Well regulated militia

[White 6]

Tell them that punk

Got your punk, hanging.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It has a subordination to the federals, it is not provided for in the constitution. Most likely they will side with the feds in the event of a conflict.

That's your hope.

Sucks to be you

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Read the text. The militia stands for the nation only as part of the federal forces, in other cases it defends the rights of the state.

Stop posting!

 

[Wyatt earp]

Got your punk, hanging.

 

[White 6]

View attachment 595030


View attachment 595031


View attachment 595032

What are trying say or prove to me. I know they are out there. I just don't like em. I was briefed on militia asshole groups starting all the way back to the 80s, as part of subversive groups along with KKK in the three state area. I was a draft pick back in the late 90s after military retirement and then apparently again around 2012, but I think they got the message pretty clear, to fk off. Knowing of me and that I knew the flunky politico they had feel me out and that people disappear in the river bottom around their city. Somebody that knew me back when, me let me know, nobody would be contacting or bothering me again, and they haven't.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

This is clearly an unconstitutional decision. Competence must be questioned.

It's the right decision. There's no getting around the, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", part. Nothing in the end Amendment says anything about gun owners being members of the militia.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well regulated militia can be created on the basis of the police. The US police are subordinate to the state and independent of the federals. Armed male can be trained by the police, and participate in police operations as an auxiliary force. This is the shortest way to create a militia.
The constitution says that the creation of a militia is necessary.
View attachment 594923

It was also written in a different age.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

It was also written in a different age.

Are you saying the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to the internet, or television. Are telephone conversations excluded from 4th Amendment protections?

 

[Grumblenuts]

Actually, not the Federal Government, as there wasn't one that had been in existence long enough to set that kind of standard.

The militia in those days was often commanded by ex-Regular Army guys. Sometimes officers, sometimes not.

But they all adhered to the concept of "Well Regulated" meaning in good working order as defined by standing Armies all through the world of that time.

At no time were they then, or are they now, under the auspice of any government.

A valid point, however. Thanks.

Good luck with those beliefs, but the National Guard is the only official militia remaining, if any. The Militias were set up to be State sponsored and regulated, but the Guard is now a designated branch of the Air Force. Part of the military or "standing army" despite the clear intent of the Founders. The Governors of each State control their Guard's civil presence and deployments until or unless they're called to national service in which case the President assumes their command as with all branches of the military.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Are you saying the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to the internet, or television. Are telephone conversations excluded from 4th Amendment protections?

No. I'm saying the part that says a militia is necessary to the security of a free state is outdated. This part isn't even law. There doesn't have to legally be a militia.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Well regulated militia can be created on the basis of the police. The US police are subordinate to the state and independent of the federals. Armed male can be trained by the police, and participate in police operations as an auxiliary force. This is the shortest way to create a militia.
The constitution says that the creation of a militia is necessary.
View attachment 594923

Wrong.

PRESSER v. STATE OF ILLINOIS.

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers are not a well regulated militia. They are a bunch of wack jobs with guns.

Correct.

Armed citizens cannot unilaterally declare themselves a ‘militia’ absent authorization from the state or Federal government.

Absent such authorization, they’re nothing but a lawless gang of armed thugs.

 

[rupol2000]

It's the right decision. There's no getting around the, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", part. Nothing in the end Amendment says anything about gun owners being members of the militia.

It is said because the possession of weapons there is mentioned strictly in the context of militia law, in one sentence. It doesn't even say anything about personal protection.

 

[rupol2000]

It is, in fact, a leftist scam. By decoupling the right to own a gun from the right to the state militia, they are trying to deprive the state of the right to the militia.
Next step they will tie the police to the federal department.

 

[whitehall]

We can quibble about the word 'militia" but the 2nd Amendment has been upheld by half a dozen Supreme Court decisions. There was a time not long ago when Presidents were members of the NRA and the military supported the civilian population knowing the basics of firearm use and it came in handy when the U.S. drafted the "greatest generation". Today the transgender left is in charge and the NRA is the enemy while we protect the "rights" of confused men in dresses to use the ladies room.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

It is said because the possession of weapons there is mentioned strictly in the context of militia law, in one sentence. It doesn't even say anything about personal protection.

It means that because there will be a militia to protect the state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms exists to protect themselves from tyranny; tyrannical government, or another domestic group trying to unconstitutionally impose it's will on the people.

 

[rupol2000]

It means that because there will be a militia to protect the state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms exists to protect themselves from tyranny; tyrannical government, or another domestic group trying to unconstitutionally impose it's will on the people.

It's pretty much the same as what I'm talking about. Only this militia should be organized, someone should be engaged in this.

 

[WinterBorn]

It's pretty much the same as what I'm talking about. Only this militia should be organized, someone should be engaged in this.

Well you keep saying that to yourself. I'll keep following the laws under the US Constitution. And I will enjoy shooting whenever I get the chance. Plus I enjoy the security of knowing I can defend my home.

 

[rupol2000]

Well you keep saying that to yourself. I'll keep following the laws under the US Constitution. And I will enjoy shooting whenever I get the chance. Plus I enjoy the security of knowing I can defend my home.

I'm not against private gun ownership, but it should be organized and connected to the militia. Women should not own weapons.

Otherwise, it will lead to riots, provocations, and eventually this right will be taken away.

 

[WinterBorn]

I'm not against private gun ownership, but it should be organized and connected to the militia. Women should not own weapons.

Otherwise, it will lead to riots, provocations, and eventually this right will be taken away.

The fact that you think women should not own weapons shows your ignorance and personal bias. My girlfriend owns 2 revolvers. The is a responsible gun owner and an excellent shot. I would suggest you not try to take them away from her.

No, the US Supreme Court has ruled that the 2nd amendment is not contingent on military or militia service. So what you think it should be, and what actual constitutional scholars (with the authority) say it is are two different things. Guess which one wins.