What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

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

The Right To Bear Arms

Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2017
Messages
30,567
Reaction score
14,709
Points
1,600
Location
Tejas
I disagree.
The Minutemen were totally unorganized.
They did not wear uniform, were not paid, and were totally made up of volunteers who were not under any formal contract or commitment.

Read your own quote better:
{,,, Minutemen were civilian colonists who independently formed militia companies self-trained in weaponry, tactics, and military strategies, comprising the American colonial partisan militia during the American Revolutionary War. ...}

Civilian colonists, self-trained, and partisan, definitely means unorganized militia.,
Although the terms militia and minutemen are sometimes used interchangeably today, in the 18th century there was a decided difference between the two. Militia were men in arms formed to protect their towns from foreign invasion and ravages of war. Minutemen were a small hand-picked elite force which were required to be highly mobile and able to assemble quickly. Minutemen were selected from militia muster rolls by their commanding officers.
So, minute men were militia men, just like all the others, but they were asked to move around to different areas to help bolster defenses for other towns, correct?

And who armed them? Who are the regular militia?

Are national guardsmen allowed to take their weapons home with them and go to the firing range to practice? Who owns the weapons the national guardsmen use?

This is where your entire argument falls to pieces.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
67,075
Reaction score
3,698
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
I disagree.
The Minutemen were totally unorganized.
They did not wear uniform, were not paid, and were totally made up of volunteers who were not under any formal contract or commitment.

Read your own quote better:
{,,, Minutemen were civilian colonists who independently formed militia companies self-trained in weaponry, tactics, and military strategies, comprising the American colonial partisan militia during the American Revolutionary War. ...}

Civilian colonists, self-trained, and partisan, definitely means unorganized militia.,
Although the terms militia and minutemen are sometimes used interchangeably today, in the 18th century there was a decided difference between the two. Militia were men in arms formed to protect their towns from foreign invasion and ravages of war. Minutemen were a small hand-picked elite force which were required to be highly mobile and able to assemble quickly. Minutemen were selected from militia muster rolls by their commanding officers.
So, minute men were militia men, just like all the others, but they were asked to move around to different areas to help bolster defenses for other towns, correct?

And who armed them? Who are the regular militia?

Are national guardsmen allowed to take their weapons home with them and go to the firing range to practice? Who owns the weapons the national guardsmen use?

This is where your entire argument falls to pieces.
Did you miss it in the article? Minute men were the "special forces" of their day.

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;
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
9,827
Reaction score
2,526
Points
170
Location
New Mexico
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.
Your point?

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons (the People) within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

A well regulated Militia (of the whole People), being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
And there you go again, undermining your own argument by saying the militia is all of the people, which of course means it is the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms, not the militia.
I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
So if the militia is the whole people, then the 2nd applies to the whole people, which means it's an individual right, just as the SC found.
Our Second Amendment clearly states that it is well regulated militia of the whole People not inclusive of the unorganized militia. They must have been more right wing back then.
So you deny even that which you quote ad nauseum, which clearly states that the militia is the whole people, something you emphasize in the quote. Yet again you destroy your own argument for us. And you're also again adding things to the second amendment that aren't there. Our Second Amendment clearly states that it is the PEOPLE whose right to bear arms is protected, not the militia (which you also claim is the PEOPLE). The only way you can arrive at your conclusion is by adding things that just are not there.
The unorganized militia or criminals of the whole people may be Infringed unlike the Organized and well regulated militia of the whole people.

When you take weapons away from a criminal being imprisoned, you are NOT infringing.
That is because you are providing for their safety, so you are not taking away the right of defense.
You actually are increasing it.
Government can not infringe legally because rights superseded government.
When you moderate between the conflicting rights of multiple individuals, you are not infringing.
You are attempting to maximize rights between many people.
Any deliberate infringement is illegal.

And you DO legally infringe upon the actions of the Organized and well regulated Militia.
The Posse Comitatus Act deliberately intended to prevent the Organized Militia from being used on civilians in the US.
The Organized Militia could infringe upon individuals, so there has to be laws to curb the Organized Militia from being abusive.

In no way does anything imply that federal gun control is at all legal.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
9,827
Reaction score
2,526
Points
170
Location
New Mexico
I disagree.
The Minutemen were totally unorganized.
They did not wear uniform, were not paid, and were totally made up of volunteers who were not under any formal contract or commitment.

Read your own quote better:
{,,, Minutemen were civilian colonists who independently formed militia companies self-trained in weaponry, tactics, and military strategies, comprising the American colonial partisan militia during the American Revolutionary War. ...}

Civilian colonists, self-trained, and partisan, definitely means unorganized militia.,
Although the terms militia and minutemen are sometimes used interchangeably today, in the 18th century there was a decided difference between the two. Militia were men in arms formed to protect their towns from foreign invasion and ravages of war. Minutemen were a small hand-picked elite force which were required to be highly mobile and able to assemble quickly. Minutemen were selected from militia muster rolls by their commanding officers.
So, minute men were militia men, just like all the others, but they were asked to move around to different areas to help bolster defenses for other towns, correct?

And who armed them? Who are the regular militia?

Are national guardsmen allowed to take their weapons home with them and go to the firing range to practice? Who owns the weapons the national guardsmen use?

This is where your entire argument falls to pieces.
Did you miss it in the article? Minute men were the "special forces" of their day.

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;

They were a special elite forced, but totally and completely unorganized.
They were voluntary, ununiformed, self armed, self trained, and followed no chain of command.

Providing for organizing, arming, or disciplining an Organized Militia only means that people could be drafted if an emergency that warranted it should come up.
That does not mean the Organized Militia exists when no emergency is current.
So the Founders were counting on a volunteer unorganized militia to fill in for less serious or smaller scale emergencies not on the national scale.
Which is why the Founders wanted to ensure the federal government did not interfere with the unorganized militia by passing destructive gun control laws.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
67,075
Reaction score
3,698
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
When you take weapons away from a criminal being imprisoned, you are NOT infringing.
That is because you are providing for their safety, so you are not taking away the right of defense.
You actually are increasing it.
Government can not infringe legally because rights superseded government.
When you moderate between the conflicting rights of multiple individuals, you are not infringing.
You are attempting to maximize rights between many people.
Any deliberate infringement is illegal.

And you DO legally infringe upon the actions of the Organized and well regulated Militia.
The Posse Comitatus Act deliberately intended to prevent the Organized Militia from being used on civilians in the US.
The Organized Militia could infringe upon individuals, so there has to be laws to curb the Organized Militia from being abusive.

In no way does anything imply that federal gun control is at all legal.
The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$400.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top