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

Anyone who does not have arms is a fool.
Statistically everyone will need one at least 2.5 times in their lives.
The police have probably never once arrived in time to actually stop a crime in progress.
All governments go corrupt and have to over turned eventually.
Any locality can be hit with a temporary emergency, like Katrina.
Nonsense. I have walked this planet for 66 years and never needed a gun. And I have lived and worked in the NYC metro area and worked in the city a lot of that time

And you likely were white, wealthy, and privileged.
NYC is well known for having about the most repressive police in the world, which is perfect if you are white and wealthy.
But they murder people for selling single cigarettes because the tax stamp is removed.
Most of the police in NYC should be shot, and those who support that type of repression can go with them.

And we were not talking about in a single life time period.
For example, England, the US, France, Germany, etc. go through periods of civil war, revolution, or invasion, about ever 250 years. And we have a duty to future generations as well.
Any society relying on mercenaries having a monopoly on arms is not just stupid, but traitors.
Under Bush, we did hire mercenaries, but I'm not aware of any private military companies like Blackwater, that are employed by the US at this time.

Any military where people join because they want to get paid, instead of a conscription of unpaid citizen soldiers, is mercenary.
Whenever the members do what they are told by those who sign their paychecks, they are mercenaries.
The police and the army are all mercenaries.
What we should have instead is mandatory universal training and arms, like Switzerland or Israel.
Defense and law are not jobs that should be paid, but civic duty everyone should participate in for free.


Conscription is also called slavery.........doing a job you don't want to do but will be jailed if you don't do it? Again....that is slavery.

Yes, but any civic duty can be called slavery, such as paying taxes.
That is paar for the course when you have a democratic republic.
You then have some civic obligations.
It is good to have unpleasant things done by average people, because then they won't be done as often.
Like the protests against the war in Vietnam were not primarily about people not liking the draft, but because we were illegally murdering innocent Vietnamese.
Ending the draft and going "volunteer" should have been called what it really was, going "mercenary".
We likely should never have a standing military, but instead citizen soldiers, just like the Founders wanted.
I beg your pardon, we were there to stop/prevent the murder of innocent Vietnamese. If you are going to start calling people murderers you best be willing and able to back it up. Do so.

Just wow.

—in the village of My Lai on March 16, 1968. More than 500 people were slaughtered in the My Lai massacre, including young girls and women who were raped and mutilated before being killed. U.S. Army officers covered up the carnage for a year before it was reported in the American press.



Yeah....you got one it came out and was punished.....meanwhile, the North Vietnamese committed atrocities like that as policy...you idiot. They did that to an entire country.......as policy....
 
Anyone who does not have arms is a fool.
Statistically everyone will need one at least 2.5 times in their lives.
The police have probably never once arrived in time to actually stop a crime in progress.
All governments go corrupt and have to over turned eventually.
Any locality can be hit with a temporary emergency, like Katrina.
Nonsense. I have walked this planet for 66 years and never needed a gun. And I have lived and worked in the NYC metro area and worked in the city a lot of that time

And you likely were white, wealthy, and privileged.
NYC is well known for having about the most repressive police in the world, which is perfect if you are white and wealthy.
But they murder people for selling single cigarettes because the tax stamp is removed.
Most of the police in NYC should be shot, and those who support that type of repression can go with them.

And we were not talking about in a single life time period.
For example, England, the US, France, Germany, etc. go through periods of civil war, revolution, or invasion, about ever 250 years. And we have a duty to future generations as well.
Any society relying on mercenaries having a monopoly on arms is not just stupid, but traitors.
Under Bush, we did hire mercenaries, but I'm not aware of any private military companies like Blackwater, that are employed by the US at this time.

Any military where people join because they want to get paid, instead of a conscription of unpaid citizen soldiers, is mercenary.
Whenever the members do what they are told by those who sign their paychecks, they are mercenaries.
The police and the army are all mercenaries.
What we should have instead is mandatory universal training and arms, like Switzerland or Israel.
Defense and law are not jobs that should be paid, but civic duty everyone should participate in for free.


Conscription is also called slavery.........doing a job you don't want to do but will be jailed if you don't do it? Again....that is slavery.

Yes, but any civic duty can be called slavery, such as paying taxes.
That is paar for the course when you have a democratic republic.
You then have some civic obligations.
It is good to have unpleasant things done by average people, because then they won't be done as often.
Like the protests against the war in Vietnam were not primarily about people not liking the draft, but because we were illegally murdering innocent Vietnamese.
Ending the draft and going "volunteer" should have been called what it really was, going "mercenary".
We likely should never have a standing military, but instead citizen soldiers, just like the Founders wanted.
I beg your pardon, we were there to stop/prevent the murder of innocent Vietnamese. If you are going to start calling people murderers you best be willing and able to back it up. Do so.

Just wow.

—in the village of My Lai on March 16, 1968. More than 500 people were slaughtered in the My Lai massacre, including young girls and women who were raped and mutilated before being killed. U.S. Army officers covered up the carnage for a year before it was reported in the American press.



Yeah....you got one it came out and was punished.....meanwhile, the North Vietnamese committed atrocities like that as policy...you idiot. They did that to an entire country.......as policy....

If you think that was the only one or that carpet bombing Hanoi didn't kill innocent civilians, then I have some land in South Louisiana for ya......
 
Anyone who does not have arms is a fool.
Statistically everyone will need one at least 2.5 times in their lives.
The police have probably never once arrived in time to actually stop a crime in progress.
All governments go corrupt and have to over turned eventually.
Any locality can be hit with a temporary emergency, like Katrina.
Nonsense. I have walked this planet for 66 years and never needed a gun. And I have lived and worked in the NYC metro area and worked in the city a lot of that time

And you likely were white, wealthy, and privileged.
NYC is well known for having about the most repressive police in the world, which is perfect if you are white and wealthy.
But they murder people for selling single cigarettes because the tax stamp is removed.
Most of the police in NYC should be shot, and those who support that type of repression can go with them.

And we were not talking about in a single life time period.
For example, England, the US, France, Germany, etc. go through periods of civil war, revolution, or invasion, about ever 250 years. And we have a duty to future generations as well.
Any society relying on mercenaries having a monopoly on arms is not just stupid, but traitors.
Under Bush, we did hire mercenaries, but I'm not aware of any private military companies like Blackwater, that are employed by the US at this time.

Any military where people join because they want to get paid, instead of a conscription of unpaid citizen soldiers, is mercenary.
Whenever the members do what they are told by those who sign their paychecks, they are mercenaries.
The police and the army are all mercenaries.
What we should have instead is mandatory universal training and arms, like Switzerland or Israel.
Defense and law are not jobs that should be paid, but civic duty everyone should participate in for free.


Conscription is also called slavery.........doing a job you don't want to do but will be jailed if you don't do it? Again....that is slavery.

Yes, but any civic duty can be called slavery, such as paying taxes.
That is paar for the course when you have a democratic republic.
You then have some civic obligations.
It is good to have unpleasant things done by average people, because then they won't be done as often.
Like the protests against the war in Vietnam were not primarily about people not liking the draft, but because we were illegally murdering innocent Vietnamese.
Ending the draft and going "volunteer" should have been called what it really was, going "mercenary".
We likely should never have a standing military, but instead citizen soldiers, just like the Founders wanted.
I beg your pardon, we were there to stop/prevent the murder of innocent Vietnamese. If you are going to start calling people murderers you best be willing and able to back it up. Do so.

Just wow.

—in the village of My Lai on March 16, 1968. More than 500 people were slaughtered in the My Lai massacre, including young girls and women who were raped and mutilated before being killed. U.S. Army officers covered up the carnage for a year before it was reported in the American press.



Yeah....you got one it came out and was punished.....meanwhile, the North Vietnamese committed atrocities like that as policy...you idiot. They did that to an entire country.......as policy....

If you think that was the only one or that carpet bombing Hanoi didn't kill innocent civilians, then I have some land in South Louisiana for ya......


It was a war, Hanoi was the capitol......again, the communists raped, tortured and murdered an entire country.........and they too killed during acts of war....
 
I did in post 455:

"...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. "

Actually the definition of able-bodied men was of white males, age 18 to 45.
And?

This was already addressed.
 
They eventually want to confiscate all rifles and handguns from all citizens somewhere down the road.

And I want an Angel on a Gold Chain that I can ride to the Stars, but that ain't happening either!

The UN has no military to carry out such a dream.
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?

That is known as a private militia, and all 50 states have laws making them illegal.
Untrue. The Constitution makes them legal in all 50 States. You are dreaming.

The constitution make sewing clubs for Grandma legal too. Gun Clubs are free to call themselves militia's but they have no legal authority to act as part of the US military chain of command.
By definition militias are not part of the US military chain of command. They can become part of the US military chain of command but then they are regular government troops rather than militia.

The chain of command went through the Governors because we had no national standing army.

"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia,
The GOP Has a Problem: My Generation Isn't Conservative

, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

"... and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States,..."

What part of that do you not understand? Militias may become regular government troops. Including State government troops at which time they become subject to the authority of that government and are no longer actually militia.

It's meaningless without " reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; "
That is unconnected with 'the' militia referred to in the second and is outlined in Heller.
The States Governors were in charge of the Militias. They were not random groups of armed citizens who decide to play weekend soldier once in a while and call themselves "The Militia".
Well, yes and no. Does not matter what you may or may not call yourself. The militia is defined in Heller and throughout the writing of the founders. It is pretty damn clear to be honest.

States were in charge of training the militia and they did when the nation was in its early stages before a standing army was how we managed defense. The states do have the power to tell people to organize and train. I don't think that such an order would manage to go over very well today but it is in the constitution.
A lot has changed in warfare technology since then but the power structure over the militias, aka States National Guard, still starts with the Governors.
Correct. A lot has changed. IF the purpose of the second is no longer relevant then... wait for it...

CHANGE THE FUCKING AMENDMENT.

The amendment exists as it is. You may not like the realities of that but if you want to adjust the second to comport with modern times in a manner that it is not compatible with, namely removing the right of the people, then you need to actually change the constitution. Ignoring it is the wrong way to do this.

Amending the Constitution is the best option. That doesn't change the fact that the various state militias were state sponsored and trained and were integral to protection against threats to Local, State and National interests.

I oppose a ban on assault style semi-automatic weapons.
Amending the constitution is not the 'best' option if you want to constitutionally expand gun bans, it is the ONLY way.

That various states sponsored militias and trained them is not relevant. Such has already been explained an you have not shown why those explanations are false.

That you oppose such a ban is also not relevant as the discussion is on the compatibility of such bans and the second.

Hogwash, we ban assault weapons already (automatic weapons) from the general public as well as other arms used in war.

Gun Clubs are subject to the very same laws as every other citizen of the state. Knitting clubs have the same rights.
Because fully automatic weapons not common in use.

Weapons that todays militia's, aka States National Guard, trains with.
They are not in common use. They are not in common use by the military either. The military has access to all kinds of special equipment.

Are you trying to argue the position that we should have access to everything that the military has access to because that is clearly not a position that you hold to.
 
Anyone who does not have arms is a fool.
Statistically everyone will need one at least 2.5 times in their lives.
The police have probably never once arrived in time to actually stop a crime in progress.
All governments go corrupt and have to over turned eventually.
Any locality can be hit with a temporary emergency, like Katrina.
Nonsense. I have walked this planet for 66 years and never needed a gun. And I have lived and worked in the NYC metro area and worked in the city a lot of that time

And you likely were white, wealthy, and privileged.
NYC is well known for having about the most repressive police in the world, which is perfect if you are white and wealthy.
But they murder people for selling single cigarettes because the tax stamp is removed.
Most of the police in NYC should be shot, and those who support that type of repression can go with them.

And we were not talking about in a single life time period.
For example, England, the US, France, Germany, etc. go through periods of civil war, revolution, or invasion, about ever 250 years. And we have a duty to future generations as well.
Any society relying on mercenaries having a monopoly on arms is not just stupid, but traitors.
Under Bush, we did hire mercenaries, but I'm not aware of any private military companies like Blackwater, that are employed by the US at this time.

Any military where people join because they want to get paid, instead of a conscription of unpaid citizen soldiers, is mercenary.
Whenever the members do what they are told by those who sign their paychecks, they are mercenaries.
The police and the army are all mercenaries.
What we should have instead is mandatory universal training and arms, like Switzerland or Israel.
Defense and law are not jobs that should be paid, but civic duty everyone should participate in for free.


Conscription is also called slavery.........doing a job you don't want to do but will be jailed if you don't do it? Again....that is slavery.

Yes, but any civic duty can be called slavery, such as paying taxes.
That is paar for the course when you have a democratic republic.
You then have some civic obligations.
It is good to have unpleasant things done by average people, because then they won't be done as often.
Like the protests against the war in Vietnam were not primarily about people not liking the draft, but because we were illegally murdering innocent Vietnamese.
Ending the draft and going "volunteer" should have been called what it really was, going "mercenary".
We likely should never have a standing military, but instead citizen soldiers, just like the Founders wanted.
I beg your pardon, we were there to stop/prevent the murder of innocent Vietnamese. If you are going to start calling people murderers you best be willing and able to back it up. Do so.

Just wow.

—in the village of My Lai on March 16, 1968. More than 500 people were slaughtered in the My Lai massacre, including young girls and women who were raped and mutilated before being killed. U.S. Army officers covered up the carnage for a year before it was reported in the American press.



Yeah....you got one it came out and was punished.....meanwhile, the North Vietnamese committed atrocities like that as policy...you idiot. They did that to an entire country.......as policy....

If you think that was the only one or that carpet bombing Hanoi didn't kill innocent civilians, then I have some land in South Louisiana for ya......


It was a war, Hanoi was the capitol......again, the communists raped, tortured and murdered an entire country.........and they too killed during acts of war....

Sadly innocent people get killed and innocent people get turned into killers and sometimes they murder people. To think it didn't happen to the kids we sent over there is naïve. (Not any thing you posted).
 
The RIGHT of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms.
Fuck the left.

"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." The USA did not have a standing army when the Second Amendment was written. Militias were necessity, just as the Amendment says.

Why do you think there was a qualifier? They could have just said "The right of the people" and you would be correct. But the reason for the right, was qualified.

The Military Act of 1903 ended militias in the USA, and militias were no longer "necessary". So if the right to bear arms is conditional upon the militias being necessary, the Second Amendment should have been repealed when the Military Act of 1903 was passed, ending militias in the country.
Sure, except that an act cannot supersede the constitution so...

CHANGE THE FUCKING CONSTITUTION.


Only one thing has been made crystal clear in this thread, most of the gun control advocates know damn well what they want is against the constitution. They just do not care. The constitution should be able to be ignored when you think it is no longer relevant and actually following the text is 'activism.'

Indeed, with standing armies and, militias may no longer be necessary. In order to change the constitution to that new value though, you would need to repeal the second amendment.
 
Nor is an AR-15 remotely unusual, hazardous to others, or any other rational as to why it could be in any way restricted from average people.
The dozens killed in Sandy Hook, Parkland, Vegas, and numerous other places would disagree


The only shooting where a rifle makes a difference was vegas.....where the shooter was shooting over several hundred yards.....

The distances involved in mass public shootings are so small that shotguns and pistols are no different from rifles....you doofus....

There is only one mass public shooting where the rifle had an advantage in the shooting, and that was Las Vegas, where the range was over 200 yards......but he was also firing into a tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people, at night, from a concealed and fortified position.......with his initial shooting masked by the concert.

And had the crowd not been trapped in that concert arena, he wouldn't have been able to kill as many since they would have run away or found cover.....since shooting at moving targets at hundreds of yards is almost impossible for all but expertly trained shooters...

At the range of every other mass public shooting a rifle has no advantage over pistols or shotguns.......

Boulder, rifle 10 killed

A 7 shot, pump action shotgun..... murdered 12, like the Navy Yard shooter...

A 5 shot, pump action shotgun..... murdered 20 people and wounded 70, like the Kerch, Russia shooter...with the local police station 100 yards away....

9mm pistol, and a .22 caliber pistol with a 10 round magazine and murdered 32 people like the Virginia tech shooter...

2, 9mm pistols and murdered 24 people, like the Luby's cafe shooter....

double barreled shotgun, and a .22 caliber bolt action rifle...and killed 13 people, like the shooter in Cumbria, England did....



That rifle has no special advantage in a mass public shooting.
CAN various other weapons be used for mass killing? Yes
But assault weapons make it so much easier and this deadly... which is why machine guns are so heavily regulated and banned


The AR-15 is not an assault weapon or machine gun...

The AR-15 is not a weapon of war....and has never been used by the U.S. military.

The 5 shot, pump action shotgun and bolt action hunting rifle are actual military weapons, in current use by the U.S. military.
As per Miller then. That shot gun and bolt action rifle have 2A protection. The AR does not
In...
Common....
Use.


The relevant text in Miller has already been linked and quoted. That you ignore it over and over and over again is just an indication that you damn well know it.
 
They eventually want to confiscate all rifles and handguns from all citizens somewhere down the road.

And I want an Angel on a Gold Chain that I can ride to the Stars, but that ain't happening either!

The UN has no military to carry out such a dream.
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?

That is known as a private militia, and all 50 states have laws making them illegal.
Untrue. The Constitution makes them legal in all 50 States. You are dreaming.

The constitution make sewing clubs for Grandma legal too. Gun Clubs are free to call themselves militia's but they have no legal authority to act as part of the US military chain of command.
By definition militias are not part of the US military chain of command. They can become part of the US military chain of command but then they are regular government troops rather than militia.

The chain of command went through the Governors because we had no national standing army.

"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia,
The GOP Has a Problem: My Generation Isn't Conservative

, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

"... and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States,..."

What part of that do you not understand? Militias may become regular government troops. Including State government troops at which time they become subject to the authority of that government and are no longer actually militia.

It's meaningless without " reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; "
That is unconnected with 'the' militia referred to in the second and is outlined in Heller.
The States Governors were in charge of the Militias. They were not random groups of armed citizens who decide to play weekend soldier once in a while and call themselves "The Militia".
Well, yes and no. Does not matter what you may or may not call yourself. The militia is defined in Heller and throughout the writing of the founders. It is pretty damn clear to be honest.

States were in charge of training the militia and they did when the nation was in its early stages before a standing army was how we managed defense. The states do have the power to tell people to organize and train. I don't think that such an order would manage to go over very well today but it is in the constitution.
A lot has changed in warfare technology since then but the power structure over the militias, aka States National Guard, still starts with the Governors.
Correct. A lot has changed. IF the purpose of the second is no longer relevant then... wait for it...

CHANGE THE FUCKING AMENDMENT.

The amendment exists as it is. You may not like the realities of that but if you want to adjust the second to comport with modern times in a manner that it is not compatible with, namely removing the right of the people, then you need to actually change the constitution. Ignoring it is the wrong way to do this.

Amending the Constitution is the best option. That doesn't change the fact that the various state militias were state sponsored and trained and were integral to protection against threats to Local, State and National interests.

I oppose a ban on assault style semi-automatic weapons.
Amending the constitution is not the 'best' option if you want to constitutionally expand gun bans, it is the ONLY way.

That various states sponsored militias and trained them is not relevant. Such has already been explained an you have not shown why those explanations are false.

That you oppose such a ban is also not relevant as the discussion is on the compatibility of such bans and the second.

Hogwash, we ban assault weapons already (automatic weapons) from the general public as well as other arms used in war.

Gun Clubs are subject to the very same laws as every other citizen of the state. Knitting clubs have the same rights.
Because fully automatic weapons not common in use.

Weapons that todays militia's, aka States National Guard, trains with.
They are not in common use. They are not in common use by the military either. The military has access to all kinds of special equipment.

Are you trying to argue the position that we should have access to everything that the military has access to because that is clearly not a position that you hold to.

No not at all. My position has been that the Militias were set up in the Constitution for the protection of the people by the people. Not as an opposition force to be used against the Government of the People when a particular party lost! Every able body citizen in good standing was required to be part of the early militia. We were a very small and vulnerable country back then. Not anymore. Militias have morphed into the States National Guards. They need to train with those weapons, not every Tom Dick or Harry.
 
Anyone who does not have arms is a fool.
Statistically everyone will need one at least 2.5 times in their lives.
The police have probably never once arrived in time to actually stop a crime in progress.
All governments go corrupt and have to over turned eventually.
Any locality can be hit with a temporary emergency, like Katrina.
Nonsense. I have walked this planet for 66 years and never needed a gun. And I have lived and worked in the NYC metro area and worked in the city a lot of that time

And you likely were white, wealthy, and privileged.
NYC is well known for having about the most repressive police in the world, which is perfect if you are white and wealthy.
But they murder people for selling single cigarettes because the tax stamp is removed.
Most of the police in NYC should be shot, and those who support that type of repression can go with them.

And we were not talking about in a single life time period.
For example, England, the US, France, Germany, etc. go through periods of civil war, revolution, or invasion, about ever 250 years. And we have a duty to future generations as well.
Any society relying on mercenaries having a monopoly on arms is not just stupid, but traitors.
Under Bush, we did hire mercenaries, but I'm not aware of any private military companies like Blackwater, that are employed by the US at this time.

Any military where people join because they want to get paid, instead of a conscription of unpaid citizen soldiers, is mercenary.
Whenever the members do what they are told by those who sign their paychecks, they are mercenaries.
The police and the army are all mercenaries.
What we should have instead is mandatory universal training and arms, like Switzerland or Israel.
Defense and law are not jobs that should be paid, but civic duty everyone should participate in for free.


Conscription is also called slavery.........doing a job you don't want to do but will be jailed if you don't do it? Again....that is slavery.

Yes, but any civic duty can be called slavery, such as paying taxes.
That is paar for the course when you have a democratic republic.
You then have some civic obligations.
It is good to have unpleasant things done by average people, because then they won't be done as often.
Like the protests against the war in Vietnam were not primarily about people not liking the draft, but because we were illegally murdering innocent Vietnamese.
Ending the draft and going "volunteer" should have been called what it really was, going "mercenary".
We likely should never have a standing military, but instead citizen soldiers, just like the Founders wanted.
I beg your pardon, we were there to stop/prevent the murder of innocent Vietnamese. If you are going to start calling people murderers you best be willing and able to back it up. Do so.

Just wow.

—in the village of My Lai on March 16, 1968. More than 500 people were slaughtered in the My Lai massacre, including young girls and women who were raped and mutilated before being killed. U.S. Army officers covered up the carnage for a year before it was reported in the American press.



Yeah....you got one it came out and was punished.....meanwhile, the North Vietnamese committed atrocities like that as policy...you idiot. They did that to an entire country.......as policy....

If you think that was the only one or that carpet bombing Hanoi didn't kill innocent civilians, then I have some land in South Louisiana for ya......


It was a war, Hanoi was the capitol......again, the communists raped, tortured and murdered an entire country.........and they too killed during acts of war....
That does not excuse the horrific acts we committed in Vietnam. We did some really bad shit there that easily rivals the depravity of those we were fighting against if not the scale our enemies achieved it on.
 
They eventually want to confiscate all rifles and handguns from all citizens somewhere down the road.

And I want an Angel on a Gold Chain that I can ride to the Stars, but that ain't happening either!

The UN has no military to carry out such a dream.
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?

That is known as a private militia, and all 50 states have laws making them illegal.
Untrue. The Constitution makes them legal in all 50 States. You are dreaming.

The constitution make sewing clubs for Grandma legal too. Gun Clubs are free to call themselves militia's but they have no legal authority to act as part of the US military chain of command.
By definition militias are not part of the US military chain of command. They can become part of the US military chain of command but then they are regular government troops rather than militia.

The chain of command went through the Governors because we had no national standing army.

"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia,
The GOP Has a Problem: My Generation Isn't Conservative

, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

"... and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States,..."

What part of that do you not understand? Militias may become regular government troops. Including State government troops at which time they become subject to the authority of that government and are no longer actually militia.

It's meaningless without " reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; "
That is unconnected with 'the' militia referred to in the second and is outlined in Heller.
The States Governors were in charge of the Militias. They were not random groups of armed citizens who decide to play weekend soldier once in a while and call themselves "The Militia".
Well, yes and no. Does not matter what you may or may not call yourself. The militia is defined in Heller and throughout the writing of the founders. It is pretty damn clear to be honest.

States were in charge of training the militia and they did when the nation was in its early stages before a standing army was how we managed defense. The states do have the power to tell people to organize and train. I don't think that such an order would manage to go over very well today but it is in the constitution.
A lot has changed in warfare technology since then but the power structure over the militias, aka States National Guard, still starts with the Governors.
Correct. A lot has changed. IF the purpose of the second is no longer relevant then... wait for it...

CHANGE THE FUCKING AMENDMENT.

The amendment exists as it is. You may not like the realities of that but if you want to adjust the second to comport with modern times in a manner that it is not compatible with, namely removing the right of the people, then you need to actually change the constitution. Ignoring it is the wrong way to do this.

Amending the Constitution is the best option. That doesn't change the fact that the various state militias were state sponsored and trained and were integral to protection against threats to Local, State and National interests.

I oppose a ban on assault style semi-automatic weapons.
Amending the constitution is not the 'best' option if you want to constitutionally expand gun bans, it is the ONLY way.

That various states sponsored militias and trained them is not relevant. Such has already been explained an you have not shown why those explanations are false.

That you oppose such a ban is also not relevant as the discussion is on the compatibility of such bans and the second.

Hogwash, we ban assault weapons already (automatic weapons) from the general public as well as other arms used in war.

Gun Clubs are subject to the very same laws as every other citizen of the state. Knitting clubs have the same rights.
Because fully automatic weapons not common in use.

Weapons that todays militia's, aka States National Guard, trains with.
They are not in common use. They are not in common use by the military either. The military has access to all kinds of special equipment.

Are you trying to argue the position that we should have access to everything that the military has access to because that is clearly not a position that you hold to.

No not at all. My position has been that the Militias were set up in the Constitution for the protection of the people by the people. Not as an opposition force to be used against the Government of the People when a particular party lost! Every able body citizen in good standing was required to be part of the early militia. We were a very small and vulnerable country back then. Not anymore. Militias have morphed into the States National Guards. They need to train with those weapons, not every Tom Dick or Harry.
That's nice. It is also irrelevant to the application of the second which was what we were talking about. IF the second is no longer relevant it would not change the reality of its protection against governmental interference. You would have to change it first.
 
They eventually want to confiscate all rifles and handguns from all citizens somewhere down the road.

And I want an Angel on a Gold Chain that I can ride to the Stars, but that ain't happening either!

The UN has no military to carry out such a dream.
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?

That is known as a private militia, and all 50 states have laws making them illegal.
Untrue. The Constitution makes them legal in all 50 States. You are dreaming.

The constitution make sewing clubs for Grandma legal too. Gun Clubs are free to call themselves militia's but they have no legal authority to act as part of the US military chain of command.
By definition militias are not part of the US military chain of command. They can become part of the US military chain of command but then they are regular government troops rather than militia.

The chain of command went through the Governors because we had no national standing army.

"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia,
The GOP Has a Problem: My Generation Isn't Conservative

, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

"... and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States,..."

What part of that do you not understand? Militias may become regular government troops. Including State government troops at which time they become subject to the authority of that government and are no longer actually militia.

It's meaningless without " reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; "
That is unconnected with 'the' militia referred to in the second and is outlined in Heller.
The States Governors were in charge of the Militias. They were not random groups of armed citizens who decide to play weekend soldier once in a while and call themselves "The Militia".
Well, yes and no. Does not matter what you may or may not call yourself. The militia is defined in Heller and throughout the writing of the founders. It is pretty damn clear to be honest.

States were in charge of training the militia and they did when the nation was in its early stages before a standing army was how we managed defense. The states do have the power to tell people to organize and train. I don't think that such an order would manage to go over very well today but it is in the constitution.
A lot has changed in warfare technology since then but the power structure over the militias, aka States National Guard, still starts with the Governors.
Correct. A lot has changed. IF the purpose of the second is no longer relevant then... wait for it...

CHANGE THE FUCKING AMENDMENT.

The amendment exists as it is. You may not like the realities of that but if you want to adjust the second to comport with modern times in a manner that it is not compatible with, namely removing the right of the people, then you need to actually change the constitution. Ignoring it is the wrong way to do this.

Amending the Constitution is the best option. That doesn't change the fact that the various state militias were state sponsored and trained and were integral to protection against threats to Local, State and National interests.

I oppose a ban on assault style semi-automatic weapons.
Amending the constitution is not the 'best' option if you want to constitutionally expand gun bans, it is the ONLY way.

That various states sponsored militias and trained them is not relevant. Such has already been explained an you have not shown why those explanations are false.

That you oppose such a ban is also not relevant as the discussion is on the compatibility of such bans and the second.

Hogwash, we ban assault weapons already (automatic weapons) from the general public as well as other arms used in war.

Gun Clubs are subject to the very same laws as every other citizen of the state. Knitting clubs have the same rights.
Because fully automatic weapons not common in use.

Weapons that todays militia's, aka States National Guard, trains with.
They are not in common use. They are not in common use by the military either. The military has access to all kinds of special equipment.

Are you trying to argue the position that we should have access to everything that the military has access to because that is clearly not a position that you hold to.

No not at all. My position has been that the Militias were set up in the Constitution for the protection of the people by the people. Not as an opposition force to be used against the Government of the People when a particular party lost! Every able body citizen in good standing was required to be part of the early militia. We were a very small and vulnerable country back then. Not anymore. Militias have morphed into the States National Guards. They need to train with those weapons, not every Tom Dick or Harry.
Self defense is a God given right.
 
They eventually want to confiscate all rifles and handguns from all citizens somewhere down the road.

And I want an Angel on a Gold Chain that I can ride to the Stars, but that ain't happening either!

The UN has no military to carry out such a dream.
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?

That is known as a private militia, and all 50 states have laws making them illegal.
Untrue. The Constitution makes them legal in all 50 States. You are dreaming.

The constitution make sewing clubs for Grandma legal too. Gun Clubs are free to call themselves militia's but they have no legal authority to act as part of the US military chain of command.
By definition militias are not part of the US military chain of command. They can become part of the US military chain of command but then they are regular government troops rather than militia.

The chain of command went through the Governors because we had no national standing army.

"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia,
The GOP Has a Problem: My Generation Isn't Conservative

, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

"... and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States,..."

What part of that do you not understand? Militias may become regular government troops. Including State government troops at which time they become subject to the authority of that government and are no longer actually militia.

It's meaningless without " reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; "
That is unconnected with 'the' militia referred to in the second and is outlined in Heller.
The States Governors were in charge of the Militias. They were not random groups of armed citizens who decide to play weekend soldier once in a while and call themselves "The Militia".
Well, yes and no. Does not matter what you may or may not call yourself. The militia is defined in Heller and throughout the writing of the founders. It is pretty damn clear to be honest.

States were in charge of training the militia and they did when the nation was in its early stages before a standing army was how we managed defense. The states do have the power to tell people to organize and train. I don't think that such an order would manage to go over very well today but it is in the constitution.
A lot has changed in warfare technology since then but the power structure over the militias, aka States National Guard, still starts with the Governors.
Correct. A lot has changed. IF the purpose of the second is no longer relevant then... wait for it...

CHANGE THE FUCKING AMENDMENT.

The amendment exists as it is. You may not like the realities of that but if you want to adjust the second to comport with modern times in a manner that it is not compatible with, namely removing the right of the people, then you need to actually change the constitution. Ignoring it is the wrong way to do this.

Amending the Constitution is the best option. That doesn't change the fact that the various state militias were state sponsored and trained and were integral to protection against threats to Local, State and National interests.

I oppose a ban on assault style semi-automatic weapons.
Amending the constitution is not the 'best' option if you want to constitutionally expand gun bans, it is the ONLY way.

That various states sponsored militias and trained them is not relevant. Such has already been explained an you have not shown why those explanations are false.

That you oppose such a ban is also not relevant as the discussion is on the compatibility of such bans and the second.

Hogwash, we ban assault weapons already (automatic weapons) from the general public as well as other arms used in war.

Gun Clubs are subject to the very same laws as every other citizen of the state. Knitting clubs have the same rights.
Because fully automatic weapons not common in use.

Weapons that todays militia's, aka States National Guard, trains with.
They are not in common use. They are not in common use by the military either. The military has access to all kinds of special equipment.

Are you trying to argue the position that we should have access to everything that the military has access to because that is clearly not a position that you hold to.

No not at all. My position has been that the Militias were set up in the Constitution for the protection of the people by the people. Not as an opposition force to be used against the Government of the People when a particular party lost! Every able body citizen in good standing was required to be part of the early militia. We were a very small and vulnerable country back then. Not anymore. Militias have morphed into the States National Guards. They need to train with those weapons, not every Tom Dick or Harry.
That's nice. It is also irrelevant to the application of the second which was what we were talking about. IF the second is no longer relevant it would not change the reality of its protection against governmental interference. You would have to change it first.

You asked, then you denigrate my opinion? We don't need to modify the Constitution to ban Automatic Assault Weapon, as you say they're already banned. Banning semi automatic weapon because they look like military style weapons is ridiculous.
 
They eventually want to confiscate all rifles and handguns from all citizens somewhere down the road.

And I want an Angel on a Gold Chain that I can ride to the Stars, but that ain't happening either!

The UN has no military to carry out such a dream.
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?

That is known as a private militia, and all 50 states have laws making them illegal.
Untrue. The Constitution makes them legal in all 50 States. You are dreaming.

The constitution make sewing clubs for Grandma legal too. Gun Clubs are free to call themselves militia's but they have no legal authority to act as part of the US military chain of command.
By definition militias are not part of the US military chain of command. They can become part of the US military chain of command but then they are regular government troops rather than militia.

The chain of command went through the Governors because we had no national standing army.

"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia,
The GOP Has a Problem: My Generation Isn't Conservative

, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

"... and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States,..."

What part of that do you not understand? Militias may become regular government troops. Including State government troops at which time they become subject to the authority of that government and are no longer actually militia.

It's meaningless without " reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; "
That is unconnected with 'the' militia referred to in the second and is outlined in Heller.
The States Governors were in charge of the Militias. They were not random groups of armed citizens who decide to play weekend soldier once in a while and call themselves "The Militia".
Well, yes and no. Does not matter what you may or may not call yourself. The militia is defined in Heller and throughout the writing of the founders. It is pretty damn clear to be honest.

States were in charge of training the militia and they did when the nation was in its early stages before a standing army was how we managed defense. The states do have the power to tell people to organize and train. I don't think that such an order would manage to go over very well today but it is in the constitution.
A lot has changed in warfare technology since then but the power structure over the militias, aka States National Guard, still starts with the Governors.
Correct. A lot has changed. IF the purpose of the second is no longer relevant then... wait for it...

CHANGE THE FUCKING AMENDMENT.

The amendment exists as it is. You may not like the realities of that but if you want to adjust the second to comport with modern times in a manner that it is not compatible with, namely removing the right of the people, then you need to actually change the constitution. Ignoring it is the wrong way to do this.

Amending the Constitution is the best option. That doesn't change the fact that the various state militias were state sponsored and trained and were integral to protection against threats to Local, State and National interests.

I oppose a ban on assault style semi-automatic weapons.
Amending the constitution is not the 'best' option if you want to constitutionally expand gun bans, it is the ONLY way.

That various states sponsored militias and trained them is not relevant. Such has already been explained an you have not shown why those explanations are false.

That you oppose such a ban is also not relevant as the discussion is on the compatibility of such bans and the second.

Hogwash, we ban assault weapons already (automatic weapons) from the general public as well as other arms used in war.

Gun Clubs are subject to the very same laws as every other citizen of the state. Knitting clubs have the same rights.
Because fully automatic weapons not common in use.

Weapons that todays militia's, aka States National Guard, trains with.
They are not in common use. They are not in common use by the military either. The military has access to all kinds of special equipment.

Are you trying to argue the position that we should have access to everything that the military has access to because that is clearly not a position that you hold to.

No not at all. My position has been that the Militias were set up in the Constitution for the protection of the people by the people. Not as an opposition force to be used against the Government of the People when a particular party lost! Every able body citizen in good standing was required to be part of the early militia. We were a very small and vulnerable country back then. Not anymore. Militias have morphed into the States National Guards. They need to train with those weapons, not every Tom Dick or Harry.
Self defense is a God given right.

But a .50 cal. Saw is not.
 
Anyone who does not have arms is a fool.
Statistically everyone will need one at least 2.5 times in their lives.
The police have probably never once arrived in time to actually stop a crime in progress.
All governments go corrupt and have to over turned eventually.
Any locality can be hit with a temporary emergency, like Katrina.
Nonsense. I have walked this planet for 66 years and never needed a gun. And I have lived and worked in the NYC metro area and worked in the city a lot of that time

And you likely were white, wealthy, and privileged.
NYC is well known for having about the most repressive police in the world, which is perfect if you are white and wealthy.
But they murder people for selling single cigarettes because the tax stamp is removed.
Most of the police in NYC should be shot, and those who support that type of repression can go with them.

And we were not talking about in a single life time period.
For example, England, the US, France, Germany, etc. go through periods of civil war, revolution, or invasion, about ever 250 years. And we have a duty to future generations as well.
Any society relying on mercenaries having a monopoly on arms is not just stupid, but traitors.
Under Bush, we did hire mercenaries, but I'm not aware of any private military companies like Blackwater, that are employed by the US at this time.

Any military where people join because they want to get paid, instead of a conscription of unpaid citizen soldiers, is mercenary.
Whenever the members do what they are told by those who sign their paychecks, they are mercenaries.
The police and the army are all mercenaries.
What we should have instead is mandatory universal training and arms, like Switzerland or Israel.
Defense and law are not jobs that should be paid, but civic duty everyone should participate in for free.


Conscription is also called slavery.........doing a job you don't want to do but will be jailed if you don't do it? Again....that is slavery.

Yes, but any civic duty can be called slavery, such as paying taxes.
That is paar for the course when you have a democratic republic.
You then have some civic obligations.
It is good to have unpleasant things done by average people, because then they won't be done as often.
Like the protests against the war in Vietnam were not primarily about people not liking the draft, but because we were illegally murdering innocent Vietnamese.
Ending the draft and going "volunteer" should have been called what it really was, going "mercenary".
We likely should never have a standing military, but instead citizen soldiers, just like the Founders wanted.
I beg your pardon, we were there to stop/prevent the murder of innocent Vietnamese. If you are going to start calling people murderers you best be willing and able to back it up. Do so.

Just wow.

—in the village of My Lai on March 16, 1968. More than 500 people were slaughtered in the My Lai massacre, including young girls and women who were raped and mutilated before being killed. U.S. Army officers covered up the carnage for a year before it was reported in the American press.



Yeah....you got one it came out and was punished.....meanwhile, the North Vietnamese committed atrocities like that as policy...you idiot. They did that to an entire country.......as policy....

If you think that was the only one or that carpet bombing Hanoi didn't kill innocent civilians, then I have some land in South Louisiana for ya......
Hanoi was the the capitol of an enemy country whose troops were murdering innocent civilians and invading countries throughout the region. Much like Berlin during WWII. The only only real difference is that we could have totally leveled Hanoi any time we liked and saved countless friendly-including US-lives in the process. And probably should have. What makes you think there were any innocent civilians in Hanoi?

My Lai was a crime that shouldn't have happened. It was committed by a US Army unit and it was stopped by US troops. When you put too much pressure on people sometimes they snap and go berserk. But it wasn't deliberately planned and executed as were so many of the massacres committed by the NVA/VC. Like this one: Massacre at Huế - Wikipedia which made My Lai look like a rather minor incident.
 
Hanoi was the the capitol of an enemy country whose troops were murdering innocent civilians and invading countries throughout the region

"On December 13, peace talks between the United States and North Vietnam collapsed. The North Vietnamese and American negotiators traded charges and countercharges as to who was to blame. Infuriated, President Nixon ordered plans drawn up for retaliatory bombings of North Vietnam. Linebacker II was the result. Beginning on December 18, American B-52s and fighter-bombers dropped over 20,000 tons of bombs on the cities of Hanoi and Haiphong. The United States lost 15 of its giant B-52s and 11 other aircraft during the attacks. North Vietnam claimed that over 1,600 civilians were killed."

The bombings continued until December 29, at which time the North Vietnamese agreed to resume the talks. A few weeks later, the final Paris Peace Treaty was signed and the Vietnam War came to a close, ending the U.S. role in a conflict that seriously damaged the domestic Cold War consensus among the American public.

Henry Kissinger, was reported to have said, “We bombed the North Vietnamese into accepting our concessions.”

 
Anyone who does not have arms is a fool.
Statistically everyone will need one at least 2.5 times in their lives.
The police have probably never once arrived in time to actually stop a crime in progress.
All governments go corrupt and have to over turned eventually.
Any locality can be hit with a temporary emergency, like Katrina.
Nonsense. I have walked this planet for 66 years and never needed a gun. And I have lived and worked in the NYC metro area and worked in the city a lot of that time

And you likely were white, wealthy, and privileged.
NYC is well known for having about the most repressive police in the world, which is perfect if you are white and wealthy.
But they murder people for selling single cigarettes because the tax stamp is removed.
Most of the police in NYC should be shot, and those who support that type of repression can go with them.

And we were not talking about in a single life time period.
For example, England, the US, France, Germany, etc. go through periods of civil war, revolution, or invasion, about ever 250 years. And we have a duty to future generations as well.
Any society relying on mercenaries having a monopoly on arms is not just stupid, but traitors.
Under Bush, we did hire mercenaries, but I'm not aware of any private military companies like Blackwater, that are employed by the US at this time.

Any military where people join because they want to get paid, instead of a conscription of unpaid citizen soldiers, is mercenary.
Whenever the members do what they are told by those who sign their paychecks, they are mercenaries.
The police and the army are all mercenaries.
What we should have instead is mandatory universal training and arms, like Switzerland or Israel.
Defense and law are not jobs that should be paid, but civic duty everyone should participate in for free.


Conscription is also called slavery.........doing a job you don't want to do but will be jailed if you don't do it? Again....that is slavery.

Yes, but any civic duty can be called slavery, such as paying taxes.
That is paar for the course when you have a democratic republic.
You then have some civic obligations.
It is good to have unpleasant things done by average people, because then they won't be done as often.
Like the protests against the war in Vietnam were not primarily about people not liking the draft, but because we were illegally murdering innocent Vietnamese.
Ending the draft and going "volunteer" should have been called what it really was, going "mercenary".
We likely should never have a standing military, but instead citizen soldiers, just like the Founders wanted.
I beg your pardon, we were there to stop/prevent the murder of innocent Vietnamese. If you are going to start calling people murderers you best be willing and able to back it up. Do so.

Just wow.

—in the village of My Lai on March 16, 1968. More than 500 people were slaughtered in the My Lai massacre, including young girls and women who were raped and mutilated before being killed. U.S. Army officers covered up the carnage for a year before it was reported in the American press.



Yeah....you got one it came out and was punished.....meanwhile, the North Vietnamese committed atrocities like that as policy...you idiot. They did that to an entire country.......as policy....

If you think that was the only one or that carpet bombing Hanoi didn't kill innocent civilians, then I have some land in South Louisiana for ya......


It was a war, Hanoi was the capitol......again, the communists raped, tortured and murdered an entire country.........and they too killed during acts of war....
That does not excuse the horrific acts we committed in Vietnam. We did some really bad shit there that easily rivals the depravity of those we were fighting against if not the scale our enemies achieved it on.


Who said it did? But comparing the U.S. engaged in war compared to the communists is just stupid......
 
Hanoi was the the capitol of an enemy country whose troops were murdering innocent civilians and invading countries throughout the region

"On December 13, peace talks between the United States and North Vietnam collapsed. The North Vietnamese and American negotiators traded charges and countercharges as to who was to blame. Infuriated, President Nixon ordered plans drawn up for retaliatory bombings of North Vietnam. Linebacker II was the result. Beginning on December 18, American B-52s and fighter-bombers dropped over 20,000 tons of bombs on the cities of Hanoi and Haiphong. The United States lost 15 of its giant B-52s and 11 other aircraft during the attacks. North Vietnam claimed that over 1,600 civilians were killed."

The bombings continued until December 29, at which time the North Vietnamese agreed to resume the talks. A few weeks later, the final Paris Peace Treaty was signed and the Vietnam War came to a close, ending the U.S. role in a conflict that seriously damaged the domestic Cold War consensus among the American public.

Henry Kissinger, was reported to have said, “We bombed the North Vietnamese into accepting our concessions.”

(Some of) the rest of the story:
Nixon's plan worked and in early January 1973, the Americans and North Vietnamese ironed out the last details of the settlement. All parties to the conflict, including South Vietnam, signed the final agreement in Paris on January 27. As it turned out, only America honored the cease-fire. Furthermore, the National Council of National Reconciliation and Concord was stillborn. The North wanted to destroy South Vietnam while the South wanted to defeat the Northern forces. The inevitable solution, therefore, was to fight until one side won. Military facts on the ground, not words on paper, would determine South Vietnam's future. Additionally, within 24 hours of the cease-fire coming into effect, the return of the almost 600 American prisoners began, as did the redeployment home of the remaining American and South Korean troops in South Vietnam. The January accords, titled the "Agreement on Ending the War and Restoring Peace in Vietnam," neither ended the war (except for the United States) nor restored the peace. A little over 2 years later, 30 North Vietnamese divisions conquered the South and restored peace in Vietnam. The American commitment to defend South Vietnam, described as unequivocal by Nixon and Kissinger, had been vitiated by the Watergate scandal and Nixon's subsequent resignation. By that time, the Paris Accords seemed memorable only as the vehicle on which the United States rode out of Southeast Asia.
 
They eventually want to confiscate all rifles and handguns from all citizens somewhere down the road.

And I want an Angel on a Gold Chain that I can ride to the Stars, but that ain't happening either!

The UN has no military to carry out such a dream.
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?

That is known as a private militia, and all 50 states have laws making them illegal.
Untrue. The Constitution makes them legal in all 50 States. You are dreaming.

The constitution make sewing clubs for Grandma legal too. Gun Clubs are free to call themselves militia's but they have no legal authority to act as part of the US military chain of command.
By definition militias are not part of the US military chain of command. They can become part of the US military chain of command but then they are regular government troops rather than militia.

The chain of command went through the Governors because we had no national standing army.

"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia,
The GOP Has a Problem: My Generation Isn't Conservative

, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

"... and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States,..."

What part of that do you not understand? Militias may become regular government troops. Including State government troops at which time they become subject to the authority of that government and are no longer actually militia.

It's meaningless without " reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; "
That is unconnected with 'the' militia referred to in the second and is outlined in Heller.
The States Governors were in charge of the Militias. They were not random groups of armed citizens who decide to play weekend soldier once in a while and call themselves "The Militia".
Well, yes and no. Does not matter what you may or may not call yourself. The militia is defined in Heller and throughout the writing of the founders. It is pretty damn clear to be honest.

States were in charge of training the militia and they did when the nation was in its early stages before a standing army was how we managed defense. The states do have the power to tell people to organize and train. I don't think that such an order would manage to go over very well today but it is in the constitution.
A lot has changed in warfare technology since then but the power structure over the militias, aka States National Guard, still starts with the Governors.
Correct. A lot has changed. IF the purpose of the second is no longer relevant then... wait for it...

CHANGE THE FUCKING AMENDMENT.

The amendment exists as it is. You may not like the realities of that but if you want to adjust the second to comport with modern times in a manner that it is not compatible with, namely removing the right of the people, then you need to actually change the constitution. Ignoring it is the wrong way to do this.

Amending the Constitution is the best option. That doesn't change the fact that the various state militias were state sponsored and trained and were integral to protection against threats to Local, State and National interests.

I oppose a ban on assault style semi-automatic weapons.
Amending the constitution is not the 'best' option if you want to constitutionally expand gun bans, it is the ONLY way.

That various states sponsored militias and trained them is not relevant. Such has already been explained an you have not shown why those explanations are false.

That you oppose such a ban is also not relevant as the discussion is on the compatibility of such bans and the second.

Hogwash, we ban assault weapons already (automatic weapons) from the general public as well as other arms used in war.

Gun Clubs are subject to the very same laws as every other citizen of the state. Knitting clubs have the same rights.
Because fully automatic weapons not common in use.

Weapons that todays militia's, aka States National Guard, trains with.
They are not in common use. They are not in common use by the military either. The military has access to all kinds of special equipment.

Are you trying to argue the position that we should have access to everything that the military has access to because that is clearly not a position that you hold to.

No not at all. My position has been that the Militias were set up in the Constitution for the protection of the people by the people. Not as an opposition force to be used against the Government of the People when a particular party lost! Every able body citizen in good standing was required to be part of the early militia. We were a very small and vulnerable country back then. Not anymore. Militias have morphed into the States National Guards. They need to train with those weapons, not every Tom Dick or Harry.
That's nice. It is also irrelevant to the application of the second which was what we were talking about. IF the second is no longer relevant it would not change the reality of its protection against governmental interference. You would have to change it first.

You asked, then you denigrate my opinion? We don't need to modify the Constitution to ban Automatic Assault Weapon, as you say they're already banned. Banning semi automatic weapon because they look like military style weapons is ridiculous.
Degenerate your opinion?

Whatever, you responded to my post with 'Weapons that todays militia's, aka States National Guard, trains with' as though it was supposed to mean something. Now your complaining because I pressed against it?

What you posted has nothing to do with anything I have been saying. That is not degenerating anything.
 
They eventually want to confiscate all rifles and handguns from all citizens somewhere down the road.

And I want an Angel on a Gold Chain that I can ride to the Stars, but that ain't happening either!

The UN has no military to carry out such a dream.
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?

That is known as a private militia, and all 50 states have laws making them illegal.
Untrue. The Constitution makes them legal in all 50 States. You are dreaming.

The constitution make sewing clubs for Grandma legal too. Gun Clubs are free to call themselves militia's but they have no legal authority to act as part of the US military chain of command.
By definition militias are not part of the US military chain of command. They can become part of the US military chain of command but then they are regular government troops rather than militia.

The chain of command went through the Governors because we had no national standing army.

"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia,
The GOP Has a Problem: My Generation Isn't Conservative

, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

"... and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States,..."

What part of that do you not understand? Militias may become regular government troops. Including State government troops at which time they become subject to the authority of that government and are no longer actually militia.

It's meaningless without " reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; "
That is unconnected with 'the' militia referred to in the second and is outlined in Heller.
The States Governors were in charge of the Militias. They were not random groups of armed citizens who decide to play weekend soldier once in a while and call themselves "The Militia".
Well, yes and no. Does not matter what you may or may not call yourself. The militia is defined in Heller and throughout the writing of the founders. It is pretty damn clear to be honest.

States were in charge of training the militia and they did when the nation was in its early stages before a standing army was how we managed defense. The states do have the power to tell people to organize and train. I don't think that such an order would manage to go over very well today but it is in the constitution.
A lot has changed in warfare technology since then but the power structure over the militias, aka States National Guard, still starts with the Governors.
Correct. A lot has changed. IF the purpose of the second is no longer relevant then... wait for it...

CHANGE THE FUCKING AMENDMENT.

The amendment exists as it is. You may not like the realities of that but if you want to adjust the second to comport with modern times in a manner that it is not compatible with, namely removing the right of the people, then you need to actually change the constitution. Ignoring it is the wrong way to do this.

Amending the Constitution is the best option. That doesn't change the fact that the various state militias were state sponsored and trained and were integral to protection against threats to Local, State and National interests.

I oppose a ban on assault style semi-automatic weapons.
Amending the constitution is not the 'best' option if you want to constitutionally expand gun bans, it is the ONLY way.

That various states sponsored militias and trained them is not relevant. Such has already been explained an you have not shown why those explanations are false.

That you oppose such a ban is also not relevant as the discussion is on the compatibility of such bans and the second.

Hogwash, we ban assault weapons already (automatic weapons) from the general public as well as other arms used in war.

Gun Clubs are subject to the very same laws as every other citizen of the state. Knitting clubs have the same rights.
Because fully automatic weapons not common in use.

Weapons that todays militia's, aka States National Guard, trains with.
They are not in common use. They are not in common use by the military either. The military has access to all kinds of special equipment.

Are you trying to argue the position that we should have access to everything that the military has access to because that is clearly not a position that you hold to.

No not at all. My position has been that the Militias were set up in the Constitution for the protection of the people by the people. Not as an opposition force to be used against the Government of the People when a particular party lost! Every able body citizen in good standing was required to be part of the early militia. We were a very small and vulnerable country back then. Not anymore. Militias have morphed into the States National Guards. They need to train with those weapons, not every Tom Dick or Harry.
That's nice. It is also irrelevant to the application of the second which was what we were talking about. IF the second is no longer relevant it would not change the reality of its protection against governmental interference. You would have to change it first.

You asked, then you denigrate my opinion? We don't need to modify the Constitution to ban Automatic Assault Weapon, as you say they're already banned. Banning semi automatic weapon because they look like military style weapons is ridiculous.
Degenerate your opinion?

Whatever, you responded to my post with 'Weapons that todays militia's, aka States National Guard, trains with' as though it was supposed to mean something. Now your complaining because I pressed against it?

What you posted has nothing to do with anything I have been saying. That is not degenerating anything.

That's because I was discussing the role of the militia, not the 2nd.

Degenerate? No.

 

Forum List

Back
Top