Should Gun Owners Form A Militia?

[ScienceRocks]

No, they would be better off innovating something people want(steve jobs, bill gates, etc) or majoring in computer science, becoming a scientist or a doctor. Running around screaming about how much you hate the government is a dead end.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

Article I section 8.

" and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

Authority of training is NOT regulating the founding or forming.
Nor does it regulate the firearms. If ANYTHING it shows government HAS failed its duties to educate firearms training.
Article I Section 8

I love it when people selectively quote material in order to make a point the material doesn't really support. Here is the entire clause in question:

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress

"governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States"

Note the words "Part of them" NOT all of them.
Note the word "may" NOT is/are.

This is why if you ever sit down and talk to a lawyer who understands the Constitution (as I do since one of my closest friends is a civil rights lawyer who has argued and won two cases before the PA Supreme Court as well as winning every single law suit he filed against state and the federal government, as well as authoring two books on the subject) you would understand that the Constitution guarantees nothing.

 

[DarkFury]

Article I section 8.

" and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

Authority of training is NOT regulating the founding or forming.
Nor does it regulate the firearms. If ANYTHING it shows government HAS failed its duties to educate firearms training.
Article I Section 8

Um....Furry? You do realize that we can read the constitution too, right?

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

So either Congress or the States are in charge of the training, the appointment of officers, the disciplining, the organizing, and the calling forth of the militia. With the President to lead them in the service of the United States But they're not actually in charge of the militia?

Sigh.....do you ever get tired of not knowing what the **** you're talking about?

It says nothing about the founding and forming. But they ARE supposed to train are they not?

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

The makeup of this Militia should consist of veterans only. No wannabees or paintball and laser tag heroes.

Sorry, but the Constitution doesn't stipulate the background of a potential militia member.

 

[Skylar]

Article I section 8.

" and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

Authority of training is NOT regulating the founding or forming.
Nor does it regulate the firearms. If ANYTHING it shows government HAS failed its duties to educate firearms training.
Article I Section 8

Um....Furry? You do realize that we can read the constitution too, right?

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

So either Congress or the States are in charge of the training, the appointment of officers, the disciplining, the organizing, and the calling forth of the militia. With the President to lead them in the service of the United States But they're not actually in charge of the militia?

Sigh.....do you ever get tired of not knowing what the **** you're talking about?

It says nothing about the founding and forming. But they ARE supposed to train are they not?

Organizing covers it. Both in the meaning of the word, its historical context, and the debates of the Constitutional Congress.

Remember, you don't actually know what you're talking about. It tends to slow your argument considerably.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Article I section 8.

" and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

Authority of training is NOT regulating the founding or forming.
Nor does it regulate the firearms. If ANYTHING it shows government HAS failed its duties to educate firearms training.
Article I Section 8

Um....Furry? You do realize that we can read the constitution too, right?

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

So either Congress or the States are in charge of the training, the appointment of officers, the disciplining, the organizing, and the calling forth of the militia. With the President to lead them in the service of the United States But they're not actually in charge of the militia?

Sigh.....do you ever get tired of not knowing what the **** you're talking about?

It says nothing about the founding and forming. But they ARE supposed to train are they not?

The militia is subject to government control. Tough, but there it is. Any group, however, can form as a militia independently. Once the governor calls them up, their independence is over.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

Article I section 8.

" and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

Authority of training is NOT regulating the founding or forming.
Nor does it regulate the firearms. If ANYTHING it shows government HAS failed its duties to educate firearms training.
Article I Section 8

Um....Furry? You do realize that we can read the constitution too, right?

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

So either Congress or the States are in charge of the training, the appointment of officers, the disciplining, the organizing, and the calling forth of the militia. With the President to lead them in the service of the United States But they're not actually in charge of the militia?

Sigh.....do you ever get tired of not knowing what the **** you're talking about?

It says nothing about the founding and forming. But they ARE supposed to train are they not?

The militia is subject to government control. Tough, but there it is. Any group, however, can form as a militia independently. Once the governor calls them up, their independence is over.

The 2nd Amendment was written to provide the citizenry with a military action against the newly formed government lest it become tyrannical.

This is why the stupid idiots who showed up in Oregon recently got their ass kicked. There was no tyranny by the federal government. Their grievance became an illegal occupation of a federal facility based on a protest of two ranchers being sentenced to prison...for arson on federal land.

 

[Hossfly]

The makeup of this Militia should consist of veterans only. No wannabees or paintball and laser tag heroes.

We have an entire generation born between wars. Properly trained they should be allowed to serve.

Sure, peacetime vets are qualified.

 

[Hossfly]

The makeup of this Militia should consist of veterans only. No wannabees or paintball and laser tag heroes.

Sorry, but the Constitution doesn't stipulate the background of a potential militia member.

Well, our militia requires a member must be a military veteran. They're already trained, just rusty. We'll whip 'em into shape.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

The makeup of this Militia should consist of veterans only. No wannabees or paintball and laser tag heroes.

Sorry, but the Constitution doesn't stipulate the background of a potential militia member.

Well, our militia requires a member must be a military veteran. They're already trained, just rusty. We'll whip 'em into shape.

Some advice: Make sure you have a legitimate cause before you have a posse, lest you end up on the side of the road with an FBI bullet in your big, fat bonnet.

 

[hazlnut]

When you read the second carefully it says a "Well Regulated Militia" NOT a federal government regulated one NOR state regulated one or even a party regulated one. Just a well regulated one.

Nothing in the second even gives the federal OR state governments the power to regulate ANY militia. Citizens are in charge of deciding that and are able granted by that very law to do so.

Maybe its time to organize? A militia IS a form of a union so why not ask even DEMAND the National Rifle Association to form the National Rifle Militia? That meets the context of the law perfectly. Members would of course set the rules/training for the militia.

Federal and states would NO longer have the power {stolen anyway} to regulate the "peoples militia". The federals would set the rules for the federal arm forces the state for state reserves and the National Rifle Militia for the citizens.

Citizen gun control belongs to the citizens NOT any legislative branch of government. I think in some ways we are fighting the wrong fight. Its not a matter of how much control a federal/state government should have. Its a question of should they have ANY at all.

And after breaking down the second and lets not forget that comma I don't think they should. There is NOTHING in the second that gives the federal OR state the right to regulate the citizens militia. NO limit on types of weapons/caliber/ammo, or the number of weapons.

Democrats AND gun grabbers argue the "persons" right. A National Rifle Militia REMOVES that argument BECAUSE it IS protected.

Thoughts?
Fury

Yes


Yes


YES


Please do that!!!

 

[Hossfly]

The makeup of this Militia should consist of veterans only. No wannabees or paintball and laser tag heroes.

Sorry, but the Constitution doesn't stipulate the background of a potential militia member.

Well, our militia requires a member must be a military veteran. They're already trained, just rusty. We'll whip 'em into shape.

Some advice: Make sure you have a legitimate cause before you have a posse, lest you end up on the side of the road with an FBI bullet in your big, fat bonnet.

2d Amendment spells it out, Sybil.

 

[DarkFury]

When you read the second carefully it says a "Well Regulated Militia" NOT a federal government regulated one NOR state regulated one or even a party regulated one. Just a well regulated one.

Nothing in the second even gives the federal OR state governments the power to regulate ANY militia. Citizens are in charge of deciding that and are able granted by that very law to do so.

Maybe its time to organize? A militia IS a form of a union so why not ask even DEMAND the National Rifle Association to form the National Rifle Militia? That meets the context of the law perfectly. Members would of course set the rules/training for the militia.

Federal and states would NO longer have the power {stolen anyway} to regulate the "peoples militia". The federals would set the rules for the federal arm forces the state for state reserves and the National Rifle Militia for the citizens.

Citizen gun control belongs to the citizens NOT any legislative branch of government. I think in some ways we are fighting the wrong fight. Its not a matter of how much control a federal/state government should have. Its a question of should they have ANY at all.

And after breaking down the second and lets not forget that comma I don't think they should. There is NOTHING in the second that gives the federal OR state the right to regulate the citizens militia. NO limit on types of weapons/caliber/ammo, or the number of weapons.

Democrats AND gun grabbers argue the "persons" right. A National Rifle Militia REMOVES that argument BECAUSE it IS protected.

Thoughts?
Fury

Yes


Yes


YES


Please do that!!!

Since you seem to be unduly stupid on the subject allow me.

 

[Hossfly]

When you read the second carefully it says a "Well Regulated Militia" NOT a federal government regulated one NOR state regulated one or even a party regulated one. Just a well regulated one.

Nothing in the second even gives the federal OR state governments the power to regulate ANY militia. Citizens are in charge of deciding that and are able granted by that very law to do so.

Maybe its time to organize? A militia IS a form of a union so why not ask even DEMAND the National Rifle Association to form the National Rifle Militia? That meets the context of the law perfectly. Members would of course set the rules/training for the militia.

Federal and states would NO longer have the power {stolen anyway} to regulate the "peoples militia". The federals would set the rules for the federal arm forces the state for state reserves and the National Rifle Militia for the citizens.

Citizen gun control belongs to the citizens NOT any legislative branch of government. I think in some ways we are fighting the wrong fight. Its not a matter of how much control a federal/state government should have. Its a question of should they have ANY at all.

And after breaking down the second and lets not forget that comma I don't think they should. There is NOTHING in the second that gives the federal OR state the right to regulate the citizens militia. NO limit on types of weapons/caliber/ammo, or the number of weapons.

Democrats AND gun grabbers argue the "persons" right. A National Rifle Militia REMOVES that argument BECAUSE it IS protected.

Thoughts?
Fury

Yes


Yes


YES


Please do that!!!

The law murdered that man.

 

[DarkFury]

When you read the second carefully it says a "Well Regulated Militia" NOT a federal government regulated one NOR state regulated one or even a party regulated one. Just a well regulated one.

Nothing in the second even gives the federal OR state governments the power to regulate ANY militia. Citizens are in charge of deciding that and are able granted by that very law to do so.

Maybe its time to organize? A militia IS a form of a union so why not ask even DEMAND the National Rifle Association to form the National Rifle Militia? That meets the context of the law perfectly. Members would of course set the rules/training for the militia.

Federal and states would NO longer have the power {stolen anyway} to regulate the "peoples militia". The federals would set the rules for the federal arm forces the state for state reserves and the National Rifle Militia for the citizens.

Citizen gun control belongs to the citizens NOT any legislative branch of government. I think in some ways we are fighting the wrong fight. Its not a matter of how much control a federal/state government should have. Its a question of should they have ANY at all.

And after breaking down the second and lets not forget that comma I don't think they should. There is NOTHING in the second that gives the federal OR state the right to regulate the citizens militia. NO limit on types of weapons/caliber/ammo, or the number of weapons.

Democrats AND gun grabbers argue the "persons" right. A National Rifle Militia REMOVES that argument BECAUSE it IS protected.

Thoughts?
Fury

Yes


Yes


YES


Please do that!!!

The law murdered that man.

I saw the video and that was murder. Obama's Ruby ridge.

 

[hazlnut]

When you read the second carefully it says a "Well Regulated Militia" NOT a federal government regulated one NOR state regulated one or even a party regulated one. Just a well regulated one.

Nothing in the second even gives the federal OR state governments the power to regulate ANY militia. Citizens are in charge of deciding that and are able granted by that very law to do so.

Maybe its time to organize? A militia IS a form of a union so why not ask even DEMAND the National Rifle Association to form the National Rifle Militia? That meets the context of the law perfectly. Members would of course set the rules/training for the militia.

Federal and states would NO longer have the power {stolen anyway} to regulate the "peoples militia". The federals would set the rules for the federal arm forces the state for state reserves and the National Rifle Militia for the citizens.

Citizen gun control belongs to the citizens NOT any legislative branch of government. I think in some ways we are fighting the wrong fight. Its not a matter of how much control a federal/state government should have. Its a question of should they have ANY at all.

And after breaking down the second and lets not forget that comma I don't think they should. There is NOTHING in the second that gives the federal OR state the right to regulate the citizens militia. NO limit on types of weapons/caliber/ammo, or the number of weapons.

Democrats AND gun grabbers argue the "persons" right. A National Rifle Militia REMOVES that argument BECAUSE it IS protected.

Thoughts?
Fury

Yes


Yes


YES


Please do that!!!

The law murdered that man.

Maybe he committed suicide by cop.

But murder? **** off, idiot.

 

[hazlnut]

When you read the second carefully it says a "Well Regulated Militia" NOT a federal government regulated one NOR state regulated one or even a party regulated one. Just a well regulated one.

Nothing in the second even gives the federal OR state governments the power to regulate ANY militia. Citizens are in charge of deciding that and are able granted by that very law to do so.

Maybe its time to organize? A militia IS a form of a union so why not ask even DEMAND the National Rifle Association to form the National Rifle Militia? That meets the context of the law perfectly. Members would of course set the rules/training for the militia.

Federal and states would NO longer have the power {stolen anyway} to regulate the "peoples militia". The federals would set the rules for the federal arm forces the state for state reserves and the National Rifle Militia for the citizens.

Citizen gun control belongs to the citizens NOT any legislative branch of government. I think in some ways we are fighting the wrong fight. Its not a matter of how much control a federal/state government should have. Its a question of should they have ANY at all.

And after breaking down the second and lets not forget that comma I don't think they should. There is NOTHING in the second that gives the federal OR state the right to regulate the citizens militia. NO limit on types of weapons/caliber/ammo, or the number of weapons.

Democrats AND gun grabbers argue the "persons" right. A National Rifle Militia REMOVES that argument BECAUSE it IS protected.

Thoughts?
Fury

Yes


Yes


YES


Please do that!!!

The law murdered that man.

I saw the video and that was murder. Obama's Ruby ridge.

 

[Hossfly]

When you read the second carefully it says a "Well Regulated Militia" NOT a federal government regulated one NOR state regulated one or even a party regulated one. Just a well regulated one.

Nothing in the second even gives the federal OR state governments the power to regulate ANY militia. Citizens are in charge of deciding that and are able granted by that very law to do so.

Maybe its time to organize? A militia IS a form of a union so why not ask even DEMAND the National Rifle Association to form the National Rifle Militia? That meets the context of the law perfectly. Members would of course set the rules/training for the militia.

Federal and states would NO longer have the power {stolen anyway} to regulate the "peoples militia". The federals would set the rules for the federal arm forces the state for state reserves and the National Rifle Militia for the citizens.

Citizen gun control belongs to the citizens NOT any legislative branch of government. I think in some ways we are fighting the wrong fight. Its not a matter of how much control a federal/state government should have. Its a question of should they have ANY at all.

And after breaking down the second and lets not forget that comma I don't think they should. There is NOTHING in the second that gives the federal OR state the right to regulate the citizens militia. NO limit on types of weapons/caliber/ammo, or the number of weapons.

Democrats AND gun grabbers argue the "persons" right. A National Rifle Militia REMOVES that argument BECAUSE it IS protected.

Thoughts?
Fury

Yes


Yes


YES


Please do that!!!

The law murdered that man.

Maybe he committed suicide by cop.

But murder? **** off, idiot.

When you read the second carefully it says a "Well Regulated Militia" NOT a federal government regulated one NOR state regulated one or even a party regulated one. Just a well regulated one.

Nothing in the second even gives the federal OR state governments the power to regulate ANY militia. Citizens are in charge of deciding that and are able granted by that very law to do so.

Maybe its time to organize? A militia IS a form of a union so why not ask even DEMAND the National Rifle Association to form the National Rifle Militia? That meets the context of the law perfectly. Members would of course set the rules/training for the militia.

Federal and states would NO longer have the power {stolen anyway} to regulate the "peoples militia". The federals would set the rules for the federal arm forces the state for state reserves and the National Rifle Militia for the citizens.

Citizen gun control belongs to the citizens NOT any legislative branch of government. I think in some ways we are fighting the wrong fight. Its not a matter of how much control a federal/state government should have. Its a question of should they have ANY at all.

And after breaking down the second and lets not forget that comma I don't think they should. There is NOTHING in the second that gives the federal OR state the right to regulate the citizens militia. NO limit on types of weapons/caliber/ammo, or the number of weapons.

Democrats AND gun grabbers argue the "persons" right. A National Rifle Militia REMOVES that argument BECAUSE it IS protected.

Thoughts?
Fury

Yes


Yes


YES


Please do that!!!

The law murdered that man.

Maybe he committed suicide by cop.

But murder? **** off, idiot.

They planned on killing that man to set an example. There was no reason to shoot to kill.

 

[hazlnut]

District of Columbia v Heller - Justice Scalia


"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."

 

[hazlnut]

When you read the second carefully it says a "Well Regulated Militia" NOT a federal government regulated one NOR state regulated one or even a party regulated one. Just a well regulated one.

Nothing in the second even gives the federal OR state governments the power to regulate ANY militia. Citizens are in charge of deciding that and are able granted by that very law to do so.

Maybe its time to organize? A militia IS a form of a union so why not ask even DEMAND the National Rifle Association to form the National Rifle Militia? That meets the context of the law perfectly. Members would of course set the rules/training for the militia.

Federal and states would NO longer have the power {stolen anyway} to regulate the "peoples militia". The federals would set the rules for the federal arm forces the state for state reserves and the National Rifle Militia for the citizens.

Citizen gun control belongs to the citizens NOT any legislative branch of government. I think in some ways we are fighting the wrong fight. Its not a matter of how much control a federal/state government should have. Its a question of should they have ANY at all.

And after breaking down the second and lets not forget that comma I don't think they should. There is NOTHING in the second that gives the federal OR state the right to regulate the citizens militia. NO limit on types of weapons/caliber/ammo, or the number of weapons.

Democrats AND gun grabbers argue the "persons" right. A National Rifle Militia REMOVES that argument BECAUSE it IS protected.

Thoughts?
Fury

Yes


Yes


YES


Please do that!!!

The law murdered that man.

Maybe he committed suicide by cop.

But murder? **** off, idiot.

When you read the second carefully it says a "Well Regulated Militia" NOT a federal government regulated one NOR state regulated one or even a party regulated one. Just a well regulated one.

Nothing in the second even gives the federal OR state governments the power to regulate ANY militia. Citizens are in charge of deciding that and are able granted by that very law to do so.

Maybe its time to organize? A militia IS a form of a union so why not ask even DEMAND the National Rifle Association to form the National Rifle Militia? That meets the context of the law perfectly. Members would of course set the rules/training for the militia.

Federal and states would NO longer have the power {stolen anyway} to regulate the "peoples militia". The federals would set the rules for the federal arm forces the state for state reserves and the National Rifle Militia for the citizens.

Citizen gun control belongs to the citizens NOT any legislative branch of government. I think in some ways we are fighting the wrong fight. Its not a matter of how much control a federal/state government should have. Its a question of should they have ANY at all.

And after breaking down the second and lets not forget that comma I don't think they should. There is NOTHING in the second that gives the federal OR state the right to regulate the citizens militia. NO limit on types of weapons/caliber/ammo, or the number of weapons.

Democrats AND gun grabbers argue the "persons" right. A National Rifle Militia REMOVES that argument BECAUSE it IS protected.

Thoughts?
Fury

Yes


Yes


YES


Please do that!!!

The law murdered that man.

Maybe he committed suicide by cop.

But murder? **** off, idiot.

They planned on killing that man to set an example. There was no reason to shoot to kill.

They were terrorists threatening Federal Officers. They were breaking the law. They had no standing, no right, nothing but impotent rage.


**** em'.

Just like that ****** and his family at Ruby Ridge. -- ****** trained his children to point guns at U.S. Marshals, we can't have people like that living in our country.

Flush those turds down the toilet.

Sorry, but this is why abortion clinics in Red States are so crucial.