Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
youre right the time for talking is over,,You do not know what you are talking about. Time to end the conversation. I'm tired of repeating the facts to you.
are you mental??Dictionaries are not law.
Sorry.
youre right the time for talking is over,,
your decision now is if you are willing to kill me to get your way,, cause I am willing to die to stop you,,,
but you need to have a dictionary to know the meaning of the words being used,,It's the law, not the dictionary, that is relevant.
Bullshit. You are confused.You have no right, as a private citizen, to own more than enough weaponry to defend yourself and hunt for food, the parameters of which are set by Heller v Washington DC.
Definition:but you need to have a dictionary to know the meaning of the words being used,,
you are applying the wrong definitions to your words,,,
you can start by looking up the original definition of the word militia??
its basically two words CIVILIAN MILITARY and by definition the NG cant be a militia,, they are enlisted personal under government control,,
key word being "CIVILIAN" the NG are enlisted and not civilians,,,Definition:
Militia
a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
The point is, IT IS STILL RUN BY THE GOVERNMENT.
Militias, of that sort, when the Constitution was written, NO LONGER EXIST.
In 1903, the Militia Act established the National Guard as the 'militia'.
The Militia Act of 1903, also known as the Dick Act after its sponsor Senator Charles W. F. Dick, has been amended several times over the years. Some of the notable amendments include:
- The National Defense Act of 1916 amended the Militia Act to create the National Guard as the primary reserve component of the United States Army.
- The National Defense Act of 1920 further amended the Militia Act to establish the Organized Reserve Corps, which later became the United States Army Reserve.
- The National Defense Act of 1933 amended the Militia Act to establish the Civilian Conservation Corps, a work relief program for unemployed young men during the Great Depression.
- The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 amended the Militia Act to allow members of the National Guard and Reserve to receive credit towards retirement eligibility for certain periods of active duty service.
The Militia Act of 1903 replaced the previous Militia Acts of 1792 and 1862 and established the modern National Guard as a reserve military force that could be called upon by the federal government in times of need.
One of the primary motivations for the Militia Act of 1903 was indeed a recognition that the state militias of prior centuries were not always effective or well-regulated. The act sought to address this issue by establishing clear standards for training and equipment for the National Guard, as well as clarifying the roles and responsibilities of both state and federal authorities in the event of a national emergency.
Additionally, the act was motivated by concerns about the United States' ability to defend itself in the event of a foreign invasion. Many politicians and military leaders believed that the country's reliance on poorly equipped and trained state militias would be insufficient in the face of a modern military force.
Overall, the Militia Act of 1903 aimed to modernize and professionalize the National Guard, and to ensure that the United States had a more effective and reliable military reserve force in case of need.
Got that?
Paramilitary groups (who love to call themselves 'militias' but, in fact, are not, per the intent of the Constitution) are not called upon by the government, they are just a group of guys that like to wear military gear, pretend to be soldiers, shoot guns on weekends (or whenever) some play paint ball.
There is no such thing in the US as a 'civilian military' unless you are talking about mercenary organizations and those are hired by private concerns for foreign assignments.
Sure, you and your buddies can form a group, and call it a militia, and if we are attacked by Russia, you can defend your home, but that isn't what we are talking about, are we? You mean a civilian militia deputized by the government to be called upon for paramilitary services.
There is no such thing after 1903.
The Army has what is known as the "Army Civilian Corps' (other branches have similar) where civilians can work, but it is still run by the government and they do not drill with guns in order to shoot people, they hold jobs that civilians can hold:
- Management & Administration
- Finance & Budget
- Contracting
- Cybersecurity & IT
- Medical & Dental
- Education & Information Sciences
- Logistics
- Security & Intelligence
- STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering & Mathematics)
You've made an incorrect assumption, that the term' militia, applies to both meanings, it doesn't.
The constitution does not explicitly authorize a civilian militia to be deputized for paramilitary purposes.
In 1787, civilians, able bodied males the age of consent and older, were required to join the state militia.
STATE militia. Civilians joined, but it was supplied and 'regulated' (trained/administered) by the STATE.
Got that?
but after 1903, the National Guard replaced it. NO MORE CIVILIANS. Unless you want a government job that serves the military.
No state law, does, either.
In order to incorporate a civilian militia for state or federal purposes, it would have be deputized in some fashion, and that language would be in the law or the constitution, of which neither are.
The definition used by the constitution and state law is the 'government run' definition.
There is a qualification..Bullshit. You are confused.
There are no qualifications in "shall not be infringed.
The business about 'free state' pertained to the state militias. That concept is now moot because of the Militia Act of 1903 establishing the National Guard, to provide the 'necessary security for a free state'.It is not just for self defense or for hunting or for anything that is specified except "necessary for the security of a free State". It is necessary for the security of a free state that I own 50 firearms, including a machine gun, and that the government shall not infringe upon that right.
See above, the larger paragraphThat is not what Heller said. Dick Heller was denied the right to keep and bear arms and the Court told the Democrat shitheads in DC that they can't do it. It was re affirmed for Otis McDonald in Chicago and for Robert Nash and Brandon Koch in New York with the Bruen decision.
With due respect. Flash, is "filthy libtard democrats' really necessary?The Bruen decision was really important because it told these filthy Libtard Democrats that they have to start using Strict Scrutiny to determining if the right to keep and bear arms can be infringed upon. The same level of scrutiny that has to be used for freedom of speech and freedom of religion. The States and Locals have not been doing that.
key word being "CIVILIAN" the NG are enlisted and not civilians,,,
THE DEFIFNITION OF A KEY WORD IS A MOOT POINT???Moot point per the Militia Act of 1903, which REPLACED state militias with the NG.
Not ADD, but REPLACE.
Civilians can work for the military, as GOVERNMENT workers.
It always comes back to the government running the military.
No, PH. The definition isn't moot, but the Militias of yesteryear are.THE DEFIFNITION OF A KEY WORD IS A MOOT POINT???
I repeat, you do not know what you are talking about. Hell, your first line in this comment proves it.bud you should never talk about principles and the constitution again,,,
youre bat shit nuts,,,
changing the definition of words to change our rights is not just dumb but true evil,,,No, PH. The definition isn't moot, but the Militias of yesteryear are.
As of the Militia Act of 1903, there are no state's militias but the NG. That renders militias moot.
The definition isn't moot, the groups are.
I repeat, you do not know what you are talking about. Hell, your first line in this comment proves it.
Our forces DID. The locals outlasted us fighting with small arms and IEDs when we had artillery, tanks, bomber aircraft, drones in any quantity we desired AND forces that were willing to kill the insurgents. In a civilian uprising here, a large percentage, perhaps even most military, personnel would refuse to take violent action against fellow American citizens.They didn't have an $850 BILLION budget.
Oh yeah? The British Commonwealth/Empire was constantly at war from about 1750 until 1947 to a greater or lesser extent. That's a pretty fragile glass house you are living in buster.Addressing the issue with the qualifications on WW2 and 1 is fine!
The mass shooting and gun violence in America, regardless of the excuses and qualifications can be something we don't need to debate.
The fact is, we are narrowing down the possibilities of why America stands so far out and alone.
The 'culture' of wars and killing that stands out on this forum is common to no other country at anywhere near the same level.
As I've said 'Progressive Hunter' even brags about his feelings in his screen name.
Thanks! We've done alright for today at least!
PH, I didn't change the definition.changing the definition of words to change our rights is not just dumb but true evil,,,
we go off of what the founders meant and the definition of the times it was written,,