Bubble Witch Saga 3 Industrial Deals Little FIres Everywhere Shop new men's suiting nav_sap_hiltonhonors_launch Learn more about Amazon Music Unlimited PCB for Musical Instruments Starting at $39.99 Grocery Handmade Tote Bags Book a house cleaner for 2 or more hours on Amazon Fall TV Binge-worthy season premieres are here Fall TV Binge-worthy season premieres are here Fall TV Binge-worthy season premieres are here  Introducing Echo Show Introducing All-New Fire HD 10 with Alexa hands-free $149.99 Kindle Oasis, unlike any Kindle you've ever held Shop Now FFII_gno
Customer Discussions > Politics forum

The 2nd amendment says people have the right to weapons


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 151-175 of 215 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on May 29, 2012, 1:48:39 PM PDT
Mark Time says:
Amen and amen!

In reply to an earlier post on May 29, 2012, 1:48:42 PM PDT
Tucson,
Perhaps, but I have a little more faith in my fellow citizens than that.

Posted on May 29, 2012, 1:49:00 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 29, 2012, 1:50:23 PM PDT
seajaw says:
United States Code: Title 10 - Armed Forces
Subtitle A - General Military Law
Chapter 13 - The Militia

Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

*(a) The militia of the United States consists of all 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.

Wouldn't that seem to indicate that all legitimate Militia are answerable to the federal government?

Posted on May 29, 2012, 1:50:25 PM PDT
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GieK_55uyY

In reply to an earlier post on May 29, 2012, 1:50:47 PM PDT
Nathan Kull says:
<<You would have a very small militia.>>

I think you would be surprised how many people would stand up for a good enough cause... It would have to be something major, but take away our 1st amendment rights or something serious like that and you would see quite a large resistance...

In reply to an earlier post on May 29, 2012, 1:52:35 PM PDT
To me it just confirms that even the government admits that every adult male under 45 is part of the militia, organized or un-organized. It says nothing about answering to federal authority.

In reply to an earlier post on May 29, 2012, 1:53:10 PM PDT
VRWC says:
Seems to me that Syria is a pretty solid argument for the 2nd Amendment....

In reply to an earlier post on May 29, 2012, 1:55:56 PM PDT
seajaw says:
And the Constitution gives the federal government control of the Militia, as needed.

In reply to an earlier post on May 29, 2012, 1:57:28 PM PDT
seajaw says:
Or a basic Constitution that outlines such things as elections, co-equal branches of goverment and checks and balances.

In reply to an earlier post on May 29, 2012, 1:59:34 PM PDT
VRWC says:
Which none of us in America would enjoy had our Founders disarmed themselves....

In reply to an earlier post on May 29, 2012, 1:59:43 PM PDT
under specific circumstances, and only if the militia agree to play.

In reply to an earlier post on May 29, 2012, 2:07:10 PM PDT
seajaw says:
But they did write something similar into the Constitution, which allowed for no more than a two-year funding window:

"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;"

At the same time, there was no such limit imposed on raising a Navy, which was seen as much more important, in defending our shores.

Presumably, the Militias would stay organized and train -- the "well-regulated" part -- at the local level, to be called upon as necessary. At that point in time, the federal government would assume control, and handle the costs of maintaining the troops.

In reply to an earlier post on May 29, 2012, 2:09:29 PM PDT
seajaw says:
What you refer to is "going rogue."

You are not referring to any well-regulated Militia, as described by the Constitution, Bill of Rights, or U.S. Code.

You are referring to an outlaw organization, whatever is in their hearts.

Posted on May 29, 2012, 2:13:01 PM PDT
the constitution only writes down for governments the rights you were born with and their oath to it agrees they will respect these natural rights,, it doesn't give you rights, right to bear arms is being taken out of context, it is basically saying the right to self defense is natural right and guns are one of those facets required to protect yourself from criminals and government assaults. as the government will have guns too and so will criminals and having guns for example can level the playing field and discourage people from assaulting you. not a determined criminal but the usual crimanls will look for easier prey. the founders knew of tyranny by governments and knew that guns do level the playing field or course at that time they didn't know that stealth bombers andnucelar weapons etc would be developed. hand guns and rifles is all they knew and the cannon gun. it is a gun after all.

rose

In reply to an earlier post on May 29, 2012, 2:14:24 PM PDT
VRWC says:
I know the liberal theory on the militia dissolving.... it just doesn't square with the Federalist papers....

In reply to an earlier post on May 29, 2012, 3:03:09 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 29, 2012, 3:41:59 PM PDT
seajaw says:
I was looking at something earlier that may be of interest:

"It is said that Congress should not possess the power of calling out the militia, to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions; nor the President have the command of them when called out for such purposes.

I believe any gentleman, who possesses military experience, will inform you that men without a uniformity of arms, accoutrements, and discipline, are no more than a mob in a camp; that, in the field, instead of assisting, they interfere with one another. If a soldier drops his musket, and his companion, unfurnished with one, takes it up, it is of no service, because his cartridges do not fit it. By means of this system, a uniformity of arms and discipline will prevail throughout the United States.

I really expected that, for this part of the system at least, the framers of it would have received plaudits instead of censures, as they here discover a strong anxiety to have this body put upon an effective footing, and thereby, in a great measure, to supersede the necessity of raising or keeping up standing armies.

The militia formed under this system, and trained by the several states, will be such a bulwark of internal strength, as to prevent the attacks of foreign enemies."

--James Wilson, Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention, 11 Dec. 1787

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_15s7.html

Militia trained and maintained at the local level, as opposed to a standing army, to be called to duty as needed, then (presumably) supplemented by the federal government.

In reply to an earlier post on May 29, 2012, 3:55:58 PM PDT
militia are volunteers, and they have the choice to come to the colors when called or not. It's always been that way. In the revolution, War of 1812 and the ACW units sometimes would quit on the eve of battle if their agreed term of enlistment was up. Even if the governor called up a unit, it's members had no obligation to serve.

In reply to an earlier post on May 29, 2012, 4:52:25 PM PDT
<<Many of those gun hobbists are ex-military and you might be suprised to learn what a lot of us old fart hobbists know about applied mayhem.>>

Against a professional army. With tanks. And Apache helicopters.

Oh, my.

This is just...delusional.

In reply to an earlier post on May 29, 2012, 4:53:05 PM PDT
seajaw says:
Then we are talking about the difference between the Constitutionally-empowered Militia (capital letters), and a militia (lower case), as in a private army.

I believe the wording of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights refers to the Militia, as in those units who answer to the federal government when called, not an independent militia.

In reply to an earlier post on May 29, 2012, 5:02:28 PM PDT
Don't forget nukes.

Posted on May 29, 2012, 5:08:18 PM PDT
M. Daniel says:
Are laws forbidding felons from owning firearms and prohibiting machine guns examples of "well regulated" or are they infringements on the right to bear arms?

In reply to an earlier post on May 29, 2012, 9:47:20 PM PDT
Del,
There are more helo pilots and tankers among the old farts than on active duty. We also know how to cut fences and steal weapons from poorly guarded regular army motorpools and arms depots. When I was on active duty, my squad spent quite a bit of time as agressors. We stole everything from tanks to mobile messhalls. 12 of us made life unbearable for an entire National Guard Brigade for two weeks in a wargame scenario. We ambushed their supplies stole their vehciles, kidnapped their senior officers and tear gassed their chow lines.

Where do you think the professionals go when they ETS? They become old fart civilians, but they still have their training and motivation.

In reply to an earlier post on May 30, 2012, 2:40:33 AM PDT
"the amendment makes explicit mention of circumstances that no longer apply: the absence of a standing army in the Colonies"

WRONG. there is no mention, explicit or otherwise, of this absence.

"the amendment does say that the right is aimed to protect the security of the state"

nor does it say this.

it saysA well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

because a well-regulated militia would not be possible without the people's right to keep and bear arms
nothing about this clause means there are no other reasons for the people to have this right; ONLY that the right cannot be infringed without the risk of loss of security to a free state.

+

In reply to an earlier post on May 30, 2012, 6:50:03 AM PDT
<<nothing about this clause means there are no other reasons for the people to have this right; ONLY that the right cannot be infringed without the risk of loss of security to a free state.>>

Except since we now have a standing army, militias are no longer necessary. Since that's the only reason mentioned in the 2nd amendment for the right to bear arms, I don't think it's weird to assume that it's no longer so crucial to the security of a free state.

Again, I'm not in favor of gun bans. But let's be honest, the Founders didn't appear to think it was of the utmost importance to democracy to have gun fetishists amassing huge stockpiles of firearms to protect their stuff. They made it pretty clear why gun ownership was important in 1791.

Pretty clear, apparently, to everyone except paranoid cranks.

In reply to an earlier post on May 30, 2012, 8:19:27 AM PDT
M. Daniel says:
Del Darmstadt says: "Again, I'm not in favor of gun bans. But let's be honest, the Founders didn't appear to think it was of the utmost importance to democracy to have gun fetishists amassing huge stockpiles of firearms to protect their stuff."

They did not think it was important enough to include in the original Constitution.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Politics forum

  Discussion Replies Latest Post
Announcement
Amazon Discussions Feedback Forum
4554 2 days ago
Trump's NFL Comments 288 7 hours ago
Deleted Benghazi Emails RECOVERED! 9 7 hours ago
The NFL can go to Hell 37 7 hours ago
Should the Military do fly overs and demos at NFL games? 25 7 hours ago
Straight men’s physiological stress response to seeing two men kissing is the same as seeing maggots 74 7 hours ago
A Black male goes on a deadly shooting spree at a predominately White church in Tennessee 14 7 hours ago
Leftist News: "[Blonde] is the color of the right, for whom whiteness has become a hallmark" 169 7 hours ago
Should the national anthem be removed from NFL games? 55 7 hours ago
Trump: North Korean leaders 'won't be around much longer' if they strike US 16 7 hours ago
Americans showing their ignorance about the Constitutional rights of other Americans 146 8 hours ago
Blacks in this country don't have enough savvy.... 38 8 hours ago
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Politics forum
Participants:  24
Total posts:  215
Initial post:  May 28, 2012
Latest post:  May 31, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer