The second amendment

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigtime

What about nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. Should citizens be able to possess those?

---

Is there something in the Constitution that says we should? Cannons were available when the Constitution was written, but there is nothing in the Constitution giving us any inalienable rights to possses them. Personally, I think we should all have the right to posess anything we want until we abuse our ownership of such items. OK, because of the relative potential of a nuclear bomb owned by my neighbor taking me out if it goes off, we would need to have geographical and space provisions such as; You must own several thousand miles of property and keep your nuclear bomb at the center of that property in order to own a nuclear weapon. After all, livestock aren't allowed to be kept in the backyards of rowhomes in the cities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jpsmith1cm

If what you say is true, please cite factual, legal reference to prove it, corny.

Otherwise, I'll stick with legal opinion rendered by educated legal scholars and not some dude on the internet.

:cheers:

---

You took a snippet of US code and added a word to it to make it fit your own opinion of what you think it means.

You "word smithed" in a post and want someone to prove something.... What would you do then....go back in and change the reply to line up with your opinion.

Ok... Up until 1903 we operated under various militia acts that were pretty much failures because nobody showed up for regular training...nobody brought the right equipment....

But still we had militia acts that set out what the militia was and how it was to be structured.... there were standards and there was structure.

In 1903 the guard was formed and the militia act of 1903 took over....all previous militia acts were repealed....

The new militia act formed the organized militia which was the guard and set out many rules and guidelines for its stucture..... and then they also decided to put everyone else in the country who was not a part of this new militia into the new unorganized militia.

No rules, no standards, no guidelines..... out of that whole act all that is written of this new unorganized militia is that they can be called up when neccesary for service to the country...... they can be drafted.

Why would you just call everyone in the country who is not a part of the organized militia...or the state militia..... the unorganized militia and then not write anything else about how they should act or train or respond in a crisis...

Are they just supposed to go batsh*t crazy at the first sign of trouble and start running amok in the streets killing who they believe is the enemy....

Nope.... they are just supposed to carry on with their lives......no training....dont even have to own a weapon....dont have to do a damn thing but wait till the federal government says get your butt into boot camp....you are in the army now......

lol

We dont need a civilian militia anymore...... they were about worthless when we used them..... Just google it.... and the national guard was the answer to that.....

Anyhow.... wordsmith...... Im sure if Obams decides to ban some guns there will plenty of court cases that will have to decide on what the role of the unorganized rabble is and what guns....if any.... he should need to own.

we need to keep the right to form a armed militia against our government if needed . our government has got so large and out of control . just look around the world

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by corny

You took a snippet of US code and added a word to it to make it fit your own opinion of what you think it means.

You "word smithed" in a post and want someone to prove something.... What would you do then....go back in and change the reply to line up with your opinion.

Ok... Up until 1903 we operated under various militia acts that were pretty much failures because nobody showed up for regular training...nobody brought the right equipment....

But still we had militia acts that set out what the militia was and how it was to be structured.... there were standards and there was structure.

In 1903 the guard was formed and the militia act of 1903 took over....all previous militia acts were repealed....

The new militia act formed the organized militia which was the guard and set out many rules and guidelines for its stucture..... and then they also decided to put everyone else in the country who was not a part of this new militia into the new unorganized militia.

No rules, no standards, no guidelines..... out of that whole act all that is written of this new unorganized militia is that they can be called up when neccesary for service to the country...... they can be drafted.

Why would you just call everyone in the country who is not a part of the organized militia...or the state militia..... the unorganized militia and then not write anything else about how they should act or train or respond in a crisis...

Are they just supposed to go batsh*t crazy at the first sign of trouble and start running amok in the streets killing who they believe is the enemy....

Nope.... they are just supposed to carry on with their lives......no training....dont even have to own a weapon....dont have to do a damn thing but wait till the federal government says get your butt into boot camp....you are in the army now......

lol

We dont need a civilian militia anymore...... they were about worthless when we used them..... Just google it.... and the national guard was the answer to that.....

Anyhow.... wordsmith...... Im sure if Obams decides to ban some guns there will plenty of court cases that will have to decide on what the role of the unorganized rabble is and what guns....if any.... he should need to own.

---

Corny,

First, you still haven't proven your point. I'm requesting that you provide legal precedent for it, not opinion.


Now, I do not disagree with you. Many folks that I know with guns haven't the guts to stand and use them if called upon to do so. They are soft and lazy.

The problem traces back again to words and their meaning.

If the militia were, as you say, invalidated by the various militia acts then one would expect the legal scholars of our country to know this far better than we do.

If legal scholars knew this, then when arguing recent court cases on the individual right to keep and bear arms in front of both the supreme court and other federal courts, wouldn't you think that this argument would have been successfully brought to bear?

If the concept of an armed citizenry as a militia weren't central to the second amendment, I don't think that this would be as big of a discussion.

I haven't added or changed the meaning of any words. I haven't interpreted them in some unique manner. I've laid down dictionary definitions, legal precedent, federal code and SCOTUS opinion to back up my points.

Corny's points also ignore the second, and less recognized, reason for an armed citizenry.

The over-reach of government.


That purpose of the militia, by definition, defies being 'called' by the federal government as it is that very federal government that it would be rising and fighting against.

Here is a paper with some court cases in it......

Probably have to google the cases themselves as Im not going to do it....

wordsmith.....

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/27thes.htm

The militia in the time of the founders was supposed to be a fairly well organized and trained bunch of men..... it just wasnt a every citizen owning a gun..... they had rules and regulations..... they were an organized militia and there was no unorganized militia.

What happened over time was that these militias wouldnt equip themselves properly...wouldnt train.... and ended up being a pretty ineffective group of people.....

So in 1903 the government decided to organize the militia and fund them with federal money....and the national guard was born.

They became our well regulated militia and the folks who were not a part of this became the unorganized militia which has no purpose....no guidelines on how it should act....no equipment or training requirements...... they have absolutely no purpose but to wait and be called up when the government needs them.

Evidently the government didnt bother to include anything about protection from tyrannical governments because they felt it unneccesary in the 20th century.... had they felt it neccesary they probably would have included that language in the new militia act of 1903.

You able bodied guys out there between the ages of what... 17 and 45 ??? are the unorganized militia... and your only militia duty is to try and keep yourself fit so that when the governments decides they need you in the army..... they can count on you to come running......lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by corny

Here is a paper with some court cases in it......

Probably have to google the cases themselves as Im not going to do it....

wordsmith.....

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/27thes.htm

The militia in the time of the founders was supposed to be a fairly well organized and trained bunch of men..... it just wasnt a every citizen owning a gun..... they had rules and regulations..... they were an organized militia and there was no unorganized militia.

What happened over time was that these militias wouldnt equip themselves properly...wouldnt train.... and ended up being a pretty ineffective group of people.....

So in 1903 the government decided to organize the militia and fund them with federal money....and the national guard was born.

They became our well regulated militia and the folks who were not a part of this became the unorganized militia which has no purpose....no guidelines on how it should act....no equipment or training requirements...... they have absolutely no purpose but to wait and be called up when the government needs them.

Evidently the government didnt bother to include anything about protection from tyrannical governments because they felt it unneccesary in the 20th century.... had they felt it neccesary they probably would have included that language in the new militia act of 1903.

You able bodied guys out there between the ages of what... 17 and 45 ??? are the unorganized militia... and your only militia duty is to try and keep yourself fit so that when the governments decides they need you in the army..... they can count on you to come running......lol

---

That is pure BS corny as usual and you and everyone with an once of brains knows it. I could give a flip what the 1903 act said organizing the NG. That in no way affects the meaning of the Constitution.

If you want to change the 2nd Amendment then you have to change the Constitution. So please for heavens sake stop "inventing" these straw men to try and change the 2nd Amendment.

I for one am tired of you "inventing" facts, changing the meaning of things to suit your view on how things should be in your "liberal" opinion. Most liberals have this habit and you use it 24/7 in almost every post you make. Geez. Give us a break. And a Merry Christimas to you corny. Thank you, thank you very much

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tool-Slinger

The terminology is a tad unfamiliar in the year 2012, but back in the day the term 'army' was a very common term referring to regular professional soldiers. 'Militia' is generally just a gaggle of goofs with guns from resource whatever the public can offer up. I am discussing terminology here, not trying to insult the militia. The inept militia, LOL.

Look at the numbers.
There are 300,000,000 americans.
There are 150,000,000 males.
There are _75.000,000 males able to put up a physical effort to make a militia of sorts.
There are _25,000,000 males AT LEAST who would be some really mean militia.
There are ___,500,000 regular army in our combined military forces....

This is why a militia is so important for the security of our nation. The numbers are staggering, as the British army discovered. The British at the time, bar none, were the best army in the world.

---

Hmmm... not sure I would call them goofs and gaggles... they practiced gorilla/insurgent warfare; which seems to work as well or better than standing armies over history.

Regardless; the 2nd amendment is about the masses being able to abolish a bad govt and replace it... I am not sure why folks cannot wrap their minds around that... unless they do not want to...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jpsmith1cm

Corny's points also ignore the second, and less recognized, reason for an armed citizenry.

The over-reach of government.


That purpose of the militia, by definition, defies being 'called' by the federal government as it is that very federal government that it would be rising and fighting against.

---

There you go JP...

When I started this thread, the point was to get folks to read the first half: The part about preserving a free state (as in keeping the inevitable creep of crooked govt) from usurping freedom at bay.

As I read the 2nd amendment... I do not see anything about folks protecting themselves... methinks that was just common sense back then. However: As noted repeatedly: freedom says one has the right to pursue life, liberty, and happiness... as long as that pursuit does not infringe on anothers same pursuit.

Why is it sooo hard for folks to understand we are FREE... So take the freedom responsibly and life life.
Perhaps we have grown soft as a nation... we forgot the words of a founder: Those that would trade freedom for security, deserve neither. A wise man there... smarter than the ones we elected a few mos ago.
When I read about gun control... what I see is trading freedom for a perceived sense of security... however all one has to do is read the stats and they will find an armed society is more polite and safe than a disarmed society. Come on folks... connect the dots... :) (Note; not fussing at the ARP crowd, fussing at the average American who probably is not dry enough behind the ears to understand).

BTW: Not calling you out JP... I think you do understand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by corny

Probably have to google the cases themselves as Im not going to do it....

---

In other words, you've got an opinion and care not a whit to expand on adequate information to back it up.

You've posted an article written in 1989 by two attorneys.

I'm basing my position on a 2008 majority opinion authored by a supreme court justice.


Hmmm.....


The construction of an organized militia simply created two classes of militia. It didn't automatically disband the civilian militia, no matter what your personal opinion is.


You can prod, poke, cajole and ridicule to your heart's content. Your opinion is yours and yours alone and has no legal standing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ga-hvac-tech

There you go JP...

When I started this thread, the point was to get folks to read the first half: The part about preserving a free state (as in keeping the inevitable creep of crooked govt) from usurping freedom at bay.

As I read the 2nd amendment... I do not see anything about folks protecting themselves... methinks that was just common sense back then. However: As noted repeatedly: freedom says one has the right to pursue life, liberty, and happiness... as long as that pursuit does not infringe on anothers same pursuit.

Why is it sooo hard for folks to understand we are FREE... So take the freedom responsibly and life life.
Perhaps we have grown soft as a nation... we forgot the words of a founder: Those that would trade freedom for security, deserve neither. A wise man there... smarter than the ones we elected a few mos ago.
When I read about gun control... what I see is trading freedom for a perceived sense of security... however all one has to do is read the stats and they will find an armed society is more polite and safe than a disarmed society. Come on folks... connect the dots... :) (Note; not fussing at the ARP crowd, fussing at the average American who probably is not dry enough behind the ears to understand).

BTW: Not calling you out JP... I think you do understand.

---

I well understand exactly what point you're making, ga.


It is, in modern day, a secondary and often ridiculed purpose of the second amendment, but we must return to context to understand it.

The authors of the Constitution and Bill of Rights had just completed an epic and historic struggle to overthrow an oppressive government.

Maintaining the ability to do so again was likely very much at the front of their minds as they wrote these documents.

organized militia's report to the State. Each State's governor has the *power* to call up the militia/ guard, whether in 1775 or 2012. The militia's of 1780's were collections of local people who would drill monthly in the town square and get used to taking orders from an officer (if they liked and respected him). There was no real enforceable call up for these militia's. They could be called up for any type of threat or civil unrest the local officials deemed appropriate. Even if the governor did not officially call them up, local political leaders could and did call them up as they saw fit.

The institution of transferring State forces to federal control was brought about by Progressives at the turn of the century. They were used to quell labor disputes, range wars, bust strikes, etc.

The presence of an armed populace was then and now a deterrent to invaders and tyrants. Take away the armed populace and you're at the mercy of your enemies, foreign and domestic-period. It is all we have to keep people like Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Clinton in check to any degree. Liberals argue they aren't really all that bad. Perceptions aside, they have been held back by two things: guns and re-election. You take away the first, you don't need the second.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RoBoTeq

Is there something in the Constitution that says we should? Cannons were available when the Constitution was written, but there is nothing in the Constitution giving us any inalienable rights to possses them. Personally, I think we should all have the right to posess anything we want until we abuse our ownership of such items. OK, because of the relative potential of a nuclear bomb owned by my neighbor taking me out if it goes off, we would need to have geographical and space provisions such as; You must own several thousand miles of property and keep your nuclear bomb at the center of that property in order to own a nuclear weapon. After all, livestock aren't allowed to be kept in the backyards of rowhomes in the cities.

---

Your very funny robo. For that to work you left out two things. One you would need to store it in an underground bunker preferably under a mountain to contain the explosion in case of an accidental explosion or sabotage.

Then of course there is the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty to dial with. Of course I guess you could argue that the 2nd Amendment "trumps" the treaty. LOL. Yeah let me know how it goes after you made your 2nd billion and are building your "defensive" nuclear bomb. ​Perhaps you could test it out on the Berkeley campus. LOL. Have a Merry Christmas there robo. Thank you, thank you very much