The Role of Government in Maintaining a Well Regulated Militia!?!

[Smokin' OP]

I'm not YOU said that it is state government that give people the right to self defense and you can't prove it.

They did and I proved it.
YOU just don't like the proof.

 

[Blues Man]

They did and I proved it.
YOU just don't like the proof.

No you didn't.

The right of self defense has been considered a natural right far before the US was even a thought.

So tell me what state has any laws that says self defense is illegal and that people must stand there and allow another to assault or murder them.

The fact that every state recognizes the right to self defense is proof that it is NOT a privilege granted by the government but a recognized natural right.

And then there is that pesky 9th Amendment that you like to ignore that states

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

State laws regarding what is and is not considered justified force is NOT a repudiation of the natural right to self defense. These laws are more for ensuring people don't commit murder in the name of self defense.

 

[Smokin' OP]

No you didn't.

The right of self defense has been considered a natural right far before the US was even a thought.

BS..............There aren't any "Natural rights".
Every right people have have been given........or taken away by someone.

So tell me what state has any laws that says self defense is illegal and that people must stand there and allow another to assault or murder them.

WTF?
You must be getting tired..........But those goalpost, aren't going to move themselves.

"What state has a law stating that self defense and the use of force and deadly force are NEVER justified"?

The fact that every state recognizes the right to self defense is proof that it is NOT a privilege granted by the government but a recognized natural right.

Recognizes, they did more than that..........they made laws about it.

And then there is that pesky 9th Amendment that you like to ignore that states

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

So..............they aren't "natural rights" someone had to write that down, giving people "rights" they claim are "enumerated".
People could just as easily take those "rights" away.

State laws regarding what is and is not considered justified force is NOT a repudiation of the natural right to self defense.

There aren't any natural "rights".

These laws are more for ensuring people don't commit murder in the name of self defense.

BUT......................they are "Natural"....................RIGHT?

 

[Blues Man]

BS..............There aren't any "Natural rights".
Every right people have have been given........or taken away by someone.

WTF?
You must be getting tired..........But those goalpost, aren't going to move themselves.

"What state has a law stating that self defense and the use of force and deadly force are NEVER justified"?

Recognizes, they did more than that..........they made laws about it.

So..............they aren't "natural rights" someone had to write that down, giving people "rights" they claim are "enumerated".
People could just as easily take those "rights" away.

There aren't any natural "rights".

BUT......................they are "Natural"....................RIGHT?

There is no right to MURDER you fucking IDIOT

Just because justifiable force is legally defined in no way means there is no right to defend yourself.

 

[Abatis]

WTF?
"Well regulated".
Merely an "accolade"?
"it describes a quality; ("the character of") the unit and the men. That description is earned. It is earned only after extensive "military exercises and evolutions" and demonstrating expertness in military readiness and order ("acquire the degree of perfection").

I will take the contextual use of the term by Hamilton (or any framer) as an explanation of the definition of "well regulated" and/or the alternate definition of "regulated" and even the antonym, "irregularity" (used to describe ill-regulated, undisciplined militia), over your inventions and perversions any day.

This instance in the records of the First Congress is interesting, describing in the frontier of Georgia how the Creek Indians were "better regulated" than the Wabash and to control the aggressions of the Creek, a detachment of regular troops instead of militia, could better fight the Creeks if needed:

"That the strength of the Wabash Indians who were principally the object of the resolve of the 21st of July 1787, and the strength of the Creek Indians is very different. That the said Creeks are not only greatly superior in numbers but are more united, better regulated, and headed by a man whose talents appear to have fixed him in their confidence.​

​

That your Secretary humbly apprehends the regular troops of the Union on the Ohio were considered as the basis of the before recited resolve of the 21st of July 1787. That the Militia intended to have been drawn forth were to have acted as auxiliaries to the said regular troops and that all the arrangements were to have been made under the direction of the commanding Officer of the said troops. That the case is widely different on the frontiers of Georgia no troops of the United States being there, nor is it easily practicable to remove any considerable body from the Ohio, were the measure expedient in other respects.​

​

That this difference of circumstances will require a different and more extensive arrangement for the protection of the frontier of Georgia than any that were contemplated by the aforesaid resolve of the 21st of July 1787.​

​

That the frontiers of Georgia may be protected either by a large body of militia detached from time to time, or by a Corps of troops regularly organized and enlisted for a certain period. That a consideration of the expence and irregularity of detachments of mere militia, compared with the oeconomy and vigor of a corps of troops properly organized would evince the great superiority and advantage to be derived to the public by the adoption of the organized troops.​

​

That from the view of the object your Secretary has been able to take he conceives that the only effectual mode of acting against the said Creeks in case they should persist in their hostilities would be by making an invasion of their country with a powerful body of well regulated troops always ready to combat and able to defeat any combination of force the said Creeks could oppose and to destroy their towns and provisions.​

​

Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789
MONDAY, JULY 28, 1788.​

So were the Creeks under more regulations from Congress than the Wabash?

Was the only problem using militia instead of regular troops to secure the Georgia frontier, that the militia just didn't have enough regulations written for them?

.

 

[Abatis]

Who is regulating these men when they are called up for service?
Someone has to make sure they are up to snuff...............hence ............REGULATED.

Yes, that is using a different definition of "regulated", one that is not in dispute nor is there any challenge that Congress can write and enforce "regulations" and "regulate" the organized militia . . . That power only flows from the body of the Constitution, Art. I, §8, cl. 15 & 16, not the 2nd Amendment.

That is the foundation of your error, PURPOSEFULLY mis-defining the term used in the 2nd Amendment, "well regulated" as describing being under "regulations" and inventing a non-existent power in the 2nd Amendment, extending the power to regulate onto "the people" who possess the right to arms and are NOT members of the militia.

You are making claims as to the legal effect and action of the term "well regulated" when there is zero evidence in the philosophical, historical or legal record of that term meaning what you say . . . Can you provide any instance where a framer or the SCOTUS has said the term "well regulated" (or the declaratory clause as a whole) has any legal action, effect or purpose establishing anything pertaining to the organized militia? Can you offer any statement from a framer or the SCOTUS that the declaratory clause modifies, conditions, qualifies or restricts the "right of the people to keep and bear arms", as possessed by "the people" who are NOT militia members?

How can you argue with a straight face that regulations written by Congress to regulate the organized militia, also are impressed on the people who are NOT militia members? That belief defies and violates foundational tenets of constitutional / legal interpretation.

Because your theory violates foundational constitutional principles and canons of statutory interpretation, you cannot offer any evidence or proof that the declaratory clause of the 2nd Amendment is positive law . . . The declaratory clause is completely legally inert, especially as having any conditioning or qualifying power on the restrictive clause that recognizes and secures the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

The canon of expressio unius est exclusio alterius compels us to reject your fantasies . . . Because the regulations issued by Congress (Militia Act of 1792) specifies in law exactly who is bound under it, everyone else is excepted out.

Your continued application of militia law as guiding anything pertaining to the right to arms (a right being an exception of government power) and militia laws and regulations being impressed upon "the people" who are NOT militia members, is legally incoherent.

.

 

[Smokin' OP]

There is no right to MURDER you fucking IDIOT

WTF?
Really?
There were before.............LAWS were written.

Just because justifiable force is legally defined in no way means there is no right to defend yourself.

So.....................Who said or wrote this down?

 

[Smokin' OP]

I will take the contextual use of the term by Hamilton (or any framer) as an explanation of the definition of "well regulated" and/or the alternate definition of "regulated" and even the antonym, "irregularity" (used to describe ill-regulated, undisciplined militia), over your inventions and perversions any day.

This instance in the records of the First Congress is interesting, describing in the frontier of Georgia how the Creek Indians were "better regulated" than the Wabash and to control the aggressions of the Creek, a detachment of regular troops instead of militia, could better fight the Creeks if needed:

"That the strength of the Wabash Indians who were principally the object of the resolve of the 21st of July 1787, and the strength of the Creek Indians is very different. That the said Creeks are not only greatly superior in numbers but are more united, better regulated, and headed by a man whose talents appear to have fixed him in their confidence.​

​

That your Secretary humbly apprehends the regular troops of the Union on the Ohio were considered as the basis of the before recited resolve of the 21st of July 1787. That the Militia intended to have been drawn forth were to have acted as auxiliaries to the said regular troops and that all the arrangements were to have been made under the direction of the commanding Officer of the said troops. That the case is widely different on the frontiers of Georgia no troops of the United States being there, nor is it easily practicable to remove any considerable body from the Ohio, were the measure expedient in other respects.​

​

That this difference of circumstances will require a different and more extensive arrangement for the protection of the frontier of Georgia than any that were contemplated by the aforesaid resolve of the 21st of July 1787.​

​

That the frontiers of Georgia may be protected either by a large body of militia detached from time to time, or by a Corps of troops regularly organized and enlisted for a certain period. That a consideration of the expence and irregularity of detachments of mere militia, compared with the oeconomy and vigor of a corps of troops properly organized would evince the great superiority and advantage to be derived to the public by the adoption of the organized troops.​

​

That from the view of the object your Secretary has been able to take he conceives that the only effectual mode of acting against the said Creeks in case they should persist in their hostilities would be by making an invasion of their country with a powerful body of well regulated troops always ready to combat and able to defeat any combination of force the said Creeks could oppose and to destroy their towns and provisions.​

​

Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789​

MONDAY, JULY 28, 1788.​

So were the Creeks under more regulations from Congress than the Wabash?

Was the only problem using militia instead of regular troops to secure the Georgia frontier, that the militia just didn't have enough regulations written for them?

.

Who knows, at the time, how much regulation was needed, was it just right, or more needed to be added.
AFTER the battle.

 

[Blues Man]

WTF?
Really?
There were before.............LAWS were written.

So.....................Who said or wrote this down?\

When has there ever been a recognized right to murder in any human society?

Laws do not grant rights and that is the cornerstone of our governmental philosophy.

Laws protect the rights people inherently possess.

So if we say there is a right to life which we do then of course murder would violate that right.

Justified self defense has never been considered murder and never will be

 

[Abatis]

WTF?
There aren't any MILITIA'S............Period.

Correct, which means your argument that the private citizen and his personal arms are bound by terms and laws that have no relevance and application today, is nonsense.

WHY did the founders include "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State?
On the first sentence?

Because the wording of the provisions of the federal Bill of Rights were formulated from proposed amendment wording from the states. They wanted the same principles they were familiar with in their state constitution's right to arms provisions, to be evident and represented in the federal Bill of Rights (which many states demanded and conditioned their ratification of the Constitution upon).

If your interpretation of the 2ndA is correct, that means either the states, in their unwavering endeavor to bind and control the federal government with a bill of rights, actually ratified one amendment that surrendered the right to arms they recognized as inviolate and secured for their citizens, to the federal government . . .

Or, . . .

Your interpretation demands we accept that that the states agreed to wording that was actually a clandestine and concealed grant of power that allowed the federal government to dictate to the states (and "the people") who the federally approved and enforced arms 'keepers and bearers' shall be . . .

That would be perhaps the biggest Trojan Horse foisted since the original Trojan Horse.

.

 

[Abatis]

You keep ignoring the first part of the 2nd amendment.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State".

it isn't "ignoring', it is just relegating the declaratory clause to its proper position and significance as a statement of principle and rejecting any illegitimate claim that the declaratory clause of the 2ndA, represents positive law.

.

 

[Smokin' OP]

When has there ever been a recognized right to murder in any human society?

In some countries, the killing for what are considered reasons connected to family honor, usually involving killing due to sexual, religious or caste reasons (known as honor killing), committed frequently by a husband, father or male relative of the victim, is not considered murder; it may not be considered a criminal act or it may be considered a criminal offense other than murder.

However, they have rather significantly and consistently occurred in various parts of the Middle East and South Asia, with nearly half of all honor killings occurring in India and Pakistan.

In the 21st century, there was an increased international awareness of honor killing, however, some countries remained reluctant to take the necessary steps to effectively criminalize it.

In some countries, such as Jordan, honor killings are either legal or minimally punished. Article 340 of the Jordanian Penal Code exempts from punishment those who kill female relatives found “guilty” of committing adultery, and Article 76 of the temporary penal code allows defendants to cite “mitigating reasons” in assault crimes.

Laws do not grant rights and that is the cornerstone of our governmental philosophy.

YES, they do.
See: US CONSTITUTION.

Laws protect the rights people inherently possess.

They do NOT inherit "rights"

So if we say there is a right to life which we do then of course murder would violate that right.

SO..............."IF WE say"?

Justified self defense has never been considered murder and never will be

SOMEONE has to declare it "justified".
Laws?

 

[Abatis]

They ARE enforced, . . . .

LOL, sure they are . . .

They are not fucking enforced because every time a person who is legally prohibited from owning a gun is arrested the piece of shit criminal is not charged with a FUCKING FEDERAL CRIME as he should be.

Yup, Here's Philly for you:

 

[Smokin' OP]

Correct, which means your argument that the private citizen and his personal arms are bound by terms and laws that have no relevance and application today, is nonsense.

BS.
Teabaggers want to use the original constitution in one instance, the dismiss it in another.
The supreme court ruled, that is the ONLY way the states got their way.
IGNORE.........."A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State".

Because the wording of the provisions of the federal Bill of Rights were formulated from proposed amendment wording from the states. They wanted the same principles they were familiar with in their state constitution's right to arms provisions, to be evident and represented in the federal Bill of Rights (which many states demanded and conditioned their ratification of the Constitution upon).

Could be, the founders likely had all kinds of provisions from different representatives from different parts of the colonies.

If your interpretation of the 2ndA is correct, that means either the states, in their unwavering endeavor to bind and control the federal government with a bill of rights, actually ratified one amendment that surrendered the right to arms they recognized as inviolate and secured for their citizens, to the federal government . . .

Or, . . .

Your interpretation demands we accept that that the states agreed to wording that was actually a clandestine and concealed grant of power that allowed the federal government to dictate to the states (and "the people") who the federally approved and enforced arms 'keepers and bearers' shall be . . .

That would be perhaps the biggest Trojan Horse foisted since the original Trojan Horse.

.

Interesting take.

 

[Smokin' OP]

LOL, sure they are . . .



Yup, Here's Philly for you:

View attachment 790403​

Contract Killer Sentenced to Five Consecutive Life ...​

Department of Justice (.gov)
https://www.justice.gov › usao-edpa › contract-killer-s...
May 16, 2023 — Romero announced that Ernest Pressley, 43, of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, was sentenced to five consecutive life sentences by United States ...

VERDICT: Jury Convicts 'Hitman' of First-Degree Murder for ...​

Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General (.gov)
https://www.attorneygeneral.gov › ... › Press Releases
May 12, 2023 — ... Keith Phillips was convicted of first-degree murder for the 2019 shooting death of Nasir Sadat on a North Philadelphia street outside a ...

1 convicted, 1 acquitted in Philadelphia Mills murder case​

Audacy
https://www.audacy.com › ... › News › Local
Mar 30, 2023 — A jury on Thursday convicted one man and acquitted another in the shooting death of Dominic Billa at the Philadelphia Mills Mall exactly two ...

Yeah, NO enforcement at all.

 

[Abatis]

California State Militia exists today

If it is authorized by the state, it only exists as an allowance in federal law enacted after the National Defense Act of 1916 extinguished all conceptions of original militias and is federal law written under Art I, §8, cl. 12, which grants Congress the power to establish and provide for the national armed forces.

There is no originally conceived militia (Art I, §8, cl's 15 & 16) existing in any law today and because of that, today, no entity is authorized to call-up, organize and deploy the general citizenry as militia.

To represent that modern state authorized forces (e.g., the "State Defensive Forces") allowed to exist by express allowance by Congress, are "militia" in the original understanding, is either self-deception or purposeful misrepresentation.

 

[progressive hunter]

WOW....and it took another 15 hours to reply to your stupid comment?
SOMETIMES..............people have shit to do, moron.

Nope.

1945.

If they're getting shot at, they will.

Trump and his cult don't care about the constitution.

December 4 2022
Former President Donald Trump faced rebuke Sunday from officials in both parties after calling for the “termination” of parts of the Constitution over his lie that the 2020 election was stolen.

Trump, who announced last month that he is running again for president, made the claim over the weekend on his Truth Social media platform.

“A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution,” he wrote. “Our great ‘Founders’ did not want, and would not condone, False & Fraudulent Elections!”

quit your lying bitch,,, I saw you watching the the thread,,


save you deflections for someone that believes them

 

[progressive hunter]

What a fucking moron.
"California STATE militia"?
You morons think they are recognized or endorsed by the state?

It's a fucking club, recognized by no one but themselves, retards.

The 2nd Infantry Regiment, California State Militia is a legal, unorganized civilian militia as authorized by the U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the California State Constitution. Unorganized, defined to mean not financially supported by or under immediate control of any government agency for the purpose of deployment or assignment to duty. We are a community defense and service organization, and train to support, defend and assist our communities.

quit your lying bitch,,

you said it was illegal and they didnt exist,,

 

[Smokin' OP]

quit your lying bitch,,, I saw you watching the the thread,,


save you deflections for someone that believes them

YA.............I've been here for 27 hours...............Like you..............Q-NUT.

 

[Abatis]

WTF?
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State", isn't a clause, moron.
It's a preface and part of the complete sentence.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is a declaratory, absolute, dependent clause.

The restrictive clause, the "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" is an independent clause that stands on it's own without any dependency.

It is absurd to argue an absolute, dependent clause directs any rigid conclusion about the independent clause.

The teacher being ill, class is cancelled today.​

Can the class only be canceled if the teacher is sick?
What if he is lying about being sick and is actually out playing golf; is class still canceled?
Must class always be canceled if the teacher is ill?
What if the teacher is ill but toughs it out and comes in, can the class be held?

A well maintained road system being necessary to efficiently commute to and from work, the right of the people to keep and drive automobiles shall not be infringed.​

Can the people only use automobiles to commute to and from work?
Are retired persons or housewives or the independently wealthy to be "deautoed" because they do not commute to and from a job?
Can the people only drive on a governmentally maintained road system?
Can they only drive on those specific roads deemed by the government to be necessary for commuting?
Are the people barred from taking a scenic route to and from work, is the most efficient route the only one deemed "legal?"