The Right To Bear Arms

[M14 Shooter]

Why can't you answer the question?

Trolls don't answer questions. They just say stupid shit ...over and over

Says she who continually repeats the same lies about virtually everything related to this topic.

 

[Thinker101]

Why can't you answer the question?

Trolls don't answer questions. They just say stupid shit ...over and over

Thank you for that clarification...troll.

 

[Rigby5]

This is classic leftist word parsing:

militia = the people

but

the people =/= militia


The same does not mean the same.


It fails logically.

.

Our Constitution is both gender and race neutral; the People are the Militia.

only a section of the People are the Militia.

Hopefully, someday you will learn that.

Nope.
The militia is informal and as needed, so could be anyone or everyone.
Which means that everyone should be considered potential militia.
If nothing goes wrong, it could be no one is needed to do anything.
But under invasion, etc., women and children could have become active members of the militia.
The reason you have to include everyone as the militia is because there were no police back then at all, so everyone had to enforce the law, defend themselves, etc.
And there were lots of threats, like native, Spanish from the south, pirates, gangs, French from north, etc.
So when you talk about who needed to be armed for the militia, that would have to be everyone.
There is no way to know ahead of time who will need those arms.

When it was written:

"
Constitution and Bill of Rights (1787–1789)[edit]
The delegates of the Constitutional Convention (the founding fathers/framers of the United States Constitution) under Article 1; section 8, clauses 15 and 16 of the federal constitution, granted Congress the power to "provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia", as well as, and in distinction to, the power to raise an army and a navy. The US Congress is granted the power to use the militia of the United States for three specific missions, as described in Article 1, section 8, clause 15: "To provide for the calling of the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions." The Militia Act of 1792[26] clarified whom the militia consists of:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act."

Militia (United States) - Wikipedia

NO females, NO males under the age of 18, NO males over the age of 45, with some exceptions.

Same link.

as of 1903: "
Today, as defined by the Militia Act of 1903, the term "militia" is primarily used to describe two groups within the United States:

• Organized militia – consisting of State militia forces; notably, the National Guard and Naval Militia.[8] (Note: the National Guard is not to be confused with the National Guard of the United States.)
• Unorganized militia – composing the Reserve Militia: every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age, not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia.[9]"

Close to the same age groups, and still no females, and still no infirm.

Wrong.
The Constitution had to explicitly mention the Federal Militia in order to be able to call it up, pay for it, etc. But the Federal Militia is not what the 2nd Amendment is referring to. If you read ever state constitution, (which preceded the federal constitution), you see they refer to being able to call up and pay their own state militias. And the specific mentioning of adult males is who can be FORCED to join the militias. That does NOT prohibit females and children from joining voluntarily, as they obviously always have.

 

[Rigby5]

This is classic leftist word parsing:

militia = the people

but

the people =/= militia


The same does not mean the same.


It fails logically.

.

Our Constitution is both gender and race neutral; the People are the Militia.

only a section of the People are the Militia.

Hopefully, someday you will learn that.

When will you learn that the People are the Militia. Only well regulated militia are declared Necessary.

You confuse natural rights with the security of a free State.

And the words "well regulated" mean regularly functioning in a timely, efficient, and practiced manner.
It could not mean restricted or controlled because the Bill of Rights is only to limit federal powers.
And even if it did mean controlled, the implication would have to be state or local control, not federal.

 

[danielpalos]

You have to actually understand the concepts and context, not just right wing propaganda and rhetoric.

This is the common law for the common defense:

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

Try common sense.

this guy:

is useless to a militia.

is Surrender an Option for the militia of the United States?

Who is talking about surrender?

Is the man in the picture above militia material, or not??

is surrender and Option, or not?

More deflection?

Why can't you answer the question?

Is the man in the wheelchair, who is part of the People you keep referring to, Militia material?

or have you been talking out your ass?

You simply don't understand the concepts.

Anyone who knows any history, understands what I mean.

 

[danielpalos]

This is classic leftist word parsing:

militia = the people

but

the people =/= militia


The same does not mean the same.


It fails logically.

.

Our Constitution is both gender and race neutral; the People are the Militia.

only a section of the People are the Militia.

Hopefully, someday you will learn that.

When will you learn that the People are the Militia. Only well regulated militia are declared Necessary.

You confuse natural rights with the security of a free State.

And the words "well regulated" mean regularly functioning in a timely, efficient, and practiced manner.
It could not mean restricted or controlled because the Bill of Rights is only to limit federal powers.
And even if it did mean controlled, the implication would have to be state or local control, not federal.

A common misperception by the right wing; wellness of regulation for the militia of the United States must be prescribed by our federal Congress.

 

[Auld Phart]

Try common sense.

this guy:

is useless to a militia.

is Surrender an Option for the militia of the United States?

Who is talking about surrender?

Is the man in the picture above militia material, or not??

is surrender and Option, or not?

More deflection?

Why can't you answer the question?

Is the man in the wheelchair, who is part of the People you keep referring to, Militia material?

or have you been talking out your ass?

You simply don't understand the concepts.

Anyone who knows any history, understands what I mean.

Still deflecting.


it's a yes or no question.

 

[danielpalos]

is Surrender an Option for the militia of the United States?

Who is talking about surrender?

Is the man in the picture above militia material, or not??

is surrender and Option, or not?

More deflection?

Why can't you answer the question?

Is the man in the wheelchair, who is part of the People you keep referring to, Militia material?

or have you been talking out your ass?

You simply don't understand the concepts.

Anyone who knows any history, understands what I mean.

Still deflecting.


it's a yes or no question.

is surrender an option or not.

 

[Auld Phart]

Who is talking about surrender?

Is the man in the picture above militia material, or not??

is surrender and Option, or not?

More deflection?

Why can't you answer the question?

Is the man in the wheelchair, who is part of the People you keep referring to, Militia material?

or have you been talking out your ass?

You simply don't understand the concepts.

Anyone who knows any history, understands what I mean.

Still deflecting.


it's a yes or no question.

is surrender an option or not.

Deflection seems to be your only option.


bye.

 

[danielpalos]

is surrender and Option, or not?

More deflection?

Why can't you answer the question?

Is the man in the wheelchair, who is part of the People you keep referring to, Militia material?

or have you been talking out your ass?

You simply don't understand the concepts.

Anyone who knows any history, understands what I mean.

Still deflecting.


it's a yes or no question.

is surrender an option or not.

Deflection seems to be your only option.


bye.

You are the who is unwilling to answer that tactical question. Not well regulated enough?

 

[Auld Phart]

More deflection?

Why can't you answer the question?

Is the man in the wheelchair, who is part of the People you keep referring to, Militia material?

or have you been talking out your ass?

You simply don't understand the concepts.

Anyone who knows any history, understands what I mean.

Still deflecting.


it's a yes or no question.

is surrender an option or not.

Deflection seems to be your only option.


bye.

You are the who is unwilling to answer that tactical question. Not well regulated enough?

You are the who is unwilling to answer that tactical question

Odd, I asked you a question before you started deflecting.

a simple yes or no question.

and you have yet to answer it.


are you trolling?

 

[danielpalos]

You simply don't understand the concepts.

Anyone who knows any history, understands what I mean.

Still deflecting.


it's a yes or no question.

is surrender an option or not.

Deflection seems to be your only option.


bye.

You are the who is unwilling to answer that tactical question. Not well regulated enough?

You are the who is unwilling to answer that tactical question

Odd, I asked you a question before you started deflecting.

a simple yes or no question.

and you have yet to answer it.


are you trolling?

the senior officer present would need to know that answer, first.

 

[Auld Phart]

Still deflecting.


it's a yes or no question.

is surrender an option or not.

Deflection seems to be your only option.


bye.

You are the who is unwilling to answer that tactical question. Not well regulated enough?

You are the who is unwilling to answer that tactical question

Odd, I asked you a question before you started deflecting.

a simple yes or no question.

and you have yet to answer it.


are you trolling?

the senior officer present would need to know that answer, first.

YOU are the senior officer....

do you put him your militia or not?

if so, at what position?

 

[danielpalos]

is surrender an option or not.

Deflection seems to be your only option.


bye.

You are the who is unwilling to answer that tactical question. Not well regulated enough?

You are the who is unwilling to answer that tactical question

Odd, I asked you a question before you started deflecting.

a simple yes or no question.

and you have yet to answer it.


are you trolling?

the senior officer present would need to know that answer, first.

YOU are the senior officer....

do you put him your militia or not?

if so, at what position?

we could be practical;

a camouflaged communications position could be useful

a fortified machine gun position with a limited field fire​

there could be more depending on the situation.

 

[Auld Phart]

Deflection seems to be your only option.


bye.

You are the who is unwilling to answer that tactical question. Not well regulated enough?

You are the who is unwilling to answer that tactical question

Odd, I asked you a question before you started deflecting.

a simple yes or no question.

and you have yet to answer it.


are you trolling?

the senior officer present would need to know that answer, first.

YOU are the senior officer....

do you put him your militia or not?

if so, at what position?

we could be practical;

a camouflaged communications position could be useful

a fortified machine gun position with a limited field fire​

there could be more depending on the situation.

we could be practical;

That would be a first.

a camouflaged communications position could be useful

How do you get him to it?

a fortified machine gun position with a limited field fire

How do you get him to it?

If he drops dead because his medication wore off, has a heart attack, etc..who do you replace him with?

someone in even worse shape?

a 12-14 year old?

no SANE senior officer would even consider it.

(Which is propbably why you did)

Do us all a favor, find a topic you would make LESS of a fool of your self on, and leave this one alone.

 

[danielpalos]

You are the who is unwilling to answer that tactical question. Not well regulated enough?

You are the who is unwilling to answer that tactical question

Odd, I asked you a question before you started deflecting.

a simple yes or no question.

and you have yet to answer it.


are you trolling?

the senior officer present would need to know that answer, first.

YOU are the senior officer....

do you put him your militia or not?

if so, at what position?

we could be practical;

a camouflaged communications position could be useful

a fortified machine gun position with a limited field fire​

there could be more depending on the situation.

we could be practical;

That would be a first.

a camouflaged communications position could be useful

How do you get him to it?

a fortified machine gun position with a limited field fire

How do you get him to it?

If he drops dead because his medication wore off, has a heart attack, etc..who do you replace him with?

someone in even worse shape?

a 12-14 year old?

no SANE senior officer would even consider it.

(Which is propbably why you did)

Do us all a favor, find a topic you would make LESS of a fool of your self on, and leave this one alone.

"runners" would be checking in and reporting situations and asking for further orders on a regular basis, in the first case,

and he could be the gunner and only need to point and pull the trigger, the rest of the machine gun team could do the rest, in the second case.

 

[Lesh]

This is classic leftist word parsing:

militia = the people

but

the people =/= militia


The same does not mean the same.


It fails logically.

.

Our Constitution is both gender and race neutral; the People are the Militia.

only a section of the People are the Militia.

Hopefully, someday you will learn that.

Nope.
The militia is informal and as needed, so could be anyone or everyone.
Which means that everyone should be considered potential militia.
If nothing goes wrong, it could be no one is needed to do anything.
But under invasion, etc., women and children could have become active members of the militia.
The reason you have to include everyone as the militia is because there were no police back then at all, so everyone had to enforce the law, defend themselves, etc.
And there were lots of threats, like native, Spanish from the south, pirates, gangs, French from north, etc.
So when you talk about who needed to be armed for the militia, that would have to be everyone.
There is no way to know ahead of time who will need those arms.

When it was written:

"
Constitution and Bill of Rights (1787–1789)[edit]
The delegates of the Constitutional Convention (the founding fathers/framers of the United States Constitution) under Article 1; section 8, clauses 15 and 16 of the federal constitution, granted Congress the power to "provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia", as well as, and in distinction to, the power to raise an army and a navy. The US Congress is granted the power to use the militia of the United States for three specific missions, as described in Article 1, section 8, clause 15: "To provide for the calling of the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions." The Militia Act of 1792[26] clarified whom the militia consists of:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act."

Militia (United States) - Wikipedia

NO females, NO males under the age of 18, NO males over the age of 45, with some exceptions.

Same link.

as of 1903: "
Today, as defined by the Militia Act of 1903, the term "militia" is primarily used to describe two groups within the United States:

• Organized militia – consisting of State militia forces; notably, the National Guard and Naval Militia.[8] (Note: the National Guard is not to be confused with the National Guard of the United States.)
• Unorganized militia – composing the Reserve Militia: every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age, not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia.[9]"

Close to the same age groups, and still no females, and still no infirm.

Wrong.
The Constitution had to explicitly mention the Federal Militia in order to be able to call it up, pay for it, etc. But the Federal Militia is not what the 2nd Amendment is referring to. If you read ever state constitution, (which preceded the federal constitution), you see they refer to being able to call up and pay their own state militias. And the specific mentioning of adult males is who can be FORCED to join the militias. That does NOT prohibit females and children from joining voluntarily, as they obviously always have.

That makes no sense at all

The Constitution has two mentions of the militia.

The first is Article 1 Section 8 where it does note calling it up and describes why it should be called up. It also describes that "Well Regulated Militia" as a military body with officers, training, rolls, and discipline.

The other mention is the 2A where it states that because of the need (at that time) of a "Well Regulated Militia" they needed access to firearms

 

[Lesh]

Anyone who knows any history, understands what I mean.

NO ONE...on either side of this debate understands what you mean...and even fewer care

 

[Auld Phart]

Odd, I asked you a question before you started deflecting.

a simple yes or no question.

and you have yet to answer it.


are you trolling?

the senior officer present would need to know that answer, first.

YOU are the senior officer....

do you put him your militia or not?

if so, at what position?

we could be practical;

a camouflaged communications position could be useful

a fortified machine gun position with a limited field fire​

there could be more depending on the situation.

we could be practical;

That would be a first.

a camouflaged communications position could be useful

How do you get him to it?

a fortified machine gun position with a limited field fire

How do you get him to it?

If he drops dead because his medication wore off, has a heart attack, etc..who do you replace him with?

someone in even worse shape?

a 12-14 year old?

no SANE senior officer would even consider it.

(Which is propbably why you did)

Do us all a favor, find a topic you would make LESS of a fool of your self on, and leave this one alone.

"runners" would be checking in and reporting situations and asking for further orders on a regular basis, in the first case,

and he could be the gunner and only need to point and pull the trigger, the rest of the machine gun team could do the rest, in the second case.

you obviously have NO experience as a senior officer.

nor as a member of any existing military or militia on Earth.

 

[danielpalos]

Anyone who knows any history, understands what I mean.

NO ONE...on either side of this debate understands what you mean...and even fewer care

yet, i resort to the fewest fallacies;

floozies.