What would you do with the second amendment?

[kaz]

The "militia" is still the people, and we still have the Constitutional right to defend ourselves

as much as we'd like to think it is so,

the 'people' aren't synonymous with 'militia' kaz

an unorganized group would have little success in holding off an organized group

the 'people' would be reduced to terrorist tactics

~S~

Well, I didn't say so much that the people = militias so much as militias are made up of people and defined by the people.

That bridge clubs are made up of people doesn't make you a member of a bridge club if you don't play bridge. And it's not up to government who is in a bridge club or even how a bridge club is defined, that's up to the people.

As for defense, if we reached that point, the military would be divided and heavily in favor of the people over the government. Veterans flood back into my community far more than blue inner cities and they aren't going to support the latter over the former

 

[kaz]

Let's get to the end game. What should the Constitution say, if anything, about guns and what power should the Federal government have to regulate them?

I don't agree with any of the choices in the poll.

I would leave it as it is, but ban bump stocks and ban the sale of large magazines.

What you just said is clearly option 4. What is it you think you disagree with about option 4? Option 4 is that government can regulate guns, but it can't ban them. Isn't that exactly what you just said?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Our Second Amendment is clear as to what is Necessary.

Yes it is clear what is necessary

A well regulated militia, being necessary to a free state

Well regulated militias need to register their members, train them, know what kind of weapons their members carry

Read it in the context of the era... you Might learn something for once.

That was the context of the era. And, well regulated militia must muster to become, well regulated.

Well regulated militias of the era had an organization, membership rolls, training, lists of weapons

Showing why gun registration, licensing and background checks are acceptable under the second amendment

Really? Show us one of those lists please. I can find muster rolls that were used for payment purposes, but the rest of what you claim is simply silly. The Pennsylvania National Guard, and the New York National Guard, did indeed keep records like you describe, but they were State Units. Not militia.

State Units ARE Organized Militia. They are one in the same. I know of two that still exist (there might be more) California and Texas.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

One would think the term 'militia' ,at least in the FF's 2nd context, would be anything but gub'mit conscripts. In fact,one could easily read 10th'ers stance into it.

How bad would it be if each state was in fact responsible for the creation , and maintenance of it's own militia ?

Something that would not bow to the Feds (funding strings)

Wouldn't that be in step with FF's constitutional foersight?

~S~

The States' national guards are already subject to their own governors.

When you type State National Guard you are saying National Guard and they can be Federalized. Therefore, they are not considered a States Militia. When you say State Guard without National then you have an Organized Militia that most cannot be Federalized. It's a long story, but those in the State Guards that do not qualify to be called up for Federal Service cannot be called up to federal service. For instance, those people that are in the state guards that have a 4 year or 10 year reserve commitment to the Federals can be called up. Those state guards that are also part of the National Guards can be called up. All others cannot be called up and can be considered a State Militia. While the National Guard gets oodles of Federal Funds, training and equipment, the State Guard receives nothing from the Feds. It's been that way since 1917.

The first half of the 2nd amendment applies not to the National Guard but to the State Guard. And it certainly doesn't apply to the bunch of Rexall Rangers running around the woods playing like they are soldiers.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Our Second Amendment is clear as to what is Necessary to the security of our free States.

Actually states can have unlimited firepower. Cops and the National Guard can have machine guns, destructive devices, and other weapons generally prohibited to the citizens. So the state had all the arms they want to defend themselves from within and without.

What isn't clear is the rights of the citizens of that state, who aren't members of that states militia.

So much for the ridiculous case of some armed bands resisting government forces for more than a moment.

And you don't understand irregular warfare.....this guy does....

Kurt Schlichter - Why Democrats Would Lose the Second Civil War, Too

Let’s talk terrain and numbers. Remember the famous red v. blue voting map? There is a lot of red, and in the interior the few blue splotches are all cities like Las Vegas or Denver. That is a lot of territory for a counter-insurgent force to control, and this is critical. The red is where the food is grown, the oil pumped, and through which everything is transported. And that red space is filled with millions of American citizens with small arms, a fairly large percentage of whom have military training.

Remember what two untrained idiots did in Boston with a couple of pistols? They shut a city down. Now multiply that by several million, with better weapons and training.

Let’s look at the counter-insurgent forces in the Democrat oppression scenario should they attempt to misuse our law enforcement and military in an unconstitutional manner to take the rights of American citizens. There are a lot of civilian law enforcement officers, but the vast majority of the agencies are local – sheriffs, small town police departments. They will not be reliable allies in supporting unlawful oppression of their friends and neighbors. The major cities’ police departments are run by Democrat appointees, so the commands would be loyal. But the rank-and-file? A small percentage would be ideologically loyal. More would be loyal because that’s their paycheck – they could be swayed or intimidated to support the rebels. Others would be actively sympathetic to the insurgents. This is true of federal law enforcement agencies as well.


And the military? Well, wouldn’t the military just crush any resistance? Not so fast. The military would have the combat power to win any major engagement, but insurgents don’t get into major engagements with forces that have more combat power. They instead leverage their decentralized ability to strike at the counter-insurgents’ weak points to eliminate the government’s firepower advantage. In other words, hit and run, and no stand-up fights.

For example, how do a bunch of hunters in Wisconsin defeat a company of M1A2 Abrams tanks? They ambush the fuel and ammo trucks. Oh, and they wait until the gunner pops the hatch to take a leak and put a .30-06 round in his back from 300 meters. Then they disappear. What do the tanks do then? Go level the nearest town? Great. Now they just moved the needle in favor of the insurgents among the population. Pretty soon, they can’t be outside of their armored vehicles in public. Their forces are spending 90% of their efforts not on actual counter-insurgency operations but on force protection. Sure, they own their forward operating bases, and they own a few hundred meters around them wherever they happen to be standing at the moment, but the rest of the territory is bright red. As my recent novel illustrates, American guerillas with small arms are a deadly threat to the forces of a dictatorship.


But the military is so big it would overwhelm any rebels, right? Well, how big do you think the military is? And, more importantly, how many actual boots on the ground can it deploy? Let’s put it in terms of brigade combat teams, which total about 4,500 troops each. There are about 60 brigades in the Army, active and reserve, here and abroad, and let’s give the Marines another 10 brigades, for about 70 brigades. Sounds impressive. But that’s deceptive.

There you go again. Trying to incite a Revolution, traitor. Never going to happen, terrorist.

 

[sparky]

Good points all

But i'm still searching for an irrefutable way for the 'people' to assume a militia

help me out fellas

~S~

 

[kaz]

Good points all

But i'm still searching for an irrefutable way for the 'people' to assume a militia

help me out fellas

~S~

The people define what is a bridge club, who is a member, what a bridge club is, the government has no say.

The people define what is a militia, who is a member, what a militia is, the government has no say.

What more do you need beyond that?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Good points all

But i'm still searching for an irrefutable way for the 'people' to assume a militia

help me out fellas

~S~

There is only one way to have an Organized Militia according to the 2nd amendment. That would be a State Guard with all members not subject to being able to be called up by the Federal Government. AFter Hurricane Katrina, the Feds swept into Texas and tried to take control. The Texas Governor put the State Guard Commander in charge of it all and informed the Feds they were UNDER the State Guard. The Feds had to conform. The Texas State Militia was in charge. And they knew how to do it much better than the Feds. Meanwhile, in Louisiana which had no State Guard, the Feds took charge and made a friggin mess out of just about everything and are still screwing the pooch there. Today's Organized Militia is usually used in a State Emergency since much of their equipment has a dual role. But in the event of a Federal attempt at taking over a given state (not much chance of that happening) the State Guard would be there with enough numbers to at least put a dent in it and buy enough time for the rest of the nation to do a double take. AS I said, the chances of that happening are very slim since the only way that would happen would be if the US Military were to cooperate and there are some pretty serious rules written in the UCMJ (the Military Version of the Constitution of the United States) that would prevent it from happening.

But a State just might be able to bring that condition to bear by trying to secede from the Union and use force to do it. That would release Congress and POTUS from their restrictions and release the US Military from theirs. So, it could happen but not instigated by the Feds.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Good points all

But i'm still searching for an irrefutable way for the 'people' to assume a militia

help me out fellas

~S~

The people define what is a bridge club, who is a member, what a bridge club is, the government has no say.

The people define what is a militia, who is a member, what a militia is, the government has no say.

What more do you need beyond that?

That means that the "People" can also decide what is NOT a militia as well. Therefore, your self appointed Militia isn't a real Organized Militia unless it's supported by the majority of the "People". And the only way to get the support of the "Majority" of the People would be to be State Approved. As in, a State Guard.

 

[Kondor3]

Good points all

But i'm still searching for an irrefutable way for the 'people' to assume a militia

help me out fellas

~S~

There is only one way to have an Organized Militia according to the 2nd amendment. That would be a State Guard with all members not subject to being able to be called up by the Federal Government. AFter Hurricane Katrina, the Feds swept into Texas and tried to take control. The Texas Governor put the State Guard Commander in charge of it all and informed the Feds they were UNDER the State Guard. The Feds had to conform. The Texas State Militia was in charge. And they knew how to do it much better than the Feds. Meanwhile, in Louisiana which had no State Guard, the Feds took charge and made a friggin mess out of just about everything and are still screwing the pooch there. Today's Organized Militia is usually used in a State Emergency since much of their equipment has a dual role. But in the event of a Federal attempt at taking over a given state (not much chance of that happening) the State Guard would be there with enough numbers to at least put a dent in it and buy enough time for the rest of the nation to do a double take. AS I said, the chances of that happening are very slim since the only way that would happen would be if the US Military were to cooperate and there are some pretty serious rules written in the UCMJ (the Military Version of the Constitution of the United States) that would prevent it from happening.

But a State just might be able to bring that condition to bear by trying to secede from the Union and use force to do it. That would release Congress and POTUS from their restrictions and release the US Military from theirs. So, it could happen but not instigated by the Feds.

Your average State Militia would offer about as much of an obstruction to the Federal government as your average Girl Scout troop.

 

[kaz]

Good points all

But i'm still searching for an irrefutable way for the 'people' to assume a militia

help me out fellas

~S~

The people define what is a bridge club, who is a member, what a bridge club is, the government has no say.

The people define what is a militia, who is a member, what a militia is, the government has no say.

What more do you need beyond that?

That means that the "People" can also decide what is NOT a militia as well. Therefore, your self appointed Militia isn't a real Organized Militia unless it's supported by the majority of the "People". And the only way to get the support of the "Majority" of the People would be to be State Approved. As in, a State Guard.

That's completely inane. You think that you can vote that a bridge club isn't a bridge club? Of course you can't.

The FF's specifically opposed your standard of tyranny of the majority

 

[kaz]

Good points all

But i'm still searching for an irrefutable way for the 'people' to assume a militia

help me out fellas

~S~

There is only one way to have an Organized Militia according to the 2nd amendment. That would be a State Guard with all members not subject to being able to be called up by the Federal Government. AFter Hurricane Katrina, the Feds swept into Texas and tried to take control. The Texas Governor put the State Guard Commander in charge of it all and informed the Feds they were UNDER the State Guard. The Feds had to conform. The Texas State Militia was in charge. And they knew how to do it much better than the Feds. Meanwhile, in Louisiana which had no State Guard, the Feds took charge and made a friggin mess out of just about everything and are still screwing the pooch there. Today's Organized Militia is usually used in a State Emergency since much of their equipment has a dual role. But in the event of a Federal attempt at taking over a given state (not much chance of that happening) the State Guard would be there with enough numbers to at least put a dent in it and buy enough time for the rest of the nation to do a double take. AS I said, the chances of that happening are very slim since the only way that would happen would be if the US Military were to cooperate and there are some pretty serious rules written in the UCMJ (the Military Version of the Constitution of the United States) that would prevent it from happening.

But a State just might be able to bring that condition to bear by trying to secede from the Union and use force to do it. That would release Congress and POTUS from their restrictions and release the US Military from theirs. So, it could happen but not instigated by the Feds.

Your average State Militia would offer about as much of an obstruction to the Federal government as your average Girl Scout troop.

Because you're delusional and you think the military would support leftist authoritarian tyranny. Most of the military comes from my people, not yours. You think they'll support you when it comes down to it? I'll take that bet. If that happens, kiss your ass goodbye

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Good points all

But i'm still searching for an irrefutable way for the 'people' to assume a militia

help me out fellas

~S~

There is only one way to have an Organized Militia according to the 2nd amendment. That would be a State Guard with all members not subject to being able to be called up by the Federal Government. AFter Hurricane Katrina, the Feds swept into Texas and tried to take control. The Texas Governor put the State Guard Commander in charge of it all and informed the Feds they were UNDER the State Guard. The Feds had to conform. The Texas State Militia was in charge. And they knew how to do it much better than the Feds. Meanwhile, in Louisiana which had no State Guard, the Feds took charge and made a friggin mess out of just about everything and are still screwing the pooch there. Today's Organized Militia is usually used in a State Emergency since much of their equipment has a dual role. But in the event of a Federal attempt at taking over a given state (not much chance of that happening) the State Guard would be there with enough numbers to at least put a dent in it and buy enough time for the rest of the nation to do a double take. AS I said, the chances of that happening are very slim since the only way that would happen would be if the US Military were to cooperate and there are some pretty serious rules written in the UCMJ (the Military Version of the Constitution of the United States) that would prevent it from happening.

But a State just might be able to bring that condition to bear by trying to secede from the Union and use force to do it. That would release Congress and POTUS from their restrictions and release the US Military from theirs. So, it could happen but not instigated by the Feds.

Your average State Militia would offer about as much of an obstruction to the Federal government as your average Girl Scout troop.

The Feds would take days to form up. The State Guards would from up within hours. The Texas State Guard could field at least 75,000 in a matter of hours and have them in place. Depending on the situtation, the News Groups might side with the State making it very uncomfortable for the Feds. But about the only way this could happen would be if a State were to try and leave the union and this would leave the Feds no choice but to put the attempt down. The Governor would be arrested as would much of his entire cabinet and the state congress. At that point, in a matter of day, that 75,000 wouldn't be much of an obstacle.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Good points all

But i'm still searching for an irrefutable way for the 'people' to assume a militia

help me out fellas

~S~

The people define what is a bridge club, who is a member, what a bridge club is, the government has no say.

The people define what is a militia, who is a member, what a militia is, the government has no say.

What more do you need beyond that?

That means that the "People" can also decide what is NOT a militia as well. Therefore, your self appointed Militia isn't a real Organized Militia unless it's supported by the majority of the "People". And the only way to get the support of the "Majority" of the People would be to be State Approved. As in, a State Guard.

That's completely inane. You think that you can vote that a bridge club isn't a bridge club? Of course you can't.

The FF's specifically opposed your standard of tyranny of the majority

So you have 10 or 20 Militias and each one has it's own ideas on how thing should be run. Again, who decides which "Militia" is right? What you have instead, is chaos.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Good points all

But i'm still searching for an irrefutable way for the 'people' to assume a militia

help me out fellas

~S~

There is only one way to have an Organized Militia according to the 2nd amendment. That would be a State Guard with all members not subject to being able to be called up by the Federal Government. AFter Hurricane Katrina, the Feds swept into Texas and tried to take control. The Texas Governor put the State Guard Commander in charge of it all and informed the Feds they were UNDER the State Guard. The Feds had to conform. The Texas State Militia was in charge. And they knew how to do it much better than the Feds. Meanwhile, in Louisiana which had no State Guard, the Feds took charge and made a friggin mess out of just about everything and are still screwing the pooch there. Today's Organized Militia is usually used in a State Emergency since much of their equipment has a dual role. But in the event of a Federal attempt at taking over a given state (not much chance of that happening) the State Guard would be there with enough numbers to at least put a dent in it and buy enough time for the rest of the nation to do a double take. AS I said, the chances of that happening are very slim since the only way that would happen would be if the US Military were to cooperate and there are some pretty serious rules written in the UCMJ (the Military Version of the Constitution of the United States) that would prevent it from happening.

But a State just might be able to bring that condition to bear by trying to secede from the Union and use force to do it. That would release Congress and POTUS from their restrictions and release the US Military from theirs. So, it could happen but not instigated by the Feds.

Your average State Militia would offer about as much of an obstruction to the Federal government as your average Girl Scout troop.

Because you're delusional and you think the military would support leftist authoritarian tyranny. Most of the military comes from my people, not yours. You think they'll support you when it comes down to it? I'll take that bet. If that happens, kiss your ass goodbye

One little trick is to send the Military that are from other parts of the country other than the parts that are rebelling. It's an old way of doing it and it's worked since time began. I outlines the ONLY way that the Feds would be able to authorize such an action. And it would have to come from a rogue state, not a rogue Federal Government. There are just too many checks and balances in the Federal Government and Federal Military. But if it did happen, and let's say it was California, don't look for any Federal California Federal Troops to be used. More than likely they would use Southern and MidWestern troops.

 

[kaz]

the only way this could happen would be if a State were to try and leave the union and this would leave the Feds no choice but to put the attempt down

It would? The Constitution is a document of specific enumerated Federal powers, and by the 9th and 10th amendments the rest are denied to the Federal government.

So where does the Constitution give the Feds the power from stopping a State from leaving the Union?

Also, our government was founded on John Locke's principles of consent of the governed. Obviously if a State is forced to remain in the Union, there is no legitimacy of Federal government since the people did not consent

 

[rightwinger]

Yes it is clear what is necessary

A well regulated militia, being necessary to a free state

Well regulated militias need to register their members, train them, know what kind of weapons their members carry

Read it in the context of the era... you Might learn something for once.

That was the context of the era. And, well regulated militia must muster to become, well regulated.

Well regulated militias of the era had an organization, membership rolls, training, lists of weapons

Showing why gun registration, licensing and background checks are acceptable under the second amendment

Really? Show us one of those lists please. I can find muster rolls that were used for payment purposes, but the rest of what you claim is simply silly. The Pennsylvania National Guard, and the New York National Guard, did indeed keep records like you describe, but they were State Units. Not militia.

Militia must be enrolled, to become well regulated.

Enrolled, organized, trained

Just like ALL gun owners should be

 

[rightwinger]

The US Government needs a list of all gun owners and the weapons they have.

It is the only way we can form well regulated militias

Yes, well we on the right believe that we need to have positive identification of everybody voting, and you on the left insist it's government intrusion, racism and voter oppression.

We do have identification

A signature

 

[danielpalos]

Read it in the context of the era... you Might learn something for once.

That was the context of the era. And, well regulated militia must muster to become, well regulated.

Well regulated militias of the era had an organization, membership rolls, training, lists of weapons

Showing why gun registration, licensing and background checks are acceptable under the second amendment

Really? Show us one of those lists please. I can find muster rolls that were used for payment purposes, but the rest of what you claim is simply silly. The Pennsylvania National Guard, and the New York National Guard, did indeed keep records like you describe, but they were State Units. Not militia.

Militia must be enrolled, to become well regulated.

Enrolled, organized, trained

Just like ALL gun owners should be

My position is, we have a Second Amendment and should have, No Security problems in our free States.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The US Government needs a list of all gun owners and the weapons they have.

It is the only way we can form well regulated militias

Yes, well we on the right believe that we need to have positive identification of everybody voting, and you on the left insist it's government intrusion, racism and voter oppression.

We do have identification

A signature