Discussion in 'Congress' started by 52ndStreet, Oct 11, 2017.
Militia may be "over reaching" by gun lovers. Regulators is more like it.
A posse register for gun lovers who love to love their guns in public.
If you aren't the most delusional person on this board, there isn't a cow in the whole state of Texas.
Your repetition of nonsense doesn't mean squat, danielpalos. You've been repeating bullshit this many years because you thought the repetition means you win? Really? You've only to proven to be the most delusional poster on USM.
Look dude,, the words unorganized and disorganized are different in the English language.
The word unorganized is "not brought into a coherent or well-ordered whole"
The word disorganized is lacking coherence, system, or central guiding agency :not organized (Disorganized is the antonym for regulated; unorganized is NOT)
I found great synonyms for "regulate" on the new Thesaurus.com!
What you're selling is snake oil. You've been lying. The unorganized militia simply means we haven't been brought into the regular militia. A disorganized militia would be a group with no central guiding agency. Even the unorganized militia, when called into service, knows full well who the guiding agency is.
It's just that we don't have to be a part of the organized militia in order to own private firearms... and even if we are not in the militia, we still have a Right to keep and bear Arms. The Second Amendment is not about the military. It is about the Right of the people.
I have been in a citizen militia since 1987. You cannot get any more public than the militia I belong to. Their leadership has been on the front pages of newspapers; on television; on radio.
We once had a meeting in a large restaurant. Neither of us knew but, both had an event on the same day! Half of the banquet hall was a police award ceremony and on the other side of the partition, a militia meeting was going on. Anyone that tells you civilian militias are not recognized is a liar.
If the militia were some kind of illegal organization, the cops would round up the leaders, seize any membership lists and kill / imprison the members. Recognition does not mean they give you some kind of certificate, certifying you're the last line of defense.
Recognition lies in the fact that the United States government sells to the citizens working M1 rifles, .30 carbines, bolt action rifles and .45 acp pistols. That is all the recognition you need.
WTF does that mean danielpalos? You couldn't dazzle with me brilliance so you changed tactics and are trying to baffle me with bullshit?
Son, give it up. How many times did you see me with a gun in public?
Calling your group of wanna-bes a militia doesn't make you recognized in any way by law enforcement or the govt. Calling your group a "militia" doesn't make you a militia, nor does it make you a Constitutional Militia like you claim your group to be.
Each of you have a Right to keep and bear Arms as an individual. The United States Supreme Court has ruled:
"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
The Second Amendment is not about protecting the militia; it is about protecting the Right of the people and you have the United States Supreme Court's bottom line holding on that issue.
You do not have to be in the militia in order to keep and bear Arms.
According to Wikipedia:
"In People v. Aguilar (2013), the Illinois Supreme Court summed up the central Second Amendment findings in McDonald:
Two years later, in McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. ___, ___, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3050 (2010), the Supreme Court held that the second amendment right recognized in Heller is fully applicable to the states through the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. In so holding, the Court reiterated that “the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense” (id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3026); that “individual self-defense is ‘the central component’ of the Second Amendment right” (emphasis in original) (id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3036 (quoting Heller, 554 U.S. at 599)); and that “elf-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day” (id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3036)"
McDonald v. City of Chicago - Wikipedia
So, in other words, the current law is that the Second Amendment protects an individual Right to keep and bear Arms and that, not this idiotic and irrelevant argument about it being about protecting a militia right.
From here on out, nobody should be confused as to what the courts have ruled: individual self defense is the central component of the Second Amendment.
Think whatever you want but you are completely wrong abut private militias being illegal in all states as you claim.
Just because you call your little club or group a militia, it does not make you a militia. Putting the word militia in your clubs name doesn't mean you are in fact a militia.
FYI I am not in a militia.
But private militias are not illegal in all states as you claim they are just admit you are wrong and move on
Separate names with a comma.