Assault Weapons Ban would be unconstitutional. "A State Militia must be maintained and well regulated"

[BULLDOG]

An Assault weapons ban would take this weapon away from the state citizens, thus negating the right to organize a states militia.

No. The state retains the right to form a state militia, and to regulate it. That is commonly known as the State Guard. It is under the authority of state government, and can not be legally formed by random citizens usurping that authority. You and your buddies can't form a legal state militia just because you bought some guns and camo, and want to.

What law prohibits the formation of militias?

What is a militia? Federal and state laws generally use the term “militia” to refer to all able-bodied residents between certain ages who may be called forth by the government to defend the United States or an individual state. See 10 U.S.C. § 246. When not called forth, they are sometimes referred to as the “unorganized militia.” A group of people who consider themselves part of the able-bodied residents referred to as members of the militia under state or federal law is not legally permitted to activate itself for duty. A private militia that attempts to activate itself for duty, outside of the authority of the state or federal government, is illegal.

There's no law prohibiting the formation of a militia.

See #379.

 

[kaz]

So the founders in writing the Bill of Rights were protecting the right of GOVERNMENT to be armed.

Correct, to protect the Elected Government and the People who elected them from all enemies. First at the local level where most of "the people" were the able bodied white property owners, who were obligated to join the local militia and provide their own personal weapons. They protected the elected Government who were of the People. The elected Governor of the State could call them up to protect the State, as could the elected President and CiC of the nation.

So now the Bill of Rights was to protect government power over the people, you actually said that.



You are the dumbest Democrat ever. Wow, what an accomplishment.

And you know that when it contradicts every writing by every founding father ever.

You have achieved full sheep

In reference to the State Militias " to protect the Elected Government and the People who elected them from all enemies.". There was no standing army.

Restricting the Federal government from confiscating weapons like the real tyrants in England did.

You can't even read. The second gives militias as an EXPLANATION not a limit on the right.

The right is: "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

You've shocked me how flat out stupid you are. I'm shocked that a leftist is as stupid as you are. On this board with the dumbest liberals anywhere. It's staggering

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

The United States constitution clearly states that a "States militia must be well regulated and maintained." A weapon of a "States militia" is an assault rifle. Any ban would violate the United States constitution.

Banning is not needed when the U.S. Government can take the same route they took with Machine Guns and requirements to own one, and my bet is the USSC will uphold the law...

Am I for it?

No, but seeing there are requirements to own certain firearms like Machine Guns mean that it could also be applied to AR-15’s and weapons like it...

a .227 semi-automatic hunting rifle functions the same as an AR-15.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

In order to be affective, a civilian led militia MUST possess weapons equal to those possessed by government.

Including missiles and nukes? I was listening to conservative icon Mark Levin talk about this last week and he would firmly disagree with you.

Well then; apparently Mark Levin doesn’t understand the purpose of a civilian comprised militia. Do you?

I’d love to hear you call in to his show and debate it with him.

Just to be clear you support civilians legally owning missiles and nukes. Is that correct?

And there we go the dumbest argument in the 2nd Amendment debate. "Do you want people to own a nuke". Not withstanding how much one costs you also have the storage and maintenance issues. You do know those things are radioactive ?

 

[kaz]

So now the Bill of Rights was to protect government power over the people, you actually said that.



You are the dumbest Democrat ever. Wow, what an accomplishment.

And you know that when it contradicts every writing by every founding father ever.

You have achieved full sheep

In reference to the State Militias " to protect the Elected Government and the People who elected them from all enemies.". There was no standing army.

Restricting the Federal government from confiscating weapons like the real tyrants in England did.

BlindBoob remembers the Constitutional convention:

James Madison: OK, guys, let's brainstorm here. Everyone shout out basic human rights that the government should never be allowed to infringe on.

Founding father: Free speech, government should never be able to infringe on our free speech!

James Madison: Got it! Next!

Founding father: Due process! Government should never be able to not provide us due process when we are accused of a crime!

James Madison: Got it! Next!

BlindBoob: Guns! The people should never be able to keep guns from government!

James Madison: Um, these are the rights of the people, not the government

BlindBoob: The people ... are the government!!!!!



So that leaves the question then, so why were they protecting rights of the people FROM government in the first place? Hmm ...

 

[BlindBoo]

So the founders in writing the Bill of Rights were protecting the right of GOVERNMENT to be armed.

Correct, to protect the Elected Government and the People who elected them from all enemies. First at the local level where most of "the people" were the able bodied white property owners, who were obligated to join the local militia and provide their own personal weapons. They protected the elected Government who were of the People. The elected Governor of the State could call them up to protect the State, as could the elected President and CiC of the nation.

So now the Bill of Rights was to protect government power over the people, you actually said that.



You are the dumbest Democrat ever. Wow, what an accomplishment.

And you know that when it contradicts every writing by every founding father ever.

You have achieved full sheep

In reference to the State Militias " to protect the Elected Government and the People who elected them from all enemies.". There was no standing army.

Restricting the Federal government from confiscating weapons like the real tyrants in England did.

You can't even read. The second gives militias as an EXPLANATION not a limit on the right.

The right is: "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

You've shocked me how flat out stupid you are. I'm shocked that a leftist is as stupid as you are. On this board with the dumbest liberals anywhere. It's staggering

Well it certainly protected the right of the militiamen's weapons whom President Washington federalized to put down the armed rebellion in Western PA during 1794. It doesn't give the militias or the people the right to rebel against the elected government.

 

[kaz]

So the founders in writing the Bill of Rights were protecting the right of GOVERNMENT to be armed.

Correct, to protect the Elected Government and the People who elected them from all enemies. First at the local level where most of "the people" were the able bodied white property owners, who were obligated to join the local militia and provide their own personal weapons. They protected the elected Government who were of the People. The elected Governor of the State could call them up to protect the State, as could the elected President and CiC of the nation.

So now the Bill of Rights was to protect government power over the people, you actually said that.



You are the dumbest Democrat ever. Wow, what an accomplishment.

And you know that when it contradicts every writing by every founding father ever.

You have achieved full sheep

In reference to the State Militias " to protect the Elected Government and the People who elected them from all enemies.". There was no standing army.

Restricting the Federal government from confiscating weapons like the real tyrants in England did.

You can't even read. The second gives militias as an EXPLANATION not a limit on the right.

The right is: "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

You've shocked me how flat out stupid you are. I'm shocked that a leftist is as stupid as you are. On this board with the dumbest liberals anywhere. It's staggering

Well it certainly protected the right of the militiamen's weapons whom President Washington federalized to put down the armed rebellion in Western PA during 1794. It doesn't give the militias or the people the right to rebel against the elected government.

And once again you fundamentally don't understand our Constitution.

1) The government doesn't give us any rights. God gives us our rights. The Constitution is the PEOPLE giving certain enumerated powers to GOVERNMENT to PROTECT our rights. The Government doesn't give us shit.

2) That government didn't give us the right to leave is irrelevant. It doesn't give GOVERNMENT the power to stop us from leaving.

Have you ever taken a history class? Shit ...

I still can't get over that you think the Bill of Rights protects GOVERNMENT.

BlindBoob: You see kaz, in the middle of saying government can't take our free speech or free religion or the right to a jury trial, they decided to protect the right of government to have guns because government is the people, so they don't need to protect people from the government, kaz.

So the bill or rights was unnecessary because government is the people, but we need to be sure that government can have guns. You actually argued that

 

[BlindBoo]

So the founders in writing the Bill of Rights were protecting the right of GOVERNMENT to be armed.

Correct, to protect the Elected Government and the People who elected them from all enemies. First at the local level where most of "the people" were the able bodied white property owners, who were obligated to join the local militia and provide their own personal weapons. They protected the elected Government who were of the People. The elected Governor of the State could call them up to protect the State, as could the elected President and CiC of the nation.

So now the Bill of Rights was to protect government power over the people, you actually said that.



You are the dumbest Democrat ever. Wow, what an accomplishment.

And you know that when it contradicts every writing by every founding father ever.

You have achieved full sheep

In reference to the State Militias " to protect the Elected Government and the People who elected them from all enemies.". There was no standing army.

Restricting the Federal government from confiscating weapons like the real tyrants in England did.

You can't even read. The second gives militias as an EXPLANATION not a limit on the right.

The right is: "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

You've shocked me how flat out stupid you are. I'm shocked that a leftist is as stupid as you are. On this board with the dumbest liberals anywhere. It's staggering

Well it certainly protected the right of the militiamen's weapons whom President Washington federalized to put down the armed rebellion in Western PA during 1794. It doesn't give the militias or the people the right to rebel against the elected government.

And once again you fundamentally don't understand our Constitution.

1) The government doesn't give us any rights. God gives us our rights. The Constitution is the PEOPLE giving certain enumerated powers to GOVERNMENT to PROTECT our rights. The Government doesn't give us shit.

2) That government didn't give us the right to leave is irrelevant. It doesn't give GOVERNMENT the power to stop us from leaving.

Have you ever taken a history class? Shit ...

I still can't get over that you think the Bill of Rights protects GOVERNMENT.

BlindBoob: You see kaz, in the middle of saying government can't take our free speech or free religion or the right to a jury trial, they decided to protect the right of government to have guns because government is the people, so they don't need to protect people from the government, kaz.

So the bill or rights was unnecessary because government is the people, but we need to be sure that government can have guns. You actually argued that

"I still can't get over that you think the Bill of Rights protects GOVERNMENT."

As stated, the 2nd Amendment protected against the federal government from seizing weapons like the Brits did. The local and state militia were the first line of defense for the local communities, the states, and then the nation. Thus protecting not only the citizens of the nation but also the citizens we elected to represent us in the government.

Is that a foreign concept for you?

 

[InspectorDetector]

The National Guard has many assault rifles and many other cool weapons. They are the State Militias, who were always ultimately under the command of the CiC. Not the private gun clubs. "A well regulated Militia," means trained in the art of war.

STUPID ****. The 2A refers to a right of the PEOPLE, free and clear of the government, to carry and bear arms against the GOVERNMENT, and you think it is the right of the government to carry out armies. Show us where it says that here:

Army National Guard

www.nationalguard.com

or here:

National Guard (United States) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

View attachment 478066

As you can tell by my sig - I LOVE that Washington saying, always have. You know, it's funny, but no one ever seems to get the least bit upset about the 1st Amendment, you know "freedom of the press".......when they lie like hell to the people and constantly get away with it.

All I can say about an "assault" weapons ban or confiscation is, I would hate to be the poor, unlucky soul who would have to be the first through the door.....

Americans (I mean TRUE Americans) have had enough of this communist bullshit.

 

[kaz]

So the founders in writing the Bill of Rights were protecting the right of GOVERNMENT to be armed.

Correct, to protect the Elected Government and the People who elected them from all enemies. First at the local level where most of "the people" were the able bodied white property owners, who were obligated to join the local militia and provide their own personal weapons. They protected the elected Government who were of the People. The elected Governor of the State could call them up to protect the State, as could the elected President and CiC of the nation.

So now the Bill of Rights was to protect government power over the people, you actually said that.



You are the dumbest Democrat ever. Wow, what an accomplishment.

And you know that when it contradicts every writing by every founding father ever.

You have achieved full sheep

In reference to the State Militias " to protect the Elected Government and the People who elected them from all enemies.". There was no standing army.

Restricting the Federal government from confiscating weapons like the real tyrants in England did.

You can't even read. The second gives militias as an EXPLANATION not a limit on the right.

The right is: "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

You've shocked me how flat out stupid you are. I'm shocked that a leftist is as stupid as you are. On this board with the dumbest liberals anywhere. It's staggering

Well it certainly protected the right of the militiamen's weapons whom President Washington federalized to put down the armed rebellion in Western PA during 1794. It doesn't give the militias or the people the right to rebel against the elected government.

And once again you fundamentally don't understand our Constitution.

1) The government doesn't give us any rights. God gives us our rights. The Constitution is the PEOPLE giving certain enumerated powers to GOVERNMENT to PROTECT our rights. The Government doesn't give us shit.

2) That government didn't give us the right to leave is irrelevant. It doesn't give GOVERNMENT the power to stop us from leaving.

Have you ever taken a history class? Shit ...

I still can't get over that you think the Bill of Rights protects GOVERNMENT.

BlindBoob: You see kaz, in the middle of saying government can't take our free speech or free religion or the right to a jury trial, they decided to protect the right of government to have guns because government is the people, so they don't need to protect people from the government, kaz.

So the bill or rights was unnecessary because government is the people, but we need to be sure that government can have guns. You actually argued that

"I still can't get over that you think the Bill of Rights protects GOVERNMENT."

As stated, the 2nd Amendment protected against the federal government from seizing weapons like the Brits did. The local and state militia were the first line of defense for the local communities, the states, and then the nation. Thus protecting not only the citizens of the nation but also the citizens we elected to represent us in the government.

Is that a foreign concept for you?

So while the FF's went around writing that a free population is an armed population, they were worried that State governments would be disarmed by the Federal government. Something none of them ever said. In fact they clearly believed the Federal government had no such power to disarm State governments. They put it in the middle of powers withheld FROM government, even though the rest were actually limits on the power of the people. Oh, and according to you, none of the Bill of Rights should have been necessary because "government is the people."

And all this makes sense to you. You are a riot, wow

 

[BlindBoo]

So while the FF's went around writing that a free population is an armed population

Right, because to the FF's the Citizens to be armed were mostly white male property owners which also happed to be the ones eligible for office too.

 

[kaz]

So while the FF's went around writing that a free population is an armed population

Right, because to the FF's the Citizens to be armed were mostly white male property owners which also happed to be the ones eligible for office too.

And this government that "is the people" we can according to you totally trust just had one party with the tiniest of majority power steamroll the other to entirely change our election process to allow themselves to win every election now and in the future by just taking it if they lose like they did in November.

If there is ANYTHING that should be bipartisan, it is changing how we do elections in this country. Else we get what we are, a despotic third world dictatorship. A third world dictatorship that safely is protected from having their guns taken from them .... according to you ....

Also, you still can't read. If you could, you'd know militias are an explanation of the right to be armed, not a limit on it

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

An Assault weapons ban would take this weapon away from the state citizens, thus negating the right to organize a states militia.

No. The state retains the right to form a state militia, and to regulate it. That is commonly known as the State Guard. It is under the authority of state government, and can not be legally formed by random citizens usurping that authority. You and your buddies can't form a legal state militia just because you bought some guns and camo, and want to.

What law prohibits the formation of militias?

Here is the one for Texas. Other states are similar.
Const. art. I, § 24. Prohibition on private military units: Texas law makes it illegal for groups of people to organize as private militias without permission from the state.

It's illegal to "operate outside the states authority". That prohibits certain activities. It doesn't outlaw the existance of militias.

There are four militia groups in Texas, near as I can tell.

 

[Winston]

All of the above pertains to a "Well Regulated Militia" which by the way was used all the way through the Civil War.

Nothing there has to do with personal protection.

“The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” – Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

Yep, Adams believed the people should not be prevented from owning guns. Well, except for Catholics, Native Americans, free men of color, indentured servants, slaves, women, and a whole host of others.

 

[Slade3200]

The militia is controlled by the people.

You really never grasp a discussion. I'll try to give it one more shot.

Let's say you're into golf. The club you belong to says,

Because we love well disciplined golfers, your right as a member at our club to golf shall not be limited. Golf all you want!

That isn't a limit on your right to golf, it's saying they expect you are like them.

Is this really that hard for you?

That’s a great analogy given the tournament I just watched. Now that my right to golf shall not be limited does that mean I can take 20 clubs with me during a tournament and give myself 2 mulligans a round, drive a cart across the greens, tee off during somebody elses tee time, etc?

Yes, your right to have guns means that you are Constitutionally protected when you to cheat in shooting competitions. That was exactly my point.

Every time I think you can't be more stupid than I already think you are, you prove me wrong.

I mean oh my God, so kaz, you're saying the second amendment means I can cheat in shooting competitions!!!!

You are a total fucktard. Unbelievable

Its your analogy. Its only cheating if you are breaking the rules. In the real life scenario you the "rules" are laws and regulations that you are saying are not constitutional. Get it?

 

[Slade3200]

In order to be affective, a civilian led militia MUST possess weapons equal to those possessed by government.

Including missiles and nukes? I was listening to conservative icon Mark Levin talk about this last week and he would firmly disagree with you.

Well then; apparently Mark Levin doesn’t understand the purpose of a civilian comprised militia. Do you?

I’d love to hear you call in to his show and debate it with him.

Just to be clear you support civilians legally owning missiles and nukes. Is that correct?

And there we go the dumbest argument in the 2nd Amendment debate. "Do you want people to own a nuke". Not withstanding how much one costs you also have the storage and maintenance issues. You do know those things are radioactive ?

Its a hypothetical to showcase the absurdity of the argument that no regulations should be enforced and citizens should be able to own the same firepower that our military holds. This is what BrokeLoser was saying. He is an idiot, right?

 

[kaz]

The militia is controlled by the people.

You really never grasp a discussion. I'll try to give it one more shot.

Let's say you're into golf. The club you belong to says,

Because we love well disciplined golfers, your right as a member at our club to golf shall not be limited. Golf all you want!

That isn't a limit on your right to golf, it's saying they expect you are like them.

Is this really that hard for you?

That’s a great analogy given the tournament I just watched. Now that my right to golf shall not be limited does that mean I can take 20 clubs with me during a tournament and give myself 2 mulligans a round, drive a cart across the greens, tee off during somebody elses tee time, etc?

Yes, your right to have guns means that you are Constitutionally protected when you to cheat in shooting competitions. That was exactly my point.

Every time I think you can't be more stupid than I already think you are, you prove me wrong.

I mean oh my God, so kaz, you're saying the second amendment means I can cheat in shooting competitions!!!!

You are a total fucktard. Unbelievable

Its your analogy. Its only cheating if you are breaking the rules. In the real life scenario you the "rules" are laws and regulations that you are saying are not constitutional. Get it?

You and BlindBoob are just too stupid

 

[Winston]

Funny how the 2nd Amendment also doesn't have an except for clause, no mentions of bans, but is pretty damn specific about the rights of the people.

In the context of a "Well Regulated Militia..."

I've also posted several quotes by the founding fathers that verify an individuals right to self-defense.

I must have missed those. Can you post those (only) again?

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” – Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

See, that quote right there pretty much sums it up. No man shall ever be "debarred", which means excluding or prohibiting someone from doing something. So, no man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. Now, it does not say any arms, it does not say all arms. If assault weapons are banned, well that does not "debar" anyone of arms. There are still shotguns, handguns, and rifles.

I mean that is what makes the gun debate so useless. Suppose you want to require trigger locks on all guns stored in a home with children. The gun nuts jump up and shout, "you are trying to take our guns away". Let's suppose you want to limit magazine capacity. "You are trying to take our guns away". Even an assault weapons ban, "You are trying to take our guns away".

I mean there is an easy solution. I mean we have been down this road before. When a black man is pulled over by police, within moments, dozens of armed black men show up, preferable carrying assault weapons. When a Karen chases some kid down because she thinks he stole her cellphone, again, dozens of armed black men show up When courts seek to sentence poor black men, dozens of armed black men gather in the courthouse square. When a black family moves in to a white neighborhood, well they are escorted by dozens of heavily armed black men.

The Black Lives Matter movement needs to change tactics. They should organize marches, big black men, dressed to the nines with their boots shining, their brass belt buckles and buttons glistening, stepping in precession like a black fraternity rush, and all carrying assault weapons.

Same for the dreamers. Yep, they should just march, and carry heavy arms. Bandoliers and cowboy hats, gleaming pistols on both sides. Muslims, yep, them too. Wearing traditional clothing, long beards, and carrying big ass guns while marching down the street. Hell yeah, make it like colonial times. Require all Muslims attending Mosque to carry assault rifles because some of the colonies required at least one member of land owning white families to carry a gun to church. Hell, it is an American tradition.

Nope, that shit starts to happen all over, you watch how fast all you redneck gun proponents suddenly start believing in gun control.

 

[BULLDOG]

An Assault weapons ban would take this weapon away from the state citizens, thus negating the right to organize a states militia.

No. The state retains the right to form a state militia, and to regulate it. That is commonly known as the State Guard. It is under the authority of state government, and can not be legally formed by random citizens usurping that authority. You and your buddies can't form a legal state militia just because you bought some guns and camo, and want to.

What law prohibits the formation of militias?

Here is the one for Texas. Other states are similar.
Const. art. I, § 24. Prohibition on private military units: Texas law makes it illegal for groups of people to organize as private militias without permission from the state.

It's illegal to "operate outside the states authority". That prohibits certain activities. It doesn't outlaw the existance of militias.

There are four militia groups in Texas, near as I can tell.

If they aren't state sanctioned, they are illegal. Considering the gerrymandered right wing grip on Texas politics, I understand why no effort is made to enforce the law.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

All of the above pertains to a "Well Regulated Militia" which by the way was used all the way through the Civil War.

Nothing there has to do with personal protection.

“The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” – Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

Yep, Adams believed the people should not be prevented from owning guns. Well, except for Catholics, Native Americans, free men of color, indentured servants, slaves, women, and a whole host of others.

You read way too much into that. He said the Constitution should be interpreted in such a way.

So, do you believe that Catholics and Native Americans and all those other people should be allowed to have guns? Because I do.

Instead, maybe you just want to take all guns away from ******.