The Right To Bear Arms

[bigrebnc1775]

I am in the militia even before the "dickless act" all Americans were part of the militia.

You're wrong.

Firstly, people were in the militia because of militia acts. The first being the 1792 militia act. The Dick Act was an attempt at destroying the militia made up of common people with not much clue about how to be in the armed forces. They knew they needed to keep within the constitutional boundaries of allowing individuals to be in the militia (bear arms), so they made a militia that exists on paper and not much more, to prevent people demanding to be in the National Guard.

Not ALL Americans were in the militia, at no time have 100% of Americans been in the militia. At present it is men between certain ages and women who are in the National Guard. Women are not automatically in the militia, never have been. Might be in the future, but aren't now.

Do not ever challenge me on this subject I am about to make you look like a fucking fool
10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of 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.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Not when you put a bullet in the idiot that try's to take them away without due process.

Only, you've just pointed out that they can take them away with due process, hohoho.

You surrender your rights no one takes them.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I am in the militia even before the "dickless act" all Americans were part of the militia.

You're wrong.

Firstly, people were in the militia because of militia acts. The first being the 1792 militia act. The Dick Act was an attempt at destroying the militia made up of common people with not much clue about how to be in the armed forces. They knew they needed to keep within the constitutional boundaries of allowing individuals to be in the militia (bear arms), so they made a militia that exists on paper and not much more, to prevent people demanding to be in the National Guard.

Not ALL Americans were in the militia, at no time have 100% of Americans been in the militia. At present it is men between certain ages and women who are in the National Guard. Women are not automatically in the militia, never have been. Might be in the future, but aren't now.

Do not ever challenge me on this subject I am about to make you look like a fucking fool
10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of 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.

Holy moly. Someone who thinks they know EVERYTHING and makes themselves look like a COMPLETE FOOL.

What did I say? Not all Americans are in the militia because women aren't. And you reply back saying I'm a fool and you know everything with the law that says "WOMEN ARE NOT AUTOMATICALLY IN THE MILITIA".

Oh boy, this is priceless.

and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

Read it. Read it again, and again, and again.

A) says who's in the militia.
B) says the two classes of militia. You do realise that the unorganised militia is anyone who is in the group of A and not in b1 right? Right? RIGHT?

Give me a wall to smack my head against.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Not when you put a bullet in the idiot that try's to take them away without due process.

Only, you've just pointed out that they can take them away with due process, hohoho.

You surrender your rights no one takes them.

Actually I'll use correct terminology, they can be infringed upon after due process. People don't usually surrender their rights. If they did, then in prison you'd have no rights, and that's clearly not the case.

Rights are assumed to be held by everyone, no matter where. They cannot be destroyed or taken away, just infringed upon. So, in theory, the Chinese govt is infringing on the right to keep and bear arms for all its citizens.

 

[M14 Shooter]

A well armed popalance is respected by government
A disarmed popalance is dictated to by government

Oh please. What do you think, congresspeople sit around and say, "ooo we'd better not pass that law... Matthew will get his gun and shoot us!!" Give me a frickin' break. Go ahead and try to form a militia group or whatever. See how far you get before you're all squashed like bugs.

It's populace btw, not populance.

Are you saying you want freedom loving, Constitution following Americans to get killed?

None of the rights in the Bill of Rights are absolute. The people that use guns to threaten the government are safe only because the government is reluctant to kill Americans. That practice has not always been followed and will not always follow in the future. There may come a time in the near future that the nation decides that allowing armed citizens to challenge the government is no longer a good practice and bingo.

What does any of that have to do with simple ownership, possession and lawful use?

 

[regent]

A well armed popalance is respected by government
A disarmed popalance is dictated to by government

Oh please. What do you think, congresspeople sit around and say, "ooo we'd better not pass that law... Matthew will get his gun and shoot us!!" Give me a frickin' break. Go ahead and try to form a militia group or whatever. See how far you get before you're all squashed like bugs.

It's populace btw, not populance.

Are you saying you want freedom loving, Constitution following Americans to get killed?

None of the rights in the Bill of Rights are absolute. The people that use guns to threaten the government are safe only because the government is reluctant to kill Americans. That practice has not always been followed and will not always follow in the future. There may come a time in the near future that the nation decides that allowing armed citizens to challenge the government is no longer a good practice and bingo.

What does any of that have to do with simple ownership, possession and lawful use?

Simple ownership, possession and lawful use, may be subject to change as new cases or new laws arrive, and the changes may be in response to events that are now taking place.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

fyi; the Second Amendment allows you to have the other amendments.

For those totally ignorant of history

Nonsense.


The rights enshrined in the Second Amendment protect an individual right to own firearms pursuant to the right to self-defense.


Our civil liberties are safeguarded by the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law, having nothing to do whatsoever with government being 'afraid' of a gun-owning population – the notion of government refraining from 'tyranny' solely as a consequence of a gun-owning population is unfounded, ridiculous, and inane.


Moreover, the Second Amendment doesn't 'trump' the First, a minority of citizens who incorrectly and subjectively perceive the 'government' to be 'tyrannical' do not have the right to ignore the First Amendment rights of the majority to petition the Government for a redress of grievances through either the political process or legal process, and seek to 'overthrow' a lawfully and constitutionally elected government representing the will of the majority of the people.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Nonsense.


The rights enshrined in the Second Amendment protect an individual right to own firearms pursuant to the right to self-defense.


Our civil liberties are safeguarded by the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law, having nothing to do whatsoever with government being 'afraid' of a gun-owning population – the notion of government refraining from 'tyranny' solely as a consequence of a gun-owning population is unfounded, ridiculous, and inane.


Moreover, the Second Amendment doesn't 'trump' the First, a minority of citizens who incorrectly and subjectively perceive the 'government' to be 'tyrannical' do not have the right to ignore the First Amendment rights of the majority to petition the Government for a redress of grievances through either the political process or legal process, and seek to 'overthrow' a lawfully and constitutionally elected government representing the will of the majority of the people.

No, the Right to Keep arms has nothing to do with self defence. I challenge you to find anything that the founders said linking the right to keep arms in the 2A with self defence. I bet you can't.
The right to keep arms is the right of an individual to own weapons so the militia has a ready supply of weapons.
The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia so the militia has a ready supply of personnel to use those weapons (guns don't kill people, people do, right?)

The amendment is clearly about protecting the militia. The argument used for it not protecting the militia is they claim it's not a collective right, and it's not, but that doesn't mean it doesn't protect the militia.

The amendment talks about the militia, the founding fathers spoke about the militia when they discussed this, and never once spoke about self defence.

 

[Iceweasel]

None of the rights in the Bill of Rights are absolute. The people that use guns to threaten the government are safe only because the government is reluctant to kill Americans. That practice has not always been followed and will not always follow in the future. There may come a time in the near future that the nation decides that allowing armed citizens to challenge the government is no longer a good practice and bingo.

Bingo? Most LEOs are 2nd Amendment friendly and are sworn to uphold the Constitution. So where's your Bingo? How does that play out? The government won't/can't decide it. Only enough morons voting away their rights.

 

[M14 Shooter]

fyi; the Second Amendment allows you to have the other amendments.

For those totally ignorant of history

Nonsense.
The rights enshrined in the Second Amendment protect an individual right to own firearms pursuant to the right to self-defense.

As well as all of the other traditionally lawful purposes one has for a firearm.
Why do you always leave that out?

 

[M14 Shooter]

A well armed popalance is respected by government
A disarmed popalance is dictated to by government

Oh please. What do you think, congresspeople sit around and say, "ooo we'd better not pass that law... Matthew will get his gun and shoot us!!" Give me a frickin' break. Go ahead and try to form a militia group or whatever. See how far you get before you're all squashed like bugs.

It's populace btw, not populance.

Are you saying you want freedom loving, Constitution following Americans to get killed?

None of the rights in the Bill of Rights are absolute. The people that use guns to threaten the government are safe only because the government is reluctant to kill Americans. That practice has not always been followed and will not always follow in the future. There may come a time in the near future that the nation decides that allowing armed citizens to challenge the government is no longer a good practice and bingo.

What does any of that have to do with simple ownership, possession and lawful use?

Simple ownership, possession and lawful use, may be subject to change as new cases or new laws arrive, and the changes may be in response to events that are now taking place.

You don't understand the question. That's OK.

 

[frigidweirdo]

As well as all of the other traditionally lawful purposes one has for a firearm.
Why do you always leave that out?

The amendment doesn't necessarily protect these things. They are just protected similar to other things in the Bill or Rights, or not, the problem is no one really knows what "traditionally lawful purposes" are, and how the courts would protect them.

Self defence is protected, but this is from other parts of the Bill of Rights anyway.
Hunting is not protected
Carry and conceal is not protected

So........

 

[regent]

None of the rights in the Bill of Rights are absolute. The people that use guns to threaten the government are safe only because the government is reluctant to kill Americans. That practice has not always been followed and will not always follow in the future. There may come a time in the near future that the nation decides that allowing armed citizens to challenge the government is no longer a good practice and bingo.

Bingo? Most LEOs are 2nd Amendment friendly and are sworn to uphold the Constitution. So where's your Bingo? How does that play out? The government won't/can't decide it. Only enough morons voting away their rights.

The bingo played out in the Whiskey Rebellion, the veteran' bonus army, Kent State and numerous other incidents. When enough Americans feel a threat the bingo demand increases.

 

[Iceweasel]

The bingo played out in the Whiskey Rebellion, the veteran' bonus army, Kent State and numerous other incidents. When enough Americans feel a threat the bingo demand increases.

Bingo for Bozos huh? Last I checked, my guns are still here.

 

[Ernie S.]

Basically..yeah.

For now.

The argument should be that the 2nd Amendment is no longer necessary since we provide for a permanent military, which includes ground forces.

But adding an amendment that stipulates that citizens may have small arms for defense of the home isn't going to get anywhere.

So right now? While we have a great many judges that are in their seats because of the gun lobby? You are right.

No, that argument wouldn't work at all. It's not just about having a military force in place of a permanent military.

Self defence will be an issue, but the main reason for the 2A is to protect against the maladministration of the government. Ie, the ability to be able to take down the govt.

No it is not.

Nothing in the Constitution allows for that.

The very core of our existence as a free and independent country says that it is.

Perhaps you have read the Declaration of Independence?

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government

The fact that the Constitution doesn't spell it out it immaterial. The framers expected no such need if the Constitution were followed.
They were all honorable men. They didn't expect or foresee Progressivism.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I am in the militia even before the "dickless act" all Americans were part of the militia.

You're wrong.

Firstly, people were in the militia because of militia acts. The first being the 1792 militia act. The Dick Act was an attempt at destroying the militia made up of common people with not much clue about how to be in the armed forces. They knew they needed to keep within the constitutional boundaries of allowing individuals to be in the militia (bear arms), so they made a militia that exists on paper and not much more, to prevent people demanding to be in the National Guard.

Not ALL Americans were in the militia, at no time have 100% of Americans been in the militia. At present it is men between certain ages and women who are in the National Guard. Women are not automatically in the militia, never have been. Might be in the future, but aren't now.

Do not ever challenge me on this subject I am about to make you look like a fucking fool
10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of 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.

Holy moly. Someone who thinks they know EVERYTHING and makes themselves look like a COMPLETE FOOL.

What did I say? Not all Americans are in the militia because women aren't. And you reply back saying I'm a fool and you know everything with the law that says "WOMEN ARE NOT AUTOMATICALLY IN THE MILITIA".

Oh boy, this is priceless.

and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

Read it. Read it again, and again, and again.

A) says who's in the militia.
B) says the two classes of militia. You do realise that the unorganised militia is anyone who is in the group of A and not in b1 right? Right? RIGHT?

Give me a wall to smack my head against.

Actually this is what 2 A says
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

You do understand what who are not members of means?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I bet they wished they were armed.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

As well as all of the other traditionally lawful purposes one has for a firearm.
Why do you always leave that out?

The amendment doesn't necessarily protect these things. They are just protected similar to other things in the Bill or Rights, or not, the problem is no one really knows what "traditionally lawful purposes" are, and how the courts would protect them.

Self defence is protected, but this is from other parts of the Bill of Rights anyway.
Hunting is not protected
Carry and conceal is not protected

So........

There are only three purposes for the second amendment
Defense against the government
Defense against an invasion
And self defense.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Not when you put a bullet in the idiot that try's to take them away without due process.

Only, you've just pointed out that they can take them away with due process, hohoho.

You surrender your rights no one takes them.

Actually I'll use correct terminology, they can be infringed upon after due process. People don't usually surrender their rights. If they did, then in prison you'd have no rights, and that's clearly not the case.

Rights are assumed to be held by everyone, no matter where. They cannot be destroyed or taken away, just infringed upon. So, in theory, the Chinese govt is infringing on the right to keep and bear arms for all its citizens.

Do you think I give a fuck about the Chinese government?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Actually this is what 2 A says
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

You do understand what who are not members of means?

What does it say? Read it.

"which consists of the members of the militia". Who are the members of the militia? Oh yeah, it tells you in part 1, which is men able bodied, 17-45 and women in the National Guard.

So let's re-write this.

2) the unorganized militia, which consists of able bodied men aged 17-45 who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

It's not so hard to read, surely?

It doesn't say "citizens who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia" does it?