Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Yes, but that is an intrepretation. Not the exact meaning as it was written.
so a strict constitutalionist should stick with the strict meaning I would think.
Definition of MILITIA
1a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency b : a body of citizens organized for military service
2: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service
Militia - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
I do not think the definition of militia has ever applied to individuals acting individually.
Emerson
Figurative v. Literal Usage
"Figurative" and "literal" grammatical and rhetorical terms need some explanation. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, which bases its definitions on historical usage since the 12th century and provides historical examples for the major variations in usage, a literal meaning is one in which is "free from figures of speech, exaggeration, or allusion;" that is, one that is used in its literal sense. For example, to "carry arms" in its literal sense means to transport or convey weapons from one place to another. On the other hand, a figurative meaning is one "based on, or involving the use of, figures [of speech] or metaphors; metaphorical, not literal. For example, to "deliver up arms" was a figurative expression for disarming a defeated enemy, often on the field of battle, but only in the broadest sense is the concept of delivering or transferring weapons from the custody of the defeated forces to that of the victors of significance to the meaning of the overall expression.
Resetting the Terms on the Second Amendment:...
However you do not support that approach to constitutional intrepretation when it says "To provide for the general welfare"?
If you use that intrepretative method on one part it must be applied to all parts or it is just cherry picking.
BigReb... obviously they do not have a safety net. I support the 2nd Amendment completely. You and I have the RIGHT to own a firearm and to use it in defense of our families or ourselves. But, I think that a state has the right and obligation to tell it's citizens HOW they can carry that firearm outside of your house. Inside your home, I think that a state is out of bounds by telling citizens it cannot own firearms. In it's recent decision I think the Supreme Court made it clear that Chicago cannot tell it's citizens that a person cannot own a firearm inside of a man's home. I think that is basic. A man's home is HIS and the state or federal government better have a real good reason to intrude into that area.
But out in the street? In Texas and Oklahoma and in other states, they have determined that it is desireable for citizens to be allowed to carry concealed weapons. I agree with that. It has had a positive effect on crime and in society in those areas. I think that New York has the ability to limit how a person can carry a firearm in their jurisdiction, IF the public votes and makes that determination in the ballot box. They can't take away the basic right, but they can modify some of the rules for that right. I think that is a basic state's rights issue.
Gun grabbers are ignorant and both you and I know that. They have this European view that society should be regulated by the government and partner, that isn't going to work here. I am an American and I am a FREE man. I will not and I do not stand in line well. I am responsible for MYSELF and I do not do what someone else wants because THEY have determined its best for me. I am not and I will not be a sheep. My M-4 and Colt Double-Eagle ensures that my family and I are safe. No one will take that away.... PERIOD!
While I agree with most of this, my concern comes from the fact that in cities like new york and chicago, the bans on concealed carry are not applied fairly. If you are a police officer or an offical of the govenment you can pretty much get a carry permit, and a house permit without going through all the hoops a regular citizen has to. They even have a check mark next to "retired police officer" on the application, thus implying that a retired officer has an easier time getting one than a normal citizen.
To me, if a juristiction wants to limit concealed carry on the streets, they have to apply the rule to EVERYONE. that means cops have to check thier service weapons at the precinct, and show cause to get a concealed carry and home permit, just like everyone else. Same with city employees, bodyguards for elected officals, etc.
Any other system turns me into a second class citizen, excluded from a franchise that some people get soley due to thier job with the city.
by working for the govt they are part of the "militia".
While I agree with most of this, my concern comes from the fact that in cities like new york and chicago, the bans on concealed carry are not applied fairly. If you are a police officer or an offical of the govenment you can pretty much get a carry permit, and a house permit without going through all the hoops a regular citizen has to. They even have a check mark next to "retired police officer" on the application, thus implying that a retired officer has an easier time getting one than a normal citizen.
To me, if a juristiction wants to limit concealed carry on the streets, they have to apply the rule to EVERYONE. that means cops have to check thier service weapons at the precinct, and show cause to get a concealed carry and home permit, just like everyone else. Same with city employees, bodyguards for elected officals, etc.
Any other system turns me into a second class citizen, excluded from a franchise that some people get soley due to thier job with the city.
While I agree with most of this, my concern comes from the fact that in cities like new york and chicago, the bans on concealed carry are not applied fairly. If you are a police officer or an offical of the govenment you can pretty much get a carry permit, and a house permit without going through all the hoops a regular citizen has to. They even have a check mark next to "retired police officer" on the application, thus implying that a retired officer has an easier time getting one than a normal citizen.
To me, if a juristiction wants to limit concealed carry on the streets, they have to apply the rule to EVERYONE. that means cops have to check thier service weapons at the precinct, and show cause to get a concealed carry and home permit, just like everyone else. Same with city employees, bodyguards for elected officals, etc.
Any other system turns me into a second class citizen, excluded from a franchise that some people get soley due to thier job with the city.
Martybegan... in the current legal atmosphere, if an off-duty police officer is walking down the street and two guys are attacking a woman and are about to kill her, the officer is REQUIRED to intervene. Off duty or not doesn't matter. If he doesn't, it's called failure to protect and he may also be violating the woman's civil rights, which means that he could be prosecuted in criminal court as well. Maggott lawyers (are thre any other kind?) have blurred the lines and of course are only interested in making themselves a buck in the end.
I was a cop for 20 years after getting out of the USAF. I always carried a gun with me no matter where I went or what jurisdiction I went into. I still carry a gun with me everywhere I go and when I'm on the ranch, I have an M-4 and an 870 Remington in the rifle rack. My Colt Double Eagle is always within arms reach. Cops have always given other cops the benefit of the doubt simply because you assume that the cop has first, been trained in the use of the firearm; and secondly, because they are a cop, they've been checked and verified.
Probably not the answer you want... but it's the best one I can give you.
But, I think that a state has the right and obligation to tell it's citizens HOW they can carry that firearm outside of your house. .......
While I agree with most of this, my concern comes from the fact that in cities like new york and chicago, the bans on concealed carry are not applied fairly. If you are a police officer or an offical of the govenment you can pretty much get a carry permit, and a house permit without going through all the hoops a regular citizen has to. They even have a check mark next to "retired police officer" on the application, thus implying that a retired officer has an easier time getting one than a normal citizen.
To me, if a juristiction wants to limit concealed carry on the streets, they have to apply the rule to EVERYONE. that means cops have to check thier service weapons at the precinct, and show cause to get a concealed carry and home permit, just like everyone else. Same with city employees, bodyguards for elected officals, etc.
Any other system turns me into a second class citizen, excluded from a franchise that some people get soley due to thier job with the city.
Martybegan... in the current legal atmosphere, if an off-duty police officer is walking down the street and two guys are attacking a woman and are about to kill her, the officer is REQUIRED to intervene. Off duty or not doesn't matter. If he doesn't, it's called failure to protect and he may also be violating the woman's civil rights, which means that he could be prosecuted in criminal court as well. Maggott lawyers (are thre any other kind?) have blurred the lines and of course are only interested in making themselves a buck in the end.
I was a cop for 20 years after getting out of the USAF. I always carried a gun with me no matter where I went or what jurisdiction I went into. I still carry a gun with me everywhere I go and when I'm on the ranch, I have an M-4 and an 870 Remington in the rifle rack. My Colt Double Eagle is always within arms reach. Cops have always given other cops the benefit of the doubt simply because you assume that the cop has first, been trained in the use of the firearm; and secondly, because they are a cop, they've been checked and verified.
Probably not the answer you want... but it's the best one I can give you.
While I agree with most of this, my concern comes from the fact that in cities like new york and chicago, the bans on concealed carry are not applied fairly. If you are a police officer or an offical of the govenment you can pretty much get a carry permit, and a house permit without going through all the hoops a regular citizen has to. They even have a check mark next to "retired police officer" on the application, thus implying that a retired officer has an easier time getting one than a normal citizen.
To me, if a juristiction wants to limit concealed carry on the streets, they have to apply the rule to EVERYONE. that means cops have to check thier service weapons at the precinct, and show cause to get a concealed carry and home permit, just like everyone else. Same with city employees, bodyguards for elected officals, etc.
Any other system turns me into a second class citizen, excluded from a franchise that some people get soley due to thier job with the city.
Martybegan... in the current legal atmosphere, if an off-duty police officer is walking down the street and two guys are attacking a woman and are about to kill her, the officer is REQUIRED to intervene. Off duty or not doesn't matter. If he doesn't, it's called failure to protect and he may also be violating the woman's civil rights, which means that he could be prosecuted in criminal court as well. Maggott lawyers (are thre any other kind?) have blurred the lines and of course are only interested in making themselves a buck in the end.
I was a cop for 20 years after getting out of the USAF. I always carried a gun with me no matter where I went or what jurisdiction I went into. I still carry a gun with me everywhere I go and when I'm on the ranch, I have an M-4 and an 870 Remington in the rifle rack. My Colt Double Eagle is always within arms reach. Cops have always given other cops the benefit of the doubt simply because you assume that the cop has first, been trained in the use of the firearm; and secondly, because they are a cop, they've been checked and verified.
Probably not the answer you want... but it's the best one I can give you.
Just to be clear I am not advocating disarming off duty police officers, I just want the ability to concealed carry like they can. Hell, I'll even give up the right when I enter the subway, but if I am in my car I want to be able to carry a handgun, and not have to explain to the government why I want to do it.
I find it unfair that just because they have a given job, they get to exercise thier 2nd amendment rights when I cannot.
You are part of an armed govt agency?While I agree with most of this, my concern comes from the fact that in cities like new york and chicago, the bans on concealed carry are not applied fairly. If you are a police officer or an offical of the govenment you can pretty much get a carry permit, and a house permit without going through all the hoops a regular citizen has to. They even have a check mark next to "retired police officer" on the application, thus implying that a retired officer has an easier time getting one than a normal citizen.
To me, if a juristiction wants to limit concealed carry on the streets, they have to apply the rule to EVERYONE. that means cops have to check thier service weapons at the precinct, and show cause to get a concealed carry and home permit, just like everyone else. Same with city employees, bodyguards for elected officals, etc.
Any other system turns me into a second class citizen, excluded from a franchise that some people get soley due to thier job with the city.
by working for the govt they are part of the "militia".
So, I, as part of the "milita" should have the same rights as they do when they are not on duty. I should be able to carry the same weapon they do when not on duty, in the same places they do.
If someone wants to restrict my right to an arms, it should be across the board, no favorites.
You are part of an armed govt agency?by working for the govt they are part of the "militia".
So, I, as part of the "milita" should have the same rights as they do when they are not on duty. I should be able to carry the same weapon they do when not on duty, in the same places they do.
If someone wants to restrict my right to an arms, it should be across the board, no favorites.
But, I think that a state has the right and obligation to tell it's citizens HOW they can carry that firearm outside of your house. .......
.....because..........
.
This thread is why the right's claims about "state's rights" are laughable.
so liberals equate the right to protect yourself to the right to marry?
I say hell yeah let every cock suck faggot get married within 20 to 30 years gay will die out.
oh by all means get married but you will not have access to adoptions
You are part of an armed govt agency?by working for the govt they are part of the "militia".
So, I, as part of the "milita" should have the same rights as they do when they are not on duty. I should be able to carry the same weapon they do when not on duty, in the same places they do.
If someone wants to restrict my right to an arms, it should be across the board, no favorites.
so liberals equate the right to protect yourself to the right to marry?
I say hell yeah let every cock suck faggot get married within 20 to 30 years gay will die out.
oh by all means get married but you will not have access to adoptions
It all comes down to state rights and what other states are obligated to recognize.
It seems odd that you expect NY to recognize Arizonas loose gun laws but don't expect Arizona to recognize New Yorks marriage laws
so liberals equate the right to protect yourself to the right to marry?
I say hell yeah let every cock suck faggot get married within 20 to 30 years gay will die out.
oh by all means get married but you will not have access to adoptions
It all comes down to state rights and what other states are obligated to recognize.
It seems odd that you expect NY to recognize Arizonas loose gun laws but don't expect Arizona to recognize New Yorks marriage laws
This thread is why the right's claims about "state's rights" are laughable.
Even though I agree with the bill I don't think the feds have any right telling another state how to gov. itself
Unlike with Marriage, the other comparable issue. The Constitution is pretty clear on our right to bear arms, and the Federal Governments obligation to protect that right.
I AM PRETTY FIRM ON THIS ISSUE A STATE SHOULD BE LEFT TO IT'S OWN DIVICES TO GOVERN ITSELF. As I said I agree with what they are tryng to do but carrying agreements should be managed with each individual states. Unless the Feds create a set standard that must be met, then we have a whole new can of worms to play with.
OH and forgive the caps lock not yelling
This thread is why the right's claims about "state's rights" are laughable.
so liberals equate the right to protect yourself to the right to marry?
I say hell yeah let every cock suck faggot get married within 20 to 30 years gay will die out.
oh by all means get married but you will not have access to adoptions
It all comes down to state rights and what other states are obligated to recognize.
It seems odd that you expect NY to recognize Arizonas loose gun laws but don't expect Arizona to recognize New Yorks marriage laws
If the right to marry was a protected right you might have somthjing. A right to marriage is a states right issue because it's not a protected right like the right to keep and bear arms. It's number two on the list.
Maybe there will be an amendment passed in the next few years. that gives the fed the right to tell a state that it must protect marriage.
