Are Gun Control Laws Constitutional

[martybegan]

Post your opinion to these simple questions:

Do you believe Adam Lanza, Dylann Roof and Jared Lee Loughner (among too many others) had the absolute right to own, possess and have in their custody and control a gun prior to the murders they committed?

Should each state be granted the power to require all residents or visitors to their state, who want to own or possess a gun, to be licensed by the state?

I believe that your goal of trying to prevent them from having firearms should not include laws that make it harder for me to get one. If someone is nuts, someone should say something and try to get them help and adjudicated as mentally unfit.

The most the State can do is make sure only eligible people can possess firearms. Un-eligible people being felons, people who have been adjudicated for mental defect, and those who have received due process, such as people awaiting trial, and those under a court restraining order that includes surrender of firearms.

My goal is to reduce gun violence in America; gun violence is the taking of a human life by another.

Gun control does not mean to me, or most others, to deprive you of your desire and ability to own or possess a firearm; however, there are people who should never ever have a gun in their possession. We should all agree on that simple proposition, and yet some do not - they are the gun nuts (M14 & 2aguy, for example).

Rational people support keeping guns in the hands of sober, sane, honest and law abiding men and women, and responsible people discuss and support means to reduce gun violence by keeping guns out of the hands of those who should not.

How to determine who should and who should not own, possess or ever have in their custody and control a gun is the issue. Irrational and irresponsible people (such as M14 & 2aguy, though they are not alone) reject the premise and believe any restrictions on guns or people to possess them is unlawful (and infringes on an absolute right)

[of late some have modified this position, after the fact proof is established that an individual is one who should be deprived of his or her 2nd A. Right (of course this is too late to protect the victim and assuage his or her family)].

My issue is that there are plenty of gun control advocates who's goal is to prevent ME from owning a firearm, NYC's gun laws are a perfect example of this. Until those laws are removed and my rights restored to me, I will not brook or even discuss further gun control laws, particularly those that do nothing but harm law abiding citizens.

You are a biased source in this debate, as you are law enforcement/former law enforcement. In NYC they get special privileges, even if retired, to own and CC a firearm.

 

[eflatminor]

Should each state be granted the power to require all residents or visitors to their state, who want to own or possess a gun, to be licensed by the state?

To what end? You think thugs and crazies are going to follow your rules? You're not that thick, are you?

Clearly, criminals aren't going to obey the law, so why in the world would you wish to impede good law abiding citizens from possessing the means to defend themselves? Do you come from a long line of criminals, hoping to ensure you keep a tactical advantage over your victims? I can imagine no other plausible explanation.

So, no, I do not think licensing should be required to own a firearm.

Of course you don't think, You simply echo what has been posted ad nauseam, the tautology that criminals don't obey laws.

• Speed limits don't stop speeders (fines and license suspension, impounds and probation revocations with a jail sentence will eventually slow them down)
• Petty thieves usually get a slap on the wrist, and serve less than one day in jail. A second Petty Theft results in a felony conviction, and that is a punch in the gut (CA law, petty with a prior)
• Laws do not prevent crime, laws punish those who commit crime.
• Gun Licensing will reduce the proliferation of guns into the hands of those who (most of us agree) should never own or possess a gun [sell a gun to an unlicensed person, lose your license and your right to own, possess or ever again have a gun in your custody and control).

Nothing you've posted here provides any evidence whatsoever that criminals are going to obey your laws. They never have, they never will. Now, if you want to punish people more harshly when they use a dangerous weapon in the course of committing a crime, great!

You can state that gun licensing will lead to a reduction of firearms in the hands of thugs and crazies, but you have absolutely no evidence, nor logic or reason, to back that up. Again, they're not going to obey your rules!

 

[gipper]

Yes the state can infringe on it. Thats what "regulated" basically means.

You need to understand history, to know the meaning of the word militia. Militia meant EVERY able bodied man. In your uninformed nut job world, you think militia means the government run military...WRONG!!!

The amendment continues with the words 'SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." This clearly means the big unlimited government you love, run by elitists and criminals, can't impose gun control laws.

I know this is a waste of time, because liberals are uninformed and propagandized. So there's that.

1792 Militia Act of 1792, setting forth standards for the May 2 Act, (1792 Militia Act of 1792 was passed by the Second Congress, allowing the president to call out members of the states militias.) including a] each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of age 18 and under age 45… b] provide himself with a good musket,…bayonet and belt,… not less than twenty four cartridges.; c] exempting all elected officials and employees of the government.


George Mason, Father of the Bill of Rights: "I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." (Jonathan Elliot, The Debates of the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, [NY: Burt Franklin,1888] p.425-6)


The Constitution gave Congress the power to raise and support a national army, and to organize “the Militia.” This is because an army didn’t naturally exist, while “the Militia” only had to be organized: it always existed. (See enumerated powers in Article 1,Section 8.)

They don't learn this in government school.

Huh?:

• George Mason is dead
• The Organized Militia is the National Guard and the Naval and Coast Guard Reserve.
• the Militia today is not middle aged fat guys untrained and not under the leadership of Officers Appointed by the State.
• We no longer live in the 18th Century
• LIes by Omission are damn lies
• PC lies by Omission (See: Art I, sec 8, and clause 15 and 16 (omitted in the post above by PC)

Hence...the Constitution is meaningless in the small minds of some. The consequence of this is rule by elite, but then consequences mean nothing to the left.

Thanks once again for sharing you opinion, it is very enlightening.

Thank you so much.

Why do you believe the Constitution should be meaningless?

 

[eflatminor]

My goal is to reduce gun violence in America; gun violence is the taking of a human life by another.

No, murder is the taking of a human life. Don't need a firearm for that.

Why not focus on reducing the murder rate? Isn't that a more rational goal?

Of course, we tend to see an inverse correlation between murder rates and the level to which civilians are restricted from owning firearms. Over 100 countries have murder rates higher than the US, yet all of those countries have a near total ban on civilian firearm ownership. Even within the US, places with the most gun control also have the highest murder rates. Where firearm ownership is the highest and laws the least restrictive, the murder rate is low. Clearly, there is no link between gun control and reducing murder rate.

So, be honest, do you really wish to see less 'taking of human life' or do you just not like icky guns?

I am honest, you seem to be another liar by omission. Murder rates in western democracies are far lower than those in our country. Post the stats, most of those nation-states who have outlawed guns are not democracies and not anywhere you would want to live.

Why carve out just "western democracies"? Why discount the 100+ countries with total gun control and yet high murder rates. I see you also ignored the correlation in the US with strict gun control and high murder rates. Seems you're the one lying by omission!

Anyway, I'm glad to have cleared up the definition of murder for you. You're welcome.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The second amendment is clear. Every American can keep and bear arms and the stinking government can't infringe on this right.

However thanks to progressives, the Constitution is just about meaningless. Americans are ruled by a small criminal elite, who have gained near total power.

Yes the state can infringe on it. Thats what "regulated" basically means.

You need to understand history, to know the meaning of the word militia. Militia meant EVERY able bodied man. In your uninformed nut job world, you think militia means the government run military...WRONG!!!

The amendment continues with the words 'SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." This clearly means the big unlimited government you love, run by elitists and criminals, can't impose gun control laws.

I know this is a waste of time, because liberals are uninformed and propagandized. So there's that.

1792 Militia Act of 1792, setting forth standards for the May 2 Act, (1792 Militia Act of 1792 was passed by the Second Congress, allowing the president to call out members of the states militias.) including a] each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of age 18 and under age 45… b] provide himself with a good musket,…bayonet and belt,… not less than twenty four cartridges.; c] exempting all elected officials and employees of the government.


George Mason, Father of the Bill of Rights: "I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." (Jonathan Elliot, The Debates of the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, [NY: Burt Franklin,1888] p.425-6)


The Constitution gave Congress the power to raise and support a national army, and to organize “the Militia.” This is because an army didn’t naturally exist, while “the Militia” only had to be organized: it always existed. (See enumerated powers in Article 1,Section 8.)

They don't learn this in government school.

Huh?:

• George Mason is dead
• The Organized Militia is the National Guard and the Naval and Coast Guard Reserve.
• the Militia today is not middle aged fat guys untrained and not under the leadership of Officers Appointed by the State.
• We no longer live in the 18th Century
• LIes by Omission are damn lies
• PC lies by Omission (See: Art I, sec 8, and clause 15 and 16 (omitted in the post above by PC)

Why is it sooooooo simple to prove you to be an ignorant dolt?

Oh...right....because you're an ignorant dolt.


Today, federal law defines “the militia of the United States” to include all able-bodied males from 17 to 45 and members of the National Guard up to age 64, but excluding those who have no intention of becoming citizens, and active military personnel. (US Code Title 10, sect. 311-313)
[http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311]



Soooo......
Does that neon light flashing IDIOT over your head keep you awake at night?

 

[The Rabbi]

Post your opinion to these simple questions:

Do you believe Adam Lanza, Dylann Roof and Jared Lee Loughner (among too many others) had the absolute right to own, possess and have in their custody and control a gun prior to the murders they committed?

Should each state be granted the power to require all residents or visitors to their state, who want to own or possess a gun, to be licensed by the state?

Yes they had an absolute right. None of them were guilty of any crime, all of them could or did pass background checks.
There should be no restrictions whatsoever. The 2A is very clear about this.

Do you have any evidence they all passed a comprehensive background check? Even if true, and considering the source (Rabbi), nothing should be taken as true without confirmation.

What is a "comprehensive" background check?

Local, state and FBI records of arrests, criminal and civil judgments, any civil restraining orders, civil detentions as a danger to his or her self or as a danger to him/herself or others, ever detained in drunk tank, DUI's, drug addicted and periods of resisting arrest. It's not perfect or infallible; keep in mind the background done before an offer of employment for LE requires much much more, even including written and oral psychological evaluations, at least two and sometimes three interviews with agency supervisors and management, interviews with persons who have known the candidate as a child / teen and at least one year on probation before a permanent offer of employment. And that's not all.

Being detained in a drunk tank is not a disqualifier for firearms ownership.
In fact the NICS check looks at all those things. ANd we do not deny rights based on what some psychologist says.

 

[Flash]

Gun laws suck because they take away Constitutional rights and besides, they don't work to prevent crime.

Gun laws may be the wet dream of stupid Moon Bats but they don't do anything to curtail crime.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
If speech controls are not Constitutional, we've wasted a lot of legislation on libel and slander laws.

Slander and libel laws punish wrong doing.

If slander and libel constitute speech control, then murder and assault constitute gun control. No one objects to laws punishing misuse of guns.

But of course what you anti-civil rights activists demand is prior restraint, that a right requires permission in advance to be used. I would not be surprised if a Hillary court ruled that people must get a permit to attend a Christian house of worship, after showing just cause on why they need to to attend church. (Muslims are naturally immune to such rules.)

"Rights" leftist style are a lot like "privilege" granted by the Crown.

 

[martybegan]

[
If speech controls are not Constitutional, we've wasted a lot of legislation on libel and slander laws.

Slander and libel laws punish wrong doing.

If slander and libel constitute speech control, then murder and assault constitute gun control. No one objects to laws punishing misuse of guns.

But of course what you anti-civil rights activists demand is prior restraint, that a right requires permission in advance to be used. I would not be surprised if a Hillary court ruled that people must get a permit to attend a Christian house of worship, after showing just cause on why they need to to attend church. (Muslims are naturally immune to such rules.)

"Rights" leftist style are a lot like "privilege" granted by the Crown.

The way I compare the way gun controllers want to control guns to speech control is:

Using gun control logic, one would prevent someone from yelling "fire" in a crowded theater by gagging everyone who goes into the theater.

 

[2aguy]

Post your opinion to these simple questions:

Do you believe Adam Lanza, Dylann Roof and Jared Lee Loughner (among too many others) had the absolute right to own, possess and have in their custody and control a gun prior to the murders they committed?

Should each state be granted the power to require all residents or visitors to their state, who want to own or possess a gun, to be licensed by the state?

I believe that your goal of trying to prevent them from having firearms should not include laws that make it harder for me to get one. If someone is nuts, someone should say something and try to get them help and adjudicated as mentally unfit.

The most the State can do is make sure only eligible people can possess firearms. Un-eligible people being felons, people who have been adjudicated for mental defect, and those who have received due process, such as people awaiting trial, and those under a court restraining order that includes surrender of firearms.

My goal is to reduce gun violence in America; gun violence is the taking of a human life by another.

Gun control does not mean to me, or most others, to deprive you of your desire and ability to own or possess a firearm; however, there are people who should never ever have a gun in their possession. We should all agree on that simple proposition, and yet some do not - they are the gun nuts (M14 & 2aguy, for example).

Rational people support keeping guns in the hands of sober, sane, honest and law abiding men and women, and responsible people discuss and support means to reduce gun violence by keeping guns out of the hands of those who should not.

How to determine who should and who should not own, possess or ever have in their custody and control a gun is the issue. Irrational and irresponsible people (such as M14 & 2aguy, though they are not alone) reject the premise and believe any restrictions on guns or people to possess them is unlawful (and infringes on an absolute right)

[of late some have modified this position, after the fact proof is established that an individual is one who should be deprived of his or her 2nd A. Right (of course this is too late to protect the victim and assuage his or her family)].

No....you are wrong....we believe in keeping guns out of the hands of the very people you pointed out.....we just point out that none of the laws you want created, registration, licensing gun owners or universal background checks do that....not one of them. you have failed each time we have asked you to show how they would achieve what you say you want and each time you can't.....

The very laws you want created keep sober, sane, rational people from either getting guns...or destroy their lives if they fail to jump through a bureaucratic hoop that criminals actually ignore, or mass shooters comply with before they start to murder people....

Again...I offer you the chance to explain your ideas on the laws you think will achieve what you want...

My ideas actually work.....if you are caught using a gun for a crime...you get 30 years. This has been shown to work in Japan, where even organized criminals, who used to use guns when they wanted them, will not use a gun because of the 30 year sentence.

Please....show us, in your wisdom....how universal background checks, licensing gun owners and registering guns stop criminals from getting guns and using them for crime...or keep mass shooters from getting guns and using them to commit mass murder.

And while you are at it....

Please explain how it is that under our current laws, more Americans now carry guns for self defense 4.7 million in 2007 and now 13 million in 2016....and our gun murder rate has gone down...

This shows that nothing you believe is true about the situation of guns in the United STates.....so the new laws you want.....will not decrease gun crime....and current laws and more gun ownership do not increase the gun crime rate or the violent crime rate....

You are simply wrong...you accuse us of not wanting to keep guns out of the hands of criminals....yet each law you advocate targets law abiding citizens and fails to do anything to stop criminals and mass shooters....

 

[Uncensored2008]

There is only a tiny number of firearms that are legal for the public to own.

They are, like everything else, subject to regulation.

Da Comrade.

Just as with the privilege of the press. A publisher may only report on a tiny number of things. Anything that is harmful to the party is subject to regulation.


You of the anti-liberty left are engaged in a full blown war to end civil rights and the United States Constitution.

 

[2aguy]

I believe each state should constitute what they term as a militia and the requirements for membership and training.

From Heller v. the District of Columbia....

Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.” We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
----------

 

[2aguy]

My goal is to reduce gun violence in America; gun violence is the taking of a human life by another.

No, murder is the taking of a human life. Don't need a firearm for that.

Why not focus on reducing the murder rate? Isn't that a more rational goal?

Of course, we tend to see an inverse correlation between murder rates and the level to which civilians are restricted from owning firearms. Over 100 countries have murder rates higher than the US, yet all of those countries have a near total ban on civilian firearm ownership. Even within the US, places with the most gun control also have the highest murder rates. Where firearm ownership is the highest and laws the least restrictive, the murder rate is low. Clearly, there is no link between gun control and reducing murder rate.

So, be honest, do you really wish to see less 'taking of human life' or do you just not like icky guns?

I am honest, you seem to be another liar by omission. Murder rates in western democracies are far lower than those in our country. Post the stats, most of those nation-states who have outlawed guns are not democracies and not anywhere you would want to live.

And of course you are a liar. The gun murder rate in Britain and the other Western Democracies have never been as high as in our country...in fact...our non gun murder rate is higher than the entire murder rate of Britain...

And of course you can't explain how it is that after Britain confiscated guns from law abiding citizens in the 1990s....the gun crime rate did not change....in fact, it went up...it spiked for years after ward before returning to where it was before the confiscation...

Also....violent crime increased in Britain.....in fact it went up 27% last year, and the gun crime rate went up 4% last year...

our gun murder rate is not created by law abiding people owning and carrying guns.....it is created by a thug culture located in our inner cites, driven by single teen mother hood and democrat social policies...culture, not guns.

And again....more Americans now own guns....and our gun murder rate went down, not up. As the stats from the FBI table 8 show...as do the stats from the CDC...

 

[Uncensored2008]

Trump is a demagogue and a charlatan,

Hillary is a megalomaniac and a career criminal. (and oh the irony of you calling another a "demagogue.")

nothing he says matters;

Nothing she says matters.

watch his feet, not his lips

Watch her hands, she'll be stealing anything not nailed down. Anything from her lips will be a lie.

(it is not what he says, but what he has done and will do). The risk of a Trump presidency far outweighs any potential rewards.

Hillary is a criminal top to bottom. There is no reward to her in a position of power. Pol Pot in a pants suit.

Because you seek to end civil rights, you applaud her. Because you have zero ethics, she represents your morals.

Hillary 2016 - she'll put an end to freedom, once and for all.

 

[2aguy]

Should each state be granted the power to require all residents or visitors to their state, who want to own or possess a gun, to be licensed by the state?

To what end? You think thugs and crazies are going to follow your rules? You're not that thick, are you?

Clearly, criminals aren't going to obey the law, so why in the world would you wish to impede good law abiding citizens from possessing the means to defend themselves? Do you come from a long line of criminals, hoping to ensure you keep a tactical advantage over your victims? I can imagine no other plausible explanation.

So, no, I do not think licensing should be required to own a firearm.

Of course you don't think, You simply echo what has been posted ad nauseam, the tautology that criminals don't obey laws.

• Speed limits don't stop speeders (fines and license suspension, impounds and probation revocations with a jail sentence will eventually slow them down)
• Petty thieves usually get a slap on the wrist, and serve less than one day in jail. A second Petty Theft results in a felony conviction, and that is a punch in the gut (CA law, petty with a prior)
• Laws do not prevent crime, laws punish those who commit crime.
• Gun Licensing will reduce the proliferation of guns into the hands of those who (most of us agree) should never own or possess a gun [sell a gun to an unlicensed person, lose your license and your right to own, possess or ever again have a gun in your custody and control).

Please....explain exactly how licensing gun owners keeps guns out of the hands of criminals and mass shooters....saying it doesn't make it so......as criminals and mass shooters have demonstrated over and over again....since they can't own guns, they cannot get a license to own a gun yet 90% of the gun murderers are convicted felons banned from owning guns.....

And yes.....laws punish those who commit crime....use a gun to commit a crime...you go to jail..that is the way gun laws actually work...anything else is simply to target people who do not commit cimes.

 

[2aguy]

My goal is to reduce gun violence in America; gun violence is the taking of a human life by another.

No, murder is the taking of a human life. Don't need a firearm for that.

Why not focus on reducing the murder rate? Isn't that a more rational goal?

Of course, we tend to see an inverse correlation between murder rates and the level to which civilians are restricted from owning firearms. Over 100 countries have murder rates higher than the US, yet all of those countries have a near total ban on civilian firearm ownership. Even within the US, places with the most gun control also have the highest murder rates. Where firearm ownership is the highest and laws the least restrictive, the murder rate is low. Clearly, there is no link between gun control and reducing murder rate.

So, be honest, do you really wish to see less 'taking of human life' or do you just not like icky guns?

I am honest, you seem to be another liar by omission. Murder rates in western democracies are far lower than those in our country. Post the stats, most of those nation-states who have outlawed guns are not democracies and not anywhere you would want to live.

Why carve out just "western democracies"? Why discount the 100+ countries with total gun control and yet high murder rates. I see you also ignored the correlation in the US with strict gun control and high murder rates. Seems you're the one lying by omission!

Anyway, I'm glad to have cleared up the definition of murder for you. You're welcome.

Not just murder rates.......they have the highest gun murder rates in the world...in particular, Mexico and Russia.....

 

[The Rabbi]

Should each state be granted the power to require all residents or visitors to their state, who want to own or possess a gun, to be licensed by the state?

To what end? You think thugs and crazies are going to follow your rules? You're not that thick, are you?

Clearly, criminals aren't going to obey the law, so why in the world would you wish to impede good law abiding citizens from possessing the means to defend themselves? Do you come from a long line of criminals, hoping to ensure you keep a tactical advantage over your victims? I can imagine no other plausible explanation.

So, no, I do not think licensing should be required to own a firearm.

Of course you don't think, You simply echo what has been posted ad nauseam, the tautology that criminals don't obey laws.

• Speed limits don't stop speeders (fines and license suspension, impounds and probation revocations with a jail sentence will eventually slow them down)
• Petty thieves usually get a slap on the wrist, and serve less than one day in jail. A second Petty Theft results in a felony conviction, and that is a punch in the gut (CA law, petty with a prior)
• Laws do not prevent crime, laws punish those who commit crime.
• Gun Licensing will reduce the proliferation of guns into the hands of those who (most of us agree) should never own or possess a gun [sell a gun to an unlicensed person, lose your license and your right to own, possess or ever again have a gun in your custody and control).

Please....explain exactly how licensing gun owners keeps guns out of the hands of criminals and mass shooters....saying it doesn't make it so......as criminals and mass shooters have demonstrated over and over again....since they can't own guns, they cannot get a license to own a gun yet 90% of the gun murderers are convicted felons banned from owning guns.....

And yes.....laws punish those who commit crime....use a gun to commit a crime...you go to jail..that is the way gun laws actually work...anything else is simply to target people who do not commit cimes.

They cant. The gov't puts out a bullshit statistic that says they denied X number of transfers on the NICS so they kept X number of criminals from getting guns.
Of course a percentage of those denied get overturned because the background check was wrong. BUt we don't know what happened to the real criminals who did get denied (if they were actually criminals to begin with). The ones who really wanted a gun went and stole one or bought one from someone who stole it.

 

[Uncensored2008]

My goal is to reduce gun violence in America; gun violence is the taking of a human life by another.

Bull fucking shit.

Your goal is to end civil rights and establish top down authoritarian rule under the Neo-Feudalism that defines your brand of socialism.

Gun control does not mean to me, or most others, to deprive you of your desire and ability to own or possess a firearm; however, there are people who should never ever have a gun in their possession. We should all agree on that simple proposition, and yet some do not - they are the gun nuts (M14 & 2aguy, for example).

Rational people support keeping guns in the hands of sober, sane, honest and law abiding men and women, and responsible people discuss and support means to reduce gun violence by keeping guns out of the hands of those who should not.

How to determine who should and who should not own, possess or ever have in their custody and control a gun is the issue. Irrational and irresponsible people (such as M14 & 2aguy, though they are not alone) reject the premise and believe any restrictions on guns or people to possess them is unlawful (and infringes on an absolute right)

[of late some have modified this position, after the fact proof is established that an individual is one who should be deprived of his or her 2nd A. Right (of course this is too late to protect the victim and assuage his or her family)].

We have a Constitution. What you of the anti-liberty left are doing is waging war on that constitution, Prior restraint of the RIGHT to bear arms is no different than prior restrain of speech. IF you must have a background check prior to speaking, one cannot create the farce of a right.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Huh?:

• George Mason is dead

So is Josef Stalin, but that doesn't keep you from promoting and advocating his ideas.

• The Organized Militia is the National Guard and the Naval and Coast Guard Reserve.

Those are elements, as are the Texas Rangers, the California Rangers, Oklahoma State Posse, et al.

Still, it is the unorganized militia that the Bill of Rights is concerned with.

We do not say that since the 1st mentions the press, that only the press has the right of speech. (although you might, restricting it to the party controlled press.)

• the Militia today is not middle aged fat guys untrained and not under the leadership of Officers Appointed by the State.

Reduced to lying, how pathetic.

• We no longer live in the 18th Century

Nor do we live in the 13th century where all were subject to the whims of the Crown and their appointed overseers, though you work diligently to restore the system you so adore.

• LIes by Omission are damn lies
• PC lies by Omission (See: Art I, sec 8, and clause 15 and 16 (omitted in the post above by PC)

You blatantly lie, constantly,

 

[Uncensored2008]

I believe each state should constitute what they term as a militia and the requirements for membership and training.

What you believe is irrelevant.

The Constitution defines the right to keep and bear arms to be one of THE PEOPLE.