing to do with enhancing the "security of a free state."​

Quite the contrary: Many of these groups revel in the rhetoric of tyrants, threatening to impose ideas and practices on others by force that the American public would never consent to in a free state (e.g., reimposing racial segregation, theocracy, silencing those who speak against them, etc.) and make a hobby of issuing death threats to the elected officers of a free state."




"...the militia are not governed by federal law, they are creatures of state law. To the extent that the 'unorganized militia' exists it is part of the militia and is governed by either state or federal law. Period. Communities and individuals have no authority at all over the militia save what the federal and state governments decide to give them."

.

There is nothing in federal law about militias?

10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes | Title 10 - Armed Forces | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute

.
Are you making a silly, pathetic attempt at building a strawman, or do you have a reading comprehension problem?
.

I am mocking the idiotic claims you quoted.

 

[Skull Pilot]

When the states militia were called into service could they refuse?

I don't know but the government does have the right to conscript soldiers.

But the issue of government control is clearly limited to when the government calls them into service. There is no implied government control during times when militias are not in government service.

And in those time the citizen soldiers should have the right to posses their arm at home. It made sense back then. Not so much during the last century or so.

That's your opinion.

The idea of a militia maybe outdated but the idea that a person should be free to keep a weapon or carry it on their person for protection is more relevant now than ever.

We see over and over that the government law enforcement agencies cannot protect the citizenry.

 

[MikeK]

For you anti gun freaks:

PJTV: Assault Pressure Cooker Ban: What the Boston Marathon Attack Teaches Us about Gun Control - YouTube

This fellow is one hell of an impressive speaker! (And that's coming from an old White man.)

 

[BlindBoo]

I don't know but the government does have the right to conscript soldiers.

But the issue of government control is clearly limited to when the government calls them into service. There is no implied government control during times when militias are not in government service.

And in those time the citizen soldiers should have the right to posses their arm at home. It made sense back then. Not so much during the last century or so.

That's your opinion.

The idea of a militia maybe outdated but the idea that a person should be free to keep a weapon or carry it on their person for protection is more relevant now than ever.

We see over and over that the government law enforcement agencies cannot protect the citizenry.

So it comes down to where do you draw the line. Should I be able to buy, keep and carry around a .50 caliber machine gun for my protection?

 

[M14 Shooter]

.
"Some of these people join voluntary private "militias" with no chain of command to the elected government - i.e., they're just paramilitary gangs serving the commands of whatever rich anti-government nut funds them - and in which they basically play at soldiery so long as it suits them. Unless they would obey the commands of the elected government - which many, if not most of these groups explicitly exist to refuse - they have nothing to do with the "well-regulated militia" stipulated in the Constitution, and certainly

nothing to do with enhancing the "security of a free state."​

Quite the contrary: Many of these groups revel in the rhetoric of tyrants, threatening to impose ideas and practices on others by force that the American public would never consent to in a free state (e.g., reimposing racial segregation, theocracy, silencing those who speak against them, etc.) and make a hobby of issuing death threats to the elected officers of a free state."




"...the militia are not governed by federal law, they are creatures of state law. To the extent that the 'unorganized militia' exists it is part of the militia and is governed by either state or federal law. Period. Communities and individuals have no authority at all over the militia save what the federal and state governments decide to give them."

.

There is nothing in federal law about militias?

10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes | Title 10 - Armed Forces | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute

.
Are you making a silly, pathetic attempt at building a strawman, or do you have a reading comprehension problem?
.

You stated:

...the militia are not governed by federal law, they are creatures of state law

He proved you wrong.

 

[M14 Shooter]

When the states militia were called into service could they refuse?

I don't know but the government does have the right to conscript soldiers.

But the issue of government control is clearly limited to when the government calls them into service. There is no implied government control during times when militias are not in government service.

And in those time the citizen soldiers should have the right to posses their arm at home. It made sense back then. Not so much during the last century or so.

That you believe the reasning behind the 2nd is obsolete does not change the fact that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.