What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

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

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
9,669
Reaction score
2,460
Points
170
Location
New Mexico
Police did not exist to any significant degree till about 1900, so before then there was only the militia.
We certainly have police forces now...don't we...
The fact we rarely need the militia now, does not mean it does not still exist and we no longer have any need for it.
Yes...it does

The fact we have a police force no does not mean we need individual firearm less, but more, since police are always inherently corrupt, and like 1933 Germany, are always the biggest threat any country ever faces.

The whole point of a democratic republic is that the general population has to be the main source of authority and power.
When you have mercenary police and military, you have created new threats, not removed any old ones.
Only citizen soldiers and public volunteer militia should ever have arms in any democratic republic.
Private mercenary armed forces like the police and the US Army should have remained illegal.
They are the only real threat this society faces or ever faced.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
9,669
Reaction score
2,460
Points
170
Location
New Mexico
I'm adamant about "shall not be infringed". The regulations, gun control and bans only affect law abiding citizens. Crimes committed with a firearm should be prosecuted severely. 20 to life in prison and in some cases the death penalty. Punish the criminal not the law abiding citizens.
Wrong.

Firearm regulatory measures enacted consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence is not to ‘punish’ gunowners.
they are infringements which violates the second amendment
How so?
because they are
WAITING PERIOD INFRINGEMENT YES OR NO?
No, of course not. As long as people have the right to keep and bare arms in their homes then their rights are being upheld. There are good arguments to be made for cities like NY that make it near impossible to get a permit to get a gun. I'll give some credence to those cases. But those who assume that any laws regulating guns as unconstitutional is just silly. They've had laws regulating guns since the adoption of the Bill of Rights.

NOT federal laws.
Any gun regulations have to be state or local.
Clearly the founders were correct to ban any and all federal firearms laws.
The first gun control laws was the Sullivan Act of 1911, and it was not federal.
There were no federal gun laws at all until after WWI, and a combination of Prohibition and cheap surplus Thompson machineguns caused a problem. But they were wrong even then to pass federal gun laws. The solution was to end the federal Prohibition laws, not add more illegal federal laws.
 

San Souci

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2020
Messages
2,854
Reaction score
2,273
Points
1,940
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.

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.

A "militia" is comprised of civilians whom are NOT under the command of government. We all learned that by third grade...you didn't?

LOL. Well you do display a third grade level education. Most people kept learning after that. Here you go.

"On August 7, 1794, President Washington issued a proclamation, calling out the militia and ordering the disaffected westerners to return to their homes. Washington's order mobilized an army of approximately 13,000 — as large as the one that had defeated the British — under the command of General Harry Lee, the then-Governor of Virginia and father of Robert E. Lee. Washington himself, in a show of presidential authority, set out at the head of the troops to suppress the uprising. This was the first use of the Militia Law of 1792 setting a precedent for the use of the militia to "execute the laws of the union, (and) suppress insurrections," asserting the right of the national government to enforce order in one state with troops raised in other states. Even more importantly, it was the first test of power of the new federal government, establishing its primacy in disputes with individual states. In the end, a dozen or so men were arrested, sent to Philadelphia to trial and released after pardons by Washington. "

So ya watch The History Channel. That was The Whiskey Rebellion. And the RESULTS are the MASSIVE Income Tax we have today. Even great men can't read the future of their mistakes.
 

Smokin' OP

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2021
Messages
1,302
Reaction score
594
Points
163
Location
Florida
I'm adamant about "shall not be infringed". The regulations, gun control and bans only affect law abiding citizens. Crimes committed with a firearm should be prosecuted severely. 20 to life in prison and in some cases the death penalty. Punish the criminal not the law abiding citizens.
Wrong.

Firearm regulatory measures enacted consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence is not to ‘punish’ gunowners.
they are infringements which violates the second amendment
How so?
because they are
WAITING PERIOD INFRINGEMENT YES OR NO?
No, of course not. As long as people have the right to keep and bare arms in their homes then their rights are being upheld. There are good arguments to be made for cities like NY that make it near impossible to get a permit to get a gun. I'll give some credence to those cases. But those who assume that any laws regulating guns as unconstitutional is just silly. They've had laws regulating guns since the adoption of the Bill of Rights.

NOT federal laws.
Any gun regulations have to be state or local.
Clearly the founders were correct to ban any and all federal firearms laws.
The first gun control laws was the Sullivan Act of 1911, and it was not federal.
There were no federal gun laws at all until after WWI, and a combination of Prohibition and cheap surplus Thompson machineguns caused a problem. But they were wrong even then to pass federal gun laws. The solution was to end the federal Prohibition laws, not add more illegal federal laws.

State and local regulations?

When did the "founders" ban gun regulations?
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
9,669
Reaction score
2,460
Points
170
Location
New Mexico
Perhaps you can name a state where private militias are legal.
The state of imagination of fanatical firearm fondlers. Elsewhere, the Constitution applies.

The U.S. Constitution and state laws use the term “militia” to refer to all able-bodied residents between certain ages who may be called forth by the government when there is a specific need; but private individuals have no legal authority to activate themselves for militia duty outside the authority of the federal or state government. The ... Second Amendment does not protect private militia activity, pointing to decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court in 1886 and 2008 making clear that the Second Amendment “does not prevent the prohibition of private paramilitary organizations.” ...
All 50 states prohibit private, unauthorized groups from engaging in activities reserved for the state militia, including law enforcement activities.
The people are the militia they are the last defense against tyranny of the democrats
And you are an idiot.
and as always you're illinformed
So which states are private, non governmental approved militias legal in?
you don't allow tyrants sole authority over self-defense state or federal
That's why we have a second amendment
That's an interesting idea. Now, can you name a state that private militias are legal in?
North Carolina
G.S. 127A-7 The unorganized militia shall consist of all other able-bodied citizens of the State and of the United States and all other able-bodied persons who have or shall declare their intention to become citizens of the United States, who shall be at least 17 years of age, except those who have been convicted of a felony or discharged from any component of the military under other than honorable conditions.
I'm not aware of any N. Carolina militias that have been in continuous existence since 1792.

View attachment 479249
Because you do not seem to know what the unorganized militia is.

From Heller:
"...the militia is assumed by Article I already to be in existence. Congress is given the power to “provide for calling forth the militia,” §8, cl. 15; and the power not to create, but to “organiz[e]” it—and not to organize “a” militia, which is what one would expect if the militia were to be a federal creation, but to organize “the” militia, connoting a body already in existence, ibid., cl. 16. This is fully consistent with the ordinary definition of the militia as all able-bodied men. "

Essentially, the unorganized militia has always existed by definition.
The Dick Act established two classes of militia. The NG being one and the "unorganized militia" being the other.

It ONLY cover MALES 17-45. No one else. It also doesn't cover postal workers and a host of other exceptions

And Miller established that militia weapons CAN be regulated (machine guns etc.)

Personal protection was never part of the 2A until Scalia and his judicial activism in Heller

The Miller case was intentionally a set up and not a valid test of anything.

{...

The defendants Jack Miller and Frank Layton were indicted on charges of unlawfully and feloniously transporting in interstate commerce from Oklahoma to Arkansas an unregistered double barrel 12-gauge shot gun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length, in violation of the National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C.S. § 1132c et seq. ("Act"). At trial in federal district court, the defendants filed a demurrer to the indictment alleging that the Act was not a revenue measure but an attempt to usurp police power reserved to the states and so was unconstitutional. Defendants further argued that the Act violated the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. The district court held that the section of the Act that made it unlawful to transport an unregistered firearm in interstate commerce was unconstitutional as violative of the Second Amendment. It accordingly sustained the demurrer and quashed the indictment. The government took a direct appeal to the Supreme Court.

In reality, Ragon was in favor of the gun control law and ruled the law unconstitutional because he knew that Miller, who was a known bank robber and had just testified against the rest of his gang in court, would have to go into hiding as soon as he was released. He knew that Miller would not pay a lawyer to argue the case at the Supreme Court and would simply disappear. Therefore, the government's appeal to the Supreme Court would surely be a victory because Miller and his attorney would not even be present at the argument.[2] [3]
...}


And besides, the only weapon the Miller case actually referred to was a sawed off shotgun. Which clearly the court was totally wrong about since short multi projectile weapons were important weapons of war, going back to colonial blunderbuses.

The Miller case actually reinforced the need for the unorganized militia to have machineguns, since they were valid weapons of war. It only ruled against weapons that had no use in war.

The unorganized militia actually includes anyone who can defend, and when they refer to males 17 to 45, they are referring essentially to who can be involuntarily drafted. They is why they left out postal workers and a "host of other exemptions". They are referring to an involuntary draft, and that has nothing to do with the fact those under the age of 17 and those over the age of 45, as well as any gender, do have the right of defense or themselves, home, muncipality, state, and country. And surely you must agree that there were representatives of all these groups in the original American Revolution. So the 2nd amendment prohibition against any federal weapons laws must always stand.
There is no valid reason for any federal firearm law, at any time, and there never will be.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
9,669
Reaction score
2,460
Points
170
Location
New Mexico
It's amusing to see the insecure gun-dependent fantasize about a mythical past once upon a time in the West when cowpokes could mince around with their man-enhancers displayed on their hips with impunity, naughty-talkin', tobacco-chewin' peacocks with a decidedly macho demeanor.

In actuality, the laws of Tombstone circa 1880 required visitors, upon entering town to disarm, either at a hotel or a lawman's office. Many legendary "wild west" cattle towns, such as Dodge City, Abilene, and Deadwood, had similar restrictions.

it was recognized that the townsfolk had a right to protect themselves from the jiggy, rootin' tootin' galoots.

View attachment 479571
“The only thing that stops a bad guy with an easily-obtained gun
is a rich guy with a yacht!


NRA leader took "security retreat" on yacht to Bahamas

Wrong.
Essentially only those intending on drinking and gambling were to disarm.
With wild animals like snakes and bears, not to mention robbers, hostile natives, etc. , disarming people without cause would be irresponsible.
Residents, those in town just to pick up supplies, etc., were all exempt.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
9,669
Reaction score
2,460
Points
170
Location
New Mexico
I'm adamant about "shall not be infringed". The regulations, gun control and bans only affect law abiding citizens. Crimes committed with a firearm should be prosecuted severely. 20 to life in prison and in some cases the death penalty. Punish the criminal not the law abiding citizens.
Wrong.

Firearm regulatory measures enacted consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence is not to ‘punish’ gunowners.
they are infringements which violates the second amendment
How so?
because they are
WAITING PERIOD INFRINGEMENT YES OR NO?
No, of course not. As long as people have the right to keep and bare arms in their homes then their rights are being upheld. There are good arguments to be made for cities like NY that make it near impossible to get a permit to get a gun. I'll give some credence to those cases. But those who assume that any laws regulating guns as unconstitutional is just silly. They've had laws regulating guns since the adoption of the Bill of Rights.

There's no good argument to deny permits and NYC's skyrocketting murder rate proves it.
I believe a city has the right to ban the carrying of firearms in public spaces just as a private business has the right to ban guns on their property. It’s been done since the old western times when people come into town and needed to check their firearms. So I don’t see how murder rates are significantly affected by lack of Permits. I do think the constitution permits law abiding citizens citizens to own a firearm at their home or private property so that they can defend them selves if need be.

I can't argue with that.
Cities can do what they think is best, although I think the War on Drugs, poor police training, etc., are the cause of problems in cities, not firearms themselves.
It is mainly all federal weapons laws that I believe are totally and completely in violation of the 2nd amendment prohibition against any federal firearm laws.
 

FA_Q2

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
19,796
Reaction score
3,664
Points
290
Location
Washington State
Police did not exist to any significant degree till about 1900, so before then there was only the militia.
We certainly have police forces now...don't we...
The fact we rarely need the militia now, does not mean it does not still exist and we no longer have any need for it.
Yes...it does

The fact we have a police force no does not mean we need individual firearm less, but more, since police are always inherently corrupt, and like 1933 Germany, are always the biggest threat any country ever faces.

The whole point of a democratic republic is that the general population has to be the main source of authority and power.
When you have mercenary police and military, you have created new threats, not removed any old ones.
Only citizen soldiers and public volunteer militia should ever have arms in any democratic republic.
Private mercenary armed forces like the police and the US Army should have remained illegal.
They are the only real threat this society faces or ever faced.
If I give you that standing armies are some of the only threats this nation faces, that would include standing armies of other nations. IF, as your statement does not actually make clear but does make me think you may, you disagree with standing armies then what is your response to the armies of other nations?
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
9,669
Reaction score
2,460
Points
170
Location
New Mexico
I'm adamant about "shall not be infringed". The regulations, gun control and bans only affect law abiding citizens. Crimes committed with a firearm should be prosecuted severely. 20 to life in prison and in some cases the death penalty. Punish the criminal not the law abiding citizens.
Wrong.

Firearm regulatory measures enacted consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence is not to ‘punish’ gunowners.
they are infringements which violates the second amendment
How so?
because they are
WAITING PERIOD INFRINGEMENT YES OR NO?
No, of course not. As long as people have the right to keep and bare arms in their homes then their rights are being upheld. There are good arguments to be made for cities like NY that make it near impossible to get a permit to get a gun. I'll give some credence to those cases. But those who assume that any laws regulating guns as unconstitutional is just silly. They've had laws regulating guns since the adoption of the Bill of Rights.

NOT federal laws.
Any gun regulations have to be state or local.
Clearly the founders were correct to ban any and all federal firearms laws.
The first gun control laws was the Sullivan Act of 1911, and it was not federal.
There were no federal gun laws at all until after WWI, and a combination of Prohibition and cheap surplus Thompson machineguns caused a problem. But they were wrong even then to pass federal gun laws. The solution was to end the federal Prohibition laws, not add more illegal federal laws.

State and local regulations?

When did the "founders" ban gun regulations?

I do not like state and local firearm regulations, but I see no way to prevent them or call them illegal.
But clearly the Bill of Rights was entirely just restrictions on the federal government, and the 2nd amendment bans any and all federal firearms legislation that in any way would restrict.
There is an inherent individual right to firearms, as reinforced not only by incorporating the 2nd amendment as an individual right, but the 4th and 5th amendments implying the individual rights of defense.
But implied rights are not absolute so it is hard to argue they can't be restricted.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
9,669
Reaction score
2,460
Points
170
Location
New Mexico
Police did not exist to any significant degree till about 1900, so before then there was only the militia.
We certainly have police forces now...don't we...
The fact we rarely need the militia now, does not mean it does not still exist and we no longer have any need for it.
Yes...it does

The fact we have a police force no does not mean we need individual firearm less, but more, since police are always inherently corrupt, and like 1933 Germany, are always the biggest threat any country ever faces.

The whole point of a democratic republic is that the general population has to be the main source of authority and power.
When you have mercenary police and military, you have created new threats, not removed any old ones.
Only citizen soldiers and public volunteer militia should ever have arms in any democratic republic.
Private mercenary armed forces like the police and the US Army should have remained illegal.
They are the only real threat this society faces or ever faced.
If I give you that standing armies are some of the only threats this nation faces, that would include standing armies of other nations. IF, as your statement does not actually make clear but does make me think you may, you disagree with standing armies then what is your response to the armies of other nations?

The proper response to standing armies of other nations is to do what Switzerland did and have mandatory universal weapons training so that a citizen soldier defense can be instantly called upon.
The only standing army forces we need are for training facilities, holding a few strategic points, arms maintenance, etc.
That is only a tiny fraction of the mercenary armed forces we have now, who are illegally deployed all over the world.
There should be no US troops in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea, Guantanamo, etc.
There presence violates international and US law.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
9,669
Reaction score
2,460
Points
170
Location
New Mexico
I'm adamant about "shall not be infringed". The regulations, gun control and bans only affect law abiding citizens. Crimes committed with a firearm should be prosecuted severely. 20 to life in prison and in some cases the death penalty. Punish the criminal not the law abiding citizens.
Wrong.

Firearm regulatory measures enacted consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence is not to ‘punish’ gunowners.
they are infringements which violates the second amendment
How so?
because they are
WAITING PERIOD INFRINGEMENT YES OR NO?
No, of course not. As long as people have the right to keep and bare arms in their homes then their rights are being upheld. There are good arguments to be made for cities like NY that make it near impossible to get a permit to get a gun. I'll give some credence to those cases. But those who assume that any laws regulating guns as unconstitutional is just silly. They've had laws regulating guns since the adoption of the Bill of Rights.

There's no good argument to deny permits and NYC's skyrocketting murder rate proves it.
I believe a city has the right to ban the carrying of firearms in public spaces just as a private business has the right to ban guns on their property. It’s been done since the old western times when people come into town and needed to check their firearms. So I don’t see how murder rates are significantly affected by lack of Permits. I do think the constitution permits law abiding citizens citizens to own a firearm at their home or private property so that they can defend them selves if need be.

A city doesn't have a right to violate the Constitution. Mayors, cops, council members take an oath to uphold the Constitution. They are exempt from the law of the land.

The increased murder rate proves the need for people to protect themselves outside their homes.
They’ve had rules like this since the adoption of the constitution. Perhaps you’re not interpreting it correctly.

Wrong.
The first gun laws that were not immediately struck down was the Sullivan Art of 1911.
 

FA_Q2

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
19,796
Reaction score
3,664
Points
290
Location
Washington State
Police did not exist to any significant degree till about 1900, so before then there was only the militia.
We certainly have police forces now...don't we...
The fact we rarely need the militia now, does not mean it does not still exist and we no longer have any need for it.
Yes...it does

The fact we have a police force no does not mean we need individual firearm less, but more, since police are always inherently corrupt, and like 1933 Germany, are always the biggest threat any country ever faces.

The whole point of a democratic republic is that the general population has to be the main source of authority and power.
When you have mercenary police and military, you have created new threats, not removed any old ones.
Only citizen soldiers and public volunteer militia should ever have arms in any democratic republic.
Private mercenary armed forces like the police and the US Army should have remained illegal.
They are the only real threat this society faces or ever faced.
If I give you that standing armies are some of the only threats this nation faces, that would include standing armies of other nations. IF, as your statement does not actually make clear but does make me think you may, you disagree with standing armies then what is your response to the armies of other nations?

The proper response to standing armies of other nations is to do what Switzerland did and have mandatory universal weapons training so that a citizen soldier defense can be instantly called upon.
The only standing army forces we need are for training facilities, holding a few strategic points, arms maintenance, etc.
That is only a tiny fraction of the mercenary armed forces we have now, who are illegally deployed all over the world.
There should be no US troops in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea, Guantanamo, etc.
There presence violates international and US law.
I do not think that would work. I have little doubt that if we did not modernize our military capability then whenever it would be in the economic interest of China or Russia to simply wipe a few factories, oil pumps or any other competing infrastructure off the map they would.

An armed citizenry may prevent an outright occupation, though that is debatable, it does not stop the type of meddling that we are doing all around the world right now. If you think China would not be in our business the same way we are in Iraq I think you are being terribly naive about what other nations are willing to do. Remember, we have been actively engaged in fucking up the most armed populations on the entire planet. In many areas in the ME, not owning an AK would make you a pariah.
 
OP
5

52ndStreet

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2008
Messages
3,296
Reaction score
343
Points
130
You all know where the U.S. government , and many Politicians are headed. They eventually want to confiscate all rifles and handguns from all citizens somewhere down the road. As part of the United Nations one world government takeover of the entire Earth.New World Order. This is what the Gun control people , and groups won't tell you.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
66,952
Reaction score
3,647
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
9,669
Reaction score
2,460
Points
170
Location
New Mexico
Police did not exist to any significant degree till about 1900, so before then there was only the militia.
We certainly have police forces now...don't we...
The fact we rarely need the militia now, does not mean it does not still exist and we no longer have any need for it.
Yes...it does

The fact we have a police force no does not mean we need individual firearm less, but more, since police are always inherently corrupt, and like 1933 Germany, are always the biggest threat any country ever faces.

The whole point of a democratic republic is that the general population has to be the main source of authority and power.
When you have mercenary police and military, you have created new threats, not removed any old ones.
Only citizen soldiers and public volunteer militia should ever have arms in any democratic republic.
Private mercenary armed forces like the police and the US Army should have remained illegal.
They are the only real threat this society faces or ever faced.
If I give you that standing armies are some of the only threats this nation faces, that would include standing armies of other nations. IF, as your statement does not actually make clear but does make me think you may, you disagree with standing armies then what is your response to the armies of other nations?

The proper response to standing armies of other nations is to do what Switzerland did and have mandatory universal weapons training so that a citizen soldier defense can be instantly called upon.
The only standing army forces we need are for training facilities, holding a few strategic points, arms maintenance, etc.
That is only a tiny fraction of the mercenary armed forces we have now, who are illegally deployed all over the world.
There should be no US troops in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea, Guantanamo, etc.
There presence violates international and US law.
I do not think that would work. I have little doubt that if we did not modernize our military capability then whenever it would be in the economic interest of China or Russia to simply wipe a few factories, oil pumps or any other competing infrastructure off the map they would.

An armed citizenry may prevent an outright occupation, though that is debatable, it does not stop the type of meddling that we are doing all around the world right now. If you think China would not be in our business the same way we are in Iraq I think you are being terribly naive about what other nations are willing to do. Remember, we have been actively engaged in fucking up the most armed populations on the entire planet. In many areas in the ME, not owning an AK would make you a pariah.

I agree a deterrent capability is needed since an armed citizenry cannot defend against something like a cruise missile attack that is aimed at out economy.
But that does not require a very large standing military still.
Just one with an immediate deterrent response capability.
What I am just suggesting is that we reduce foreign deployments to just embassy guards.
No foreign subversion like Iraq, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, etc., no deliberate war triggers like US troops in Korea, no need for intelligence ships like the Pueblo off Korea, etc.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
9,669
Reaction score
2,460
Points
170
Location
New Mexico
The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

But the federal and state governments are not the source or limits to the rights of defense.
Cities and each home also have the right and authority to organize their own militia as well.
In fact, the small and closer to individuals you get, the more right and authority one then has.
Larger levels like state and federal are weaker, delegated, and more distant expressions of individual rights and authority.
 

Richard-H

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2008
Messages
6,528
Reaction score
1,477
Points
245
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.

When using the Constitution to support your arguments, please quote the Constitution verbatim.

Not your own made up lingo.

The Constitution does not say "States militia must be well regulated and maintained"

It says:

"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."

All else is your personal interpretation - which is very much open to debate.
 

FA_Q2

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
19,796
Reaction score
3,664
Points
290
Location
Washington State
Police did not exist to any significant degree till about 1900, so before then there was only the militia.
We certainly have police forces now...don't we...
The fact we rarely need the militia now, does not mean it does not still exist and we no longer have any need for it.
Yes...it does

The fact we have a police force no does not mean we need individual firearm less, but more, since police are always inherently corrupt, and like 1933 Germany, are always the biggest threat any country ever faces.

The whole point of a democratic republic is that the general population has to be the main source of authority and power.
When you have mercenary police and military, you have created new threats, not removed any old ones.
Only citizen soldiers and public volunteer militia should ever have arms in any democratic republic.
Private mercenary armed forces like the police and the US Army should have remained illegal.
They are the only real threat this society faces or ever faced.
If I give you that standing armies are some of the only threats this nation faces, that would include standing armies of other nations. IF, as your statement does not actually make clear but does make me think you may, you disagree with standing armies then what is your response to the armies of other nations?

The proper response to standing armies of other nations is to do what Switzerland did and have mandatory universal weapons training so that a citizen soldier defense can be instantly called upon.
The only standing army forces we need are for training facilities, holding a few strategic points, arms maintenance, etc.
That is only a tiny fraction of the mercenary armed forces we have now, who are illegally deployed all over the world.
There should be no US troops in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea, Guantanamo, etc.
There presence violates international and US law.
I do not think that would work. I have little doubt that if we did not modernize our military capability then whenever it would be in the economic interest of China or Russia to simply wipe a few factories, oil pumps or any other competing infrastructure off the map they would.

An armed citizenry may prevent an outright occupation, though that is debatable, it does not stop the type of meddling that we are doing all around the world right now. If you think China would not be in our business the same way we are in Iraq I think you are being terribly naive about what other nations are willing to do. Remember, we have been actively engaged in fucking up the most armed populations on the entire planet. In many areas in the ME, not owning an AK would make you a pariah.

I agree a deterrent capability is needed since an armed citizenry cannot defend against something like a cruise missile attack that is aimed at out economy.
But that does not require a very large standing military still.
Just one with an immediate deterrent response capability.
What I am just suggesting is that we reduce foreign deployments to just embassy guards.
No foreign subversion like Iraq, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, etc., no deliberate war triggers like US troops in Korea, no need for intelligence ships like the Pueblo off Korea, etc.
You cant suggest that.

I cant argue with it

:p
 

Slade3200

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
40,798
Reaction score
6,787
Points
1,840
I'm adamant about "shall not be infringed". The regulations, gun control and bans only affect law abiding citizens. Crimes committed with a firearm should be prosecuted severely. 20 to life in prison and in some cases the death penalty. Punish the criminal not the law abiding citizens.
Wrong.

Firearm regulatory measures enacted consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence is not to ‘punish’ gunowners.
they are infringements which violates the second amendment
How so?
because they are
WAITING PERIOD INFRINGEMENT YES OR NO?
No, of course not. As long as people have the right to keep and bare arms in their homes then their rights are being upheld. There are good arguments to be made for cities like NY that make it near impossible to get a permit to get a gun. I'll give some credence to those cases. But those who assume that any laws regulating guns as unconstitutional is just silly. They've had laws regulating guns since the adoption of the Bill of Rights.
Yes it is an infringement. permit's and or licenses to carry or own a firearm is also an infringement At this point it's no longer a right but a privilege which takes away the right
I understand that this is your stance but that does not make it true. Since the drafting of our constitution we’ve had rules regulating guns. Your stance that any rules involved in guns is against the constitution is ludicrous and not supported by our history

Wrong.
There were some attempts at early rules, such as preventing Blacks from being armed, but they were struck down as being unconstitutional.
There were never any weapons regulations at all until the first that was not struck down in 1911,

{...

The Sullivan Act is a gun control law in New York state that took effect in 1911.[1] The NY state law required licenses for New Yorkers to possess firearms small enough to be concealed. Private possession of such firearms without a license was a misdemeanor, and carrying them in public was a felony. The act was named for its primary legislative sponsor, state senator Timothy Sullivan, a notoriously corrupt Tammany Hall Democratic politician.

For handguns, the Sullivan Act qualifies as a may issue act, meaning the local police have discretion to issue a concealed carry license, as opposed to a shall issue act, in which state authorities must give a concealed handgun license to any person who satisfies specific criteria, often a background check and a safety class.
,,,}
I'm adamant about "shall not be infringed". The regulations, gun control and bans only affect law abiding citizens. Crimes committed with a firearm should be prosecuted severely. 20 to life in prison and in some cases the death penalty. Punish the criminal not the law abiding citizens.
Wrong.

Firearm regulatory measures enacted consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence is not to ‘punish’ gunowners.
they are infringements which violates the second amendment
How so?
because they are
WAITING PERIOD INFRINGEMENT YES OR NO?
No, of course not. As long as people have the right to keep and bare arms in their homes then their rights are being upheld. There are good arguments to be made for cities like NY that make it near impossible to get a permit to get a gun. I'll give some credence to those cases. But those who assume that any laws regulating guns as unconstitutional is just silly. They've had laws regulating guns since the adoption of the Bill of Rights.
You just said as long as there is a square circle.

You cannot have the right to BEAR arms IN YOUR HOME. Those concepts are not related.
why are they not related?
 

Slade3200

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
40,798
Reaction score
6,787
Points
1,840
I'm adamant about "shall not be infringed". The regulations, gun control and bans only affect law abiding citizens. Crimes committed with a firearm should be prosecuted severely. 20 to life in prison and in some cases the death penalty. Punish the criminal not the law abiding citizens.
Wrong.

Firearm regulatory measures enacted consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence is not to ‘punish’ gunowners.
they are infringements which violates the second amendment
How so?
because they are
WAITING PERIOD INFRINGEMENT YES OR NO?
No, of course not. As long as people have the right to keep and bare arms in their homes then their rights are being upheld. There are good arguments to be made for cities like NY that make it near impossible to get a permit to get a gun. I'll give some credence to those cases. But those who assume that any laws regulating guns as unconstitutional is just silly. They've had laws regulating guns since the adoption of the Bill of Rights.

NOT federal laws.
Any gun regulations have to be state or local.
Clearly the founders were correct to ban any and all federal firearms laws.
The first gun control laws was the Sullivan Act of 1911, and it was not federal.
There were no federal gun laws at all until after WWI, and a combination of Prohibition and cheap surplus Thompson machineguns caused a problem. But they were wrong even then to pass federal gun laws. The solution was to end the federal Prohibition laws, not add more illegal federal laws.
As inner state travel and commuting becomes easier faster and more prevalent in our society it is not a mystery why federal laws have continued to grow. We don’t take horse and buggy’s to cross the country anymore you can do it in a matter of hours.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$350.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top