2nd Amendment Unapologetic Meaning

[C_Clayton_Jones]

In addition, the predicate that we should only stand up against tyranny if we can win is the view a coward would

Which is not my view at all. I am saying you delude yourself to think you will "defeat tyranny" with your penis extenders. Tyranny, if it occurs (watch closely, a wannabe tyrant is in the white house) will be defeated with ideas and democratic process. Else it will not be defeated at all.

It is your view and you just expressed it yet again.

Like I said, militia's have defeated the strongest militaries in the world, but they would not have to fight the US military if government became tyrannical. The men and women who serve in our Armed Forces understand the nature of legal orders and are some of the most intelligent people on the planet.

I appreciate your analysis, but it is fundamentally wrong. These days, that a federal employee swears an oath to the constitution does not indicate they will follow it. And, good intended young men can be easily mislead into wrong actions (gulf of tonkin) and there are always sizeable subsets who will outright do evil deeds (waco). Arguing against militias in favor of the US military is either ignorant or malicious.

The problem with your argument would be one in which the rank and file, along with the officer corp, were kept in ignorance. Have you served?

I have.

There is a continuing and rigorous training program in the duties of the armed forces, the nature of legal orders, and the meaning of the oaths that were sworn.

You seem to miss the meta point of the 2nd amendment: you can't trust people to keep to the word of a contract and so you must have failsafes. The failsafes do not include having government employees read their contracts multiple times (training).

The examples I gave validate the ability to keep the rank and file in ignorance. Further, gun confiscation in Katrina illustrates a direct violation.

How can you argue for the non-ignorance and effectiveness of the US military while the 2nd amendment is currently being violated in all states and at the level of the federal government?

Nonsense.

The Second Amendment is not being ‘violated’ by the states or Federal government.

All the laws in all the states are in compliance with current Second Amendment jurisprudence, as are Federal firearm regulatory measures.

The Supreme Court alone determines what firearm regulatory measures violate the Second Amendment, not message board posters.

 

[pismoe]

interesting to me are the Military Veterans or Retired government men or 'kings' men or Public Servants that are gun controllers . These include Retired Generals , Admirals , and Old guys with Veteran stitched on their baseball cap and current Commander / Astronauts Mark Kelly . And other Retired on taxpayer money like retired 'CIA' Chief Micheal Hayden . Seems that they didn't learn Gun Rights too well in the Military or in Public Service . --- Giffords Veterans Coalition - Giffords --- i think this link is interesting . I think that Retired General Stanley McCRYSTAL mentioned in my link doesn't like Americans having semi auto AR15 Rifles .

--------------------------- check it out , i realize that these anti gun Generals , Veterans use their Status as Veterans to influence and to be experts telling Americans what they can or can't or shouldn't own . They are government or kings men working against Americans RIGHTS .

 

[capego]

The Federalist numbers 28 by Hamilton and 46 by Madison. Read em.

They're specific to the use by the States of force, meaning the use of their Militia forces (all able-bodied males capable of bearing arms) in self-defense against any Federal usurpers seeking to oppress or dominate one or more States by force in violation of the Constitution's limits on Federal power.

The argument for militias for states against the federal government does not negate the general principle of guerilla warfare against tyranny, and, is rather an example of such.
The principle being:
"
The obstacles to usurpation and the facilities of resistance increase with the increased extent of the state, provided the citizens understand their rights and are disposed to defend them. The natural strength of the people in a large community, in proportion to the artificial strength of the government, is greater than in a small, and of course more competent to a struggle with the attempts of the government to establish a tyranny.
"

The ‘argument’ for state militias ‘against’ the Federal government is devoid of merit absent the consent of the people – and seeks only to replace perceived ‘tyranny’ with actual tyranny.

You are arguing against the federalist papers on a point I only referenced from someone else. Do you not see that quote from the federalist papers or did you not read The Federalist numbers 28 by Hamilton and 46 by Madison?

The question comes to me of, why would someone have such selective ignorance in favor of the federal government? I think that is obvious.

 

[capego]

Which is not my view at all. I am saying you delude yourself to think you will "defeat tyranny" with your penis extenders. Tyranny, if it occurs (watch closely, a wannabe tyrant is in the white house) will be defeated with ideas and democratic process. Else it will not be defeated at all.

It is your view and you just expressed it yet again.

Like I said, militia's have defeated the strongest militaries in the world, but they would not have to fight the US military if government became tyrannical. The men and women who serve in our Armed Forces understand the nature of legal orders and are some of the most intelligent people on the planet.

I appreciate your analysis, but it is fundamentally wrong. These days, that a federal employee swears an oath to the constitution does not indicate they will follow it. And, good intended young men can be easily mislead into wrong actions (gulf of tonkin) and there are always sizeable subsets who will outright do evil deeds (waco). Arguing against militias in favor of the US military is either ignorant or malicious.

The problem with your argument would be one in which the rank and file, along with the officer corp, were kept in ignorance. Have you served?

I have.

There is a continuing and rigorous training program in the duties of the armed forces, the nature of legal orders, and the meaning of the oaths that were sworn.

You seem to miss the meta point of the 2nd amendment: you can't trust people to keep to the word of a contract and so you must have failsafes. The failsafes do not include having government employees read their contracts multiple times (training).

The examples I gave validate the ability to keep the rank and file in ignorance. Further, gun confiscation in Katrina illustrates a direct violation.

How can you argue for the non-ignorance and effectiveness of the US military while the 2nd amendment is currently being violated in all states and at the level of the federal government?

Nonsense.

The Second Amendment is not being ‘violated’ by the states or Federal government.

All the laws in all the states are in compliance with current Second Amendment jurisprudence, as are Federal firearm regulatory measures.

The Supreme Court alone determines what firearm regulatory measures violate the Second Amendment, not message board posters.

You appear to fail to understand law. Law is not up for reinterpretation, even if by the supreme court. And, in particular, the 2nd amendment requires no interpretation - it is as plain as day. There was no special use of the word "infringement". All laws restricting the bearing of arms are infringements to that right and are in violation of the bill of rights.

 

[Natural Citizen]

The ‘argument’ for state militias ‘against’ the Federal government is devoid of merit absent the consent of the people – and seeks only to replace perceived ‘tyranny’ with actual tyranny.

Place holder. I'm tired and it's bed time but I want to address this when I log back on.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The irony and stupidity of the thread premise, of course, is the fact that state governments have shown the greater propensity for tyranny, as opposed to the Federal government.

Indeed, the greater likelihood of tyranny manifest among state governments, which will soon be seeking to violate the rights and protected liberties of the American citizens who reside in those states.

 

[capego]

The irony and stupidity of the thread premise, of course, is the fact that state governments have shown the greater propensity for tyranny, as opposed to the Federal government.

Indeed, the greater likelihood of tyranny manifest among state governments, which will soon be seeking to violate the rights and protected liberties of the American citizens who reside in those states.

That people should have the right to bear arms as guaranteed by the bill of rights is "ironic" and "stupid"? Go away you statist troll.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Which is not my view at all. I am saying you delude yourself to think you will "defeat tyranny" with your penis extenders. Tyranny, if it occurs (watch closely, a wannabe tyrant is in the white house) will be defeated with ideas and democratic process. Else it will not be defeated at all.

It is your view and you just expressed it yet again.

Like I said, militia's have defeated the strongest militaries in the world, but they would not have to fight the US military if government became tyrannical. The men and women who serve in our Armed Forces understand the nature of legal orders and are some of the most intelligent people on the planet.

I appreciate your analysis, but it is fundamentally wrong. These days, that a federal employee swears an oath to the constitution does not indicate they will follow it. And, good intended young men can be easily mislead into wrong actions (gulf of tonkin) and there are always sizeable subsets who will outright do evil deeds (waco). Arguing against militias in favor of the US military is either ignorant or malicious.

The problem with your argument would be one in which the rank and file, along with the officer corp, were kept in ignorance. Have you served?

I have.

There is a continuing and rigorous training program in the duties of the armed forces, the nature of legal orders, and the meaning of the oaths that were sworn.

You seem to miss the meta point of the 2nd amendment: you can't trust people to keep to the word of a contract and so you must have failsafes. The failsafes do not include having government employees read their contracts multiple times (training).

The examples I gave validate the ability to keep the rank and file in ignorance. Further, gun confiscation in Katrina illustrates a direct violation.

How can you argue for the non-ignorance and effectiveness of the US military while the 2nd amendment is currently being violated in all states and at the level of the federal government?

Nonsense.

The Second Amendment is not being ‘violated’ by the states or Federal government.

All the laws in all the states are in compliance with current Second Amendment jurisprudence, as are Federal firearm regulatory measures.

The Supreme Court alone determines what firearm regulatory measures violate the Second Amendment, not message board posters.

There is precedence in the courts going as far back as U.S. vs Miller 1939 and U.S. vs Lewis 1980 affirming what Miller ruled upon
Opinion of the Court
In order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment, it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, in common use of the time, and supplied by the citizen.

 

[westwall]

It is your view and you just expressed it yet again.

Like I said, militia's have defeated the strongest militaries in the world, but they would not have to fight the US military if government became tyrannical. The men and women who serve in our Armed Forces understand the nature of legal orders and are some of the most intelligent people on the planet.

I appreciate your analysis, but it is fundamentally wrong. These days, that a federal employee swears an oath to the constitution does not indicate they will follow it. And, good intended young men can be easily mislead into wrong actions (gulf of tonkin) and there are always sizeable subsets who will outright do evil deeds (waco). Arguing against militias in favor of the US military is either ignorant or malicious.

The problem with your argument would be one in which the rank and file, along with the officer corp, were kept in ignorance. Have you served?

I have.

There is a continuing and rigorous training program in the duties of the armed forces, the nature of legal orders, and the meaning of the oaths that were sworn.

You seem to miss the meta point of the 2nd amendment: you can't trust people to keep to the word of a contract and so you must have failsafes. The failsafes do not include having government employees read their contracts multiple times (training).

The examples I gave validate the ability to keep the rank and file in ignorance. Further, gun confiscation in Katrina illustrates a direct violation.

How can you argue for the non-ignorance and effectiveness of the US military while the 2nd amendment is currently being violated in all states and at the level of the federal government?

Nonsense.

The Second Amendment is not being ‘violated’ by the states or Federal government.

All the laws in all the states are in compliance with current Second Amendment jurisprudence, as are Federal firearm regulatory measures.

The Supreme Court alone determines what firearm regulatory measures violate the Second Amendment, not message board posters.

There is precedence in the courts going as far back as U.S. vs Miller 1939 and U.S. vs Lewis 1980 affirming what Miller ruled upon
Opinion of the Court
In order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment, it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, in common use of the time, and supplied by the citizen.

Yup. In US v Miller the Court ruled that a short barreled shotgun could be regulated "because it had no foreseeable military purpose". Our dear mr. jones likes to ignore those little facts.

 

[frigidweirdo]

A 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.

• "a free State" = not a tyranny
• "A well regulated Militia," is stated here to indicate it is assumed to arise given the right of the people to bear arms, and it is necessary to ensure a free state. It is not stated as a requisite to the right to bear arms.
• "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" there is no restriction on the types of arms here.

The guarantee of the right is intended for fighting/preventing a tyrannical government through the presence and actions of militias. Militias serve this purpose through the potential for widespread guerilla warfare. At the time, arms included canons. Given the intent is to allow for militias that could fight tyrannical governments, this right currently includes such things as conventional weapons, brass knuckles, rocket launchers, fully automatic machine guns, tanks, and all restrictions on such are in violation to the US Constitution.

It would not be expected that militias, guerilla groups, would have nukes. One way to look at what a militia might have, and, thus, what is included in the right to bear arms, is, "what arms are provided to fighting soldiers in the military". This notion reflects power-in-people-numbers, and, in this way, it is intended that militias could overthrow a tyrannical government if their numbers were large enough - given a tyrannical government would cause widespread rebellion by militias. Nukes are not a power-in-people-numbers weapon.

Frivolous Arguments
"But tanks/rocket launchers/automatic machine guns are dangerous "
So are cars, but more so is stupidity and ignorance. There is no constitutionality for the US government to restrict one's actions based on the potential danger to others.

"Rocket launchers could kill a lot of people"
So can bombs which require very little knowledge and cost. Rocket launchers are substantially more difficult to construct.

"A tank could kill a lot of people if it fell into the wrong hands"
Do you have any idea how much a tank costs to construct? Tanks are exceptionally expensive, and whoever owns one would probably take efforts to secure it.

"Higher lethality weapons would mean more massacres"
Apart from government or George Soros funded terrorism, massacres, especially in an un-restricted armed society, would rarely occur.




capego.icu

Bear arms means "milita duty" or "render military service".

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

This is what they were discussing, a part of the 2A that didn't get in at the end.


"but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

Mr Gerry said: "Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms.

What, sir, is the use of a militia?"

Mr Gerry also said "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. "

"Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""

it's pretty clear here that the Founding Fathers saw the term "bear arms" to mean "render military service" or "militia duty".

However for gun people in the US, they don't like this meaning, so they'll do everything they can to ignore this fact.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The Federalist numbers 28 by Hamilton and 46 by Madison. Read em.

They're specific to the use by the States of force, meaning the use of their Militia forces (all able-bodied males capable of bearing arms) in self-defense against any Federal usurpers seeking to oppress or dominate one or more States by force in violation of the Constitution's limits on Federal power.

The argument for militias for states against the federal government does not negate the general principle of guerilla warfare against tyranny, and, is rather an example of such.
The principle being:
"
The obstacles to usurpation and the facilities of resistance increase with the increased extent of the state, provided the citizens understand their rights and are disposed to defend them. The natural strength of the people in a large community, in proportion to the artificial strength of the government, is greater than in a small, and of course more competent to a struggle with the attempts of the government to establish a tyranny.
"

The ‘argument’ for state militias ‘against’ the Federal government is devoid of merit absent the consent of the people – and seeks only to replace perceived ‘tyranny’ with actual tyranny.

You are arguing against the federalist papers on a point I only referenced from someone else. Do you not see that quote from the federalist papers or did you not read The Federalist numbers 28 by Hamilton and 46 by Madison?

The question comes to me of, why would someone have such selective ignorance in favor of the federal government? I think that is obvious.

I have found that the quotes in the Federalist Papers don't support any right wing meaning of the 2A.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

A 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.

• "a free State" = not a tyranny
• "A well regulated Militia," is stated here to indicate it is assumed to arise given the right of the people to bear arms, and it is necessary to ensure a free state. It is not stated as a requisite to the right to bear arms.
• "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" there is no restriction on the types of arms here.

The guarantee of the right is intended for fighting/preventing a tyrannical government through the presence and actions of militias. Militias serve this purpose through the potential for widespread guerilla warfare. At the time, arms included canons. Given the intent is to allow for militias that could fight tyrannical governments, this right currently includes such things as conventional weapons, brass knuckles, rocket launchers, fully automatic machine guns, tanks, and all restrictions on such are in violation to the US Constitution.

It would not be expected that militias, guerilla groups, would have nukes. One way to look at what a militia might have, and, thus, what is included in the right to bear arms, is, "what arms are provided to fighting soldiers in the military". This notion reflects power-in-people-numbers, and, in this way, it is intended that militias could overthrow a tyrannical government if their numbers were large enough - given a tyrannical government would cause widespread rebellion by militias. Nukes are not a power-in-people-numbers weapon.

Frivolous Arguments
"But tanks/rocket launchers/automatic machine guns are dangerous "
So are cars, but more so is stupidity and ignorance. There is no constitutionality for the US government to restrict one's actions based on the potential danger to others.

"Rocket launchers could kill a lot of people"
So can bombs which require very little knowledge and cost. Rocket launchers are substantially more difficult to construct.

"A tank could kill a lot of people if it fell into the wrong hands"
Do you have any idea how much a tank costs to construct? Tanks are exceptionally expensive, and whoever owns one would probably take efforts to secure it.

"Higher lethality weapons would mean more massacres"
Apart from government or George Soros funded terrorism, massacres, especially in an un-restricted armed society, would rarely occur.




capego.icu

Bear arms means "milita duty" or "render military service".

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

This is what they were discussing, a part of the 2A that didn't get in at the end.


"but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

Mr Gerry said: "Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms.

What, sir, is the use of a militia?"

Mr Gerry also said "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. "

"Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""

it's pretty clear here that the Founding Fathers saw the term "bear arms" to mean "render military service" or "militia duty".

However for gun people in the US, they don't like this meaning, so they'll do everything they can to ignore this fact.

George Mason is known as the father of the bill of rights it was his belief that the people were the militia

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."

Bear Arms
10 USC § 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.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The Federalist numbers 28 by Hamilton and 46 by Madison. Read em.

They're specific to the use by the States of force, meaning the use of their Militia forces (all able-bodied males capable of bearing arms) in self-defense against any Federal usurpers seeking to oppress or dominate one or more States by force in violation of the Constitution's limits on Federal power.

The argument for militias for states against the federal government does not negate the general principle of guerilla warfare against tyranny, and, is rather an example of such.
The principle being:
"
The obstacles to usurpation and the facilities of resistance increase with the increased extent of the state, provided the citizens understand their rights and are disposed to defend them. The natural strength of the people in a large community, in proportion to the artificial strength of the government, is greater than in a small, and of course more competent to a struggle with the attempts of the government to establish a tyranny.
"

The ‘argument’ for state militias ‘against’ the Federal government is devoid of merit absent the consent of the people – and seeks only to replace perceived ‘tyranny’ with actual tyranny.

You are arguing against the federalist papers on a point I only referenced from someone else. Do you not see that quote from the federalist papers or did you not read The Federalist numbers 28 by Hamilton and 46 by Madison?

The question comes to me of, why would someone have such selective ignorance in favor of the federal government? I think that is obvious.

I have found that the quotes in the Federalist Papers don't support any right wing meaning of the 2A.

In your own words, what's the purpose of the second amendment?

 

[frigidweirdo]

A 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.

• "a free State" = not a tyranny
• "A well regulated Militia," is stated here to indicate it is assumed to arise given the right of the people to bear arms, and it is necessary to ensure a free state. It is not stated as a requisite to the right to bear arms.
• "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" there is no restriction on the types of arms here.

The guarantee of the right is intended for fighting/preventing a tyrannical government through the presence and actions of militias. Militias serve this purpose through the potential for widespread guerilla warfare. At the time, arms included canons. Given the intent is to allow for militias that could fight tyrannical governments, this right currently includes such things as conventional weapons, brass knuckles, rocket launchers, fully automatic machine guns, tanks, and all restrictions on such are in violation to the US Constitution.

It would not be expected that militias, guerilla groups, would have nukes. One way to look at what a militia might have, and, thus, what is included in the right to bear arms, is, "what arms are provided to fighting soldiers in the military". This notion reflects power-in-people-numbers, and, in this way, it is intended that militias could overthrow a tyrannical government if their numbers were large enough - given a tyrannical government would cause widespread rebellion by militias. Nukes are not a power-in-people-numbers weapon.

Frivolous Arguments
"But tanks/rocket launchers/automatic machine guns are dangerous "
So are cars, but more so is stupidity and ignorance. There is no constitutionality for the US government to restrict one's actions based on the potential danger to others.

"Rocket launchers could kill a lot of people"
So can bombs which require very little knowledge and cost. Rocket launchers are substantially more difficult to construct.

"A tank could kill a lot of people if it fell into the wrong hands"
Do you have any idea how much a tank costs to construct? Tanks are exceptionally expensive, and whoever owns one would probably take efforts to secure it.

"Higher lethality weapons would mean more massacres"
Apart from government or George Soros funded terrorism, massacres, especially in an un-restricted armed society, would rarely occur.




capego.icu

Bear arms means "milita duty" or "render military service".

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

This is what they were discussing, a part of the 2A that didn't get in at the end.


"but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

Mr Gerry said: "Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms.

What, sir, is the use of a militia?"

Mr Gerry also said "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. "

"Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""

it's pretty clear here that the Founding Fathers saw the term "bear arms" to mean "render military service" or "militia duty".

However for gun people in the US, they don't like this meaning, so they'll do everything they can to ignore this fact.

George Mason is known as the father of the bill of rights it was his belief that the people were the militia

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."

Bear Arms
10 USC § 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.

Yes, that's nice.

You've actually posted two very interesting things, probably without realizing it.

1) Yes, the militia was supposed to be made up of the people. Not a standing army mind, but just ordinary people who would be called up when the time was right.

Slight problem. Back to that document I posted.

Mr Gerry said: "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."

Why? Why would it be better to have NOTHING than a clause that excluded those with religious scruples from militia duty?

Basically the government could declare all people religiously scrupulous, and then bar them all from militia duty.

As Mr Gerry said: "They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

So how do you protect individuals to be in the militia?

You've just protected the right of individuals to own weapons so that in times of need the militia has a ready supply of arms.

Why not protect the right of individuals to be in the militia so that in times of need the militia has a ready supply of PERSONNEL?

You need two things for a militia to exist. A militia that could potentially fight the US federal govt. Guns and people. They protected both.

2) You posted about the unorganized militia.

Why would they make an unorganized militia? What's the point of it. It's never, ever done anything. You're in it, but it doesn't exist.

Basically they made the unorganized militia because they knew that the days of militias were over. They'd failed and failed badly at doing what they needed to do.

So they made the National Guard. A better militia, a different militia, one with well trained personnel and modern equipment.

But everyone has the right to be in the militia. So Mr A Fuckhead could DEMAND to be in the National Guard. It's his right to be in the militia, the National Guard is the militia.

So, make the unorganized militia. Put everyone in it. Then when Mr A Fuckhead comes along and demands to be in the militia, kindly point out to him that he's already in the militia, bye bye, you are not getting in the National Guard, thank you very much.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The Federalist numbers 28 by Hamilton and 46 by Madison. Read em.

They're specific to the use by the States of force, meaning the use of their Militia forces (all able-bodied males capable of bearing arms) in self-defense against any Federal usurpers seeking to oppress or dominate one or more States by force in violation of the Constitution's limits on Federal power.

The argument for militias for states against the federal government does not negate the general principle of guerilla warfare against tyranny, and, is rather an example of such.
The principle being:
"
The obstacles to usurpation and the facilities of resistance increase with the increased extent of the state, provided the citizens understand their rights and are disposed to defend them. The natural strength of the people in a large community, in proportion to the artificial strength of the government, is greater than in a small, and of course more competent to a struggle with the attempts of the government to establish a tyranny.
"

The ‘argument’ for state militias ‘against’ the Federal government is devoid of merit absent the consent of the people – and seeks only to replace perceived ‘tyranny’ with actual tyranny.

You are arguing against the federalist papers on a point I only referenced from someone else. Do you not see that quote from the federalist papers or did you not read The Federalist numbers 28 by Hamilton and 46 by Madison?

The question comes to me of, why would someone have such selective ignorance in favor of the federal government? I think that is obvious.

I have found that the quotes in the Federalist Papers don't support any right wing meaning of the 2A.

In your own words, what's the purpose of the second amendment?

To protect the militia from Federal interference.

The US federal govt has the power, in article 1 section 8, to arm the militia. It could therefore disarm the militia.

Imagine that a guy joins up the militia, his own personal gun is considered a militia weapon because he's in the militia, and then they take it off him. No more guns, no more effective militia.

So, they protected the right to own guns, so the militia would have a ready supply of weaponry in a time of need. (Like the feds had taken all the guns away from the militia).

But then guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people. So they needed to protect the right to be in the militia.

The right to bear arms. The right to be in the militia. The right to render military service. The right to militia duty, as the Founding Fathers stated.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

A 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.

• "a free State" = not a tyranny
• "A well regulated Militia," is stated here to indicate it is assumed to arise given the right of the people to bear arms, and it is necessary to ensure a free state. It is not stated as a requisite to the right to bear arms.
• "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" there is no restriction on the types of arms here.

The guarantee of the right is intended for fighting/preventing a tyrannical government through the presence and actions of militias. Militias serve this purpose through the potential for widespread guerilla warfare. At the time, arms included canons. Given the intent is to allow for militias that could fight tyrannical governments, this right currently includes such things as conventional weapons, brass knuckles, rocket launchers, fully automatic machine guns, tanks, and all restrictions on such are in violation to the US Constitution.

It would not be expected that militias, guerilla groups, would have nukes. One way to look at what a militia might have, and, thus, what is included in the right to bear arms, is, "what arms are provided to fighting soldiers in the military". This notion reflects power-in-people-numbers, and, in this way, it is intended that militias could overthrow a tyrannical government if their numbers were large enough - given a tyrannical government would cause widespread rebellion by militias. Nukes are not a power-in-people-numbers weapon.

Frivolous Arguments
"But tanks/rocket launchers/automatic machine guns are dangerous "
So are cars, but more so is stupidity and ignorance. There is no constitutionality for the US government to restrict one's actions based on the potential danger to others.

"Rocket launchers could kill a lot of people"
So can bombs which require very little knowledge and cost. Rocket launchers are substantially more difficult to construct.

"A tank could kill a lot of people if it fell into the wrong hands"
Do you have any idea how much a tank costs to construct? Tanks are exceptionally expensive, and whoever owns one would probably take efforts to secure it.

"Higher lethality weapons would mean more massacres"
Apart from government or George Soros funded terrorism, massacres, especially in an un-restricted armed society, would rarely occur.




capego.icu

Bear arms means "milita duty" or "render military service".

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

This is what they were discussing, a part of the 2A that didn't get in at the end.


"but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

Mr Gerry said: "Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms.

What, sir, is the use of a militia?"

Mr Gerry also said "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. "

"Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""

it's pretty clear here that the Founding Fathers saw the term "bear arms" to mean "render military service" or "militia duty".

However for gun people in the US, they don't like this meaning, so they'll do everything they can to ignore this fact.

George Mason is known as the father of the bill of rights it was his belief that the people were the militia

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."

Bear Arms
10 USC § 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.

Yes, that's nice.

You've actually posted two very interesting things, probably without realizing it.

1) Yes, the militia was supposed to be made up of the people. Not a standing army mind, but just ordinary people who would be called up when the time was right.

Slight problem. Back to that document I posted.

Mr Gerry said: "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."

Why? Why would it be better to have NOTHING than a clause that excluded those with religious scruples from militia duty?

Basically the government could declare all people religiously scrupulous, and then bar them all from militia duty.

As Mr Gerry said: "They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

So how do you protect individuals to be in the militia?

You've just protected the right of individuals to own weapons so that in times of need the militia has a ready supply of arms.

Why not protect the right of individuals to be in the militia so that in times of need the militia has a ready supply of PERSONNEL?

You need two things for a militia to exist. A militia that could potentially fight the US federal govt. Guns and people. They protected both.

2) You posted about the unorganized militia.

Why would they make an unorganized militia? What's the point of it. It's never, ever done anything. You're in it, but it doesn't exist.

Basically they made the unorganized militia because they knew that the days of militias were over. They'd failed and failed badly at doing what they needed to do.

So they made the National Guard. A better militia, a different militia, one with well trained personnel and modern equipment.

But everyone has the right to be in the militia. So Mr A Fuckhead could DEMAND to be in the National Guard. It's his right to be in the militia, the National Guard is the militia.

So, make the unorganized militia. Put everyone in it. Then when Mr A Fuckhead comes along and demands to be in the militia, kindly point out to him that he's already in the militia, bye bye, you are not getting in the National Guard, thank you very much.

Every able body man and woman who has not be deemed mentally unfit is in the unorganized Militia How did you not comprehend that?

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

We fight for liberty -- win or lose.

Well said...

 

[frigidweirdo]

A 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.

• "a free State" = not a tyranny
• "A well regulated Militia," is stated here to indicate it is assumed to arise given the right of the people to bear arms, and it is necessary to ensure a free state. It is not stated as a requisite to the right to bear arms.
• "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" there is no restriction on the types of arms here.

The guarantee of the right is intended for fighting/preventing a tyrannical government through the presence and actions of militias. Militias serve this purpose through the potential for widespread guerilla warfare. At the time, arms included canons. Given the intent is to allow for militias that could fight tyrannical governments, this right currently includes such things as conventional weapons, brass knuckles, rocket launchers, fully automatic machine guns, tanks, and all restrictions on such are in violation to the US Constitution.

It would not be expected that militias, guerilla groups, would have nukes. One way to look at what a militia might have, and, thus, what is included in the right to bear arms, is, "what arms are provided to fighting soldiers in the military". This notion reflects power-in-people-numbers, and, in this way, it is intended that militias could overthrow a tyrannical government if their numbers were large enough - given a tyrannical government would cause widespread rebellion by militias. Nukes are not a power-in-people-numbers weapon.

Frivolous Arguments
"But tanks/rocket launchers/automatic machine guns are dangerous "
So are cars, but more so is stupidity and ignorance. There is no constitutionality for the US government to restrict one's actions based on the potential danger to others.

"Rocket launchers could kill a lot of people"
So can bombs which require very little knowledge and cost. Rocket launchers are substantially more difficult to construct.

"A tank could kill a lot of people if it fell into the wrong hands"
Do you have any idea how much a tank costs to construct? Tanks are exceptionally expensive, and whoever owns one would probably take efforts to secure it.

"Higher lethality weapons would mean more massacres"
Apart from government or George Soros funded terrorism, massacres, especially in an un-restricted armed society, would rarely occur.




capego.icu

Bear arms means "milita duty" or "render military service".

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

This is what they were discussing, a part of the 2A that didn't get in at the end.


"but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

Mr Gerry said: "Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms.

What, sir, is the use of a militia?"

Mr Gerry also said "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. "

"Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""

it's pretty clear here that the Founding Fathers saw the term "bear arms" to mean "render military service" or "militia duty".

However for gun people in the US, they don't like this meaning, so they'll do everything they can to ignore this fact.

George Mason is known as the father of the bill of rights it was his belief that the people were the militia

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."

Bear Arms
10 USC § 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.

Yes, that's nice.

You've actually posted two very interesting things, probably without realizing it.

1) Yes, the militia was supposed to be made up of the people. Not a standing army mind, but just ordinary people who would be called up when the time was right.

Slight problem. Back to that document I posted.

Mr Gerry said: "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."

Why? Why would it be better to have NOTHING than a clause that excluded those with religious scruples from militia duty?

Basically the government could declare all people religiously scrupulous, and then bar them all from militia duty.

As Mr Gerry said: "They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

So how do you protect individuals to be in the militia?

You've just protected the right of individuals to own weapons so that in times of need the militia has a ready supply of arms.

Why not protect the right of individuals to be in the militia so that in times of need the militia has a ready supply of PERSONNEL?

You need two things for a militia to exist. A militia that could potentially fight the US federal govt. Guns and people. They protected both.

2) You posted about the unorganized militia.

Why would they make an unorganized militia? What's the point of it. It's never, ever done anything. You're in it, but it doesn't exist.

Basically they made the unorganized militia because they knew that the days of militias were over. They'd failed and failed badly at doing what they needed to do.

So they made the National Guard. A better militia, a different militia, one with well trained personnel and modern equipment.

But everyone has the right to be in the militia. So Mr A Fuckhead could DEMAND to be in the National Guard. It's his right to be in the militia, the National Guard is the militia.

So, make the unorganized militia. Put everyone in it. Then when Mr A Fuckhead comes along and demands to be in the militia, kindly point out to him that he's already in the militia, bye bye, you are not getting in the National Guard, thank you very much.

Every able body man and woman who has not be deemed mentally unfit is in the unorganized Militia How did you not comprehend that?

I'm lost.

Where did I say that everyone wasn't in the unorganized militia?

So, make the unorganized militia. Put everyone in it.

Technically that's wrong. It's all able bodied men aged 17-45, but hey.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

A 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.

• "a free State" = not a tyranny
• "A well regulated Militia," is stated here to indicate it is assumed to arise given the right of the people to bear arms, and it is necessary to ensure a free state. It is not stated as a requisite to the right to bear arms.
• "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" there is no restriction on the types of arms here.

The guarantee of the right is intended for fighting/preventing a tyrannical government through the presence and actions of militias. Militias serve this purpose through the potential for widespread guerilla warfare. At the time, arms included canons. Given the intent is to allow for militias that could fight tyrannical governments, this right currently includes such things as conventional weapons, brass knuckles, rocket launchers, fully automatic machine guns, tanks, and all restrictions on such are in violation to the US Constitution.

It would not be expected that militias, guerilla groups, would have nukes. One way to look at what a militia might have, and, thus, what is included in the right to bear arms, is, "what arms are provided to fighting soldiers in the military". This notion reflects power-in-people-numbers, and, in this way, it is intended that militias could overthrow a tyrannical government if their numbers were large enough - given a tyrannical government would cause widespread rebellion by militias. Nukes are not a power-in-people-numbers weapon.

Frivolous Arguments
"But tanks/rocket launchers/automatic machine guns are dangerous "
So are cars, but more so is stupidity and ignorance. There is no constitutionality for the US government to restrict one's actions based on the potential danger to others.

"Rocket launchers could kill a lot of people"
So can bombs which require very little knowledge and cost. Rocket launchers are substantially more difficult to construct.

"A tank could kill a lot of people if it fell into the wrong hands"
Do you have any idea how much a tank costs to construct? Tanks are exceptionally expensive, and whoever owns one would probably take efforts to secure it.

"Higher lethality weapons would mean more massacres"
Apart from government or George Soros funded terrorism, massacres, especially in an un-restricted armed society, would rarely occur.




capego.icu

Bear arms means "milita duty" or "render military service".

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

This is what they were discussing, a part of the 2A that didn't get in at the end.


"but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

Mr Gerry said: "Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms.

What, sir, is the use of a militia?"

Mr Gerry also said "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. "

"Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""

it's pretty clear here that the Founding Fathers saw the term "bear arms" to mean "render military service" or "militia duty".

However for gun people in the US, they don't like this meaning, so they'll do everything they can to ignore this fact.

George Mason is known as the father of the bill of rights it was his belief that the people were the militia

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."

Bear Arms
10 USC § 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.

Yes, that's nice.

You've actually posted two very interesting things, probably without realizing it.

1) Yes, the militia was supposed to be made up of the people. Not a standing army mind, but just ordinary people who would be called up when the time was right.

Slight problem. Back to that document I posted.

Mr Gerry said: "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."

Why? Why would it be better to have NOTHING than a clause that excluded those with religious scruples from militia duty?

Basically the government could declare all people religiously scrupulous, and then bar them all from militia duty.

As Mr Gerry said: "They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

So how do you protect individuals to be in the militia?

You've just protected the right of individuals to own weapons so that in times of need the militia has a ready supply of arms.

Why not protect the right of individuals to be in the militia so that in times of need the militia has a ready supply of PERSONNEL?

You need two things for a militia to exist. A militia that could potentially fight the US federal govt. Guns and people. They protected both.

2) You posted about the unorganized militia.

Why would they make an unorganized militia? What's the point of it. It's never, ever done anything. You're in it, but it doesn't exist.

Basically they made the unorganized militia because they knew that the days of militias were over. They'd failed and failed badly at doing what they needed to do.

So they made the National Guard. A better militia, a different militia, one with well trained personnel and modern equipment.

But everyone has the right to be in the militia. So Mr A Fuckhead could DEMAND to be in the National Guard. It's his right to be in the militia, the National Guard is the militia.

So, make the unorganized militia. Put everyone in it. Then when Mr A Fuckhead comes along and demands to be in the militia, kindly point out to him that he's already in the militia, bye bye, you are not getting in the National Guard, thank you very much.

Every able body man and woman who has not be deemed mentally unfit is in the unorganized Militia How did you not comprehend that?

I'm lost.

Where did I say that everyone wasn't in the unorganized militia?

So, make the unorganized militia. Put everyone in it.

Technically that's wrong. It's all able bodied men aged 17-45, but hey.

"So, make the unorganized militia. Put everyone in it."

 

[bigrebnc1775]

A 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.

• "a free State" = not a tyranny
• "A well regulated Militia," is stated here to indicate it is assumed to arise given the right of the people to bear arms, and it is necessary to ensure a free state. It is not stated as a requisite to the right to bear arms.
• "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" there is no restriction on the types of arms here.

The guarantee of the right is intended for fighting/preventing a tyrannical government through the presence and actions of militias. Militias serve this purpose through the potential for widespread guerilla warfare. At the time, arms included canons. Given the intent is to allow for militias that could fight tyrannical governments, this right currently includes such things as conventional weapons, brass knuckles, rocket launchers, fully automatic machine guns, tanks, and all restrictions on such are in violation to the US Constitution.

It would not be expected that militias, guerilla groups, would have nukes. One way to look at what a militia might have, and, thus, what is included in the right to bear arms, is, "what arms are provided to fighting soldiers in the military". This notion reflects power-in-people-numbers, and, in this way, it is intended that militias could overthrow a tyrannical government if their numbers were large enough - given a tyrannical government would cause widespread rebellion by militias. Nukes are not a power-in-people-numbers weapon.

Frivolous Arguments
"But tanks/rocket launchers/automatic machine guns are dangerous "
So are cars, but more so is stupidity and ignorance. There is no constitutionality for the US government to restrict one's actions based on the potential danger to others.

"Rocket launchers could kill a lot of people"
So can bombs which require very little knowledge and cost. Rocket launchers are substantially more difficult to construct.

"A tank could kill a lot of people if it fell into the wrong hands"
Do you have any idea how much a tank costs to construct? Tanks are exceptionally expensive, and whoever owns one would probably take efforts to secure it.

"Higher lethality weapons would mean more massacres"
Apart from government or George Soros funded terrorism, massacres, especially in an un-restricted armed society, would rarely occur.




capego.icu

Bear arms means "milita duty" or "render military service".

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

This is what they were discussing, a part of the 2A that didn't get in at the end.


"but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

Mr Gerry said: "Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms.

What, sir, is the use of a militia?"

Mr Gerry also said "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. "

"Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""

it's pretty clear here that the Founding Fathers saw the term "bear arms" to mean "render military service" or "militia duty".

However for gun people in the US, they don't like this meaning, so they'll do everything they can to ignore this fact.

George Mason is known as the father of the bill of rights it was his belief that the people were the militia

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."

Bear Arms
10 USC § 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.

Yes, that's nice.

You've actually posted two very interesting things, probably without realizing it.

1) Yes, the militia was supposed to be made up of the people. Not a standing army mind, but just ordinary people who would be called up when the time was right.

Slight problem. Back to that document I posted.

Mr Gerry said: "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."

Why? Why would it be better to have NOTHING than a clause that excluded those with religious scruples from militia duty?

Basically the government could declare all people religiously scrupulous, and then bar them all from militia duty.

As Mr Gerry said: "They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

So how do you protect individuals to be in the militia?

You've just protected the right of individuals to own weapons so that in times of need the militia has a ready supply of arms.

Why not protect the right of individuals to be in the militia so that in times of need the militia has a ready supply of PERSONNEL?

You need two things for a militia to exist. A militia that could potentially fight the US federal govt. Guns and people. They protected both.

2) You posted about the unorganized militia.

Why would they make an unorganized militia? What's the point of it. It's never, ever done anything. You're in it, but it doesn't exist.

Basically they made the unorganized militia because they knew that the days of militias were over. They'd failed and failed badly at doing what they needed to do.

So they made the National Guard. A better militia, a different militia, one with well trained personnel and modern equipment.

But everyone has the right to be in the militia. So Mr A Fuckhead could DEMAND to be in the National Guard. It's his right to be in the militia, the National Guard is the militia.

So, make the unorganized militia. Put everyone in it. Then when Mr A Fuckhead comes along and demands to be in the militia, kindly point out to him that he's already in the militia, bye bye, you are not getting in the National Guard, thank you very much.

Every able body man and woman who has not be deemed mentally unfit is in the unorganized Militia How did you not comprehend that?

I'm lost.

Where did I say that everyone wasn't in the unorganized militia?

So, make the unorganized militia. Put everyone in it.

Technically that's wrong. It's all able bodied men aged 17-45, but hey.

The age requirement was for the organized militia, not the unorganized militia