The rules of organizing milita

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

because Republicans do not tolerate women who walk away from their kitchen duties by mimicking a man.

Bullshit! You have some very 1950's attitudes about women.

My wife makes more money at her job than I do, and I would never disrespect her the way you talk about women.

 

[rupol2000]

What the fuck does that mean? Find someone who speaks English to help you with your posts.

I think that you do not understand them because of the low IQ.

I ask, who is taking on the additional risks that come from Barbie girls trying to command army units instead of officers? Is it clear now?

 

[Abatis]

it has nothing to do with the state militia

Maybe you should try actually reading the Constitution?

The President is Commander in Chief of the part of the (state) militia when they are called into service of the nation. The same goes for Congress' power to "govern" the militia, the federal power to "govern" only becomes actionable when and for those specific militia corps that are called into service of the nation.

Interestingly, the legal status of militia members who commit a crime is altered when their units are called into service of the nation. They fall under the UCMJ, not regular law and they loose their 5th Amendment (grand jury) rights .

Being called into service of the nation changes everything and deciding that specific moment, led to many disputes between the states and federal government (none of which were decided by examining the 2nd Amendment).

 

[rupol2000]

Bullshit! You have some very 1950's attitudes about women.

My wife makes more money at her job than I do, and I would never disrespect her the way you talk about women.

This suggests that you are an infantile henpecked

 

[Abatis]

The first rule of organizing a militia is not to mention organizing a militia on a public forum because the next thing you know you have the FBI and all other manner of .gov "fellow enthusiasts" wanting to join.

Virginia is unique in that there is an allowance to form a militia (although still directed by state law).

The Constitution is a charter of conferred powers, powers "We the People" have granted to government. That "We the People" conferred (surrendered) the power to call-up, organize, train and deploy the citizens as militia to Congress, means that we can no longer claim any of those actions as a right.

Conferred does not mean surrendered. Nor does it state that only Congress (part of the federal government) can form militia. Congress has provided for the formation of the military who are employed by the federal government. Militia=civilians. Military=government employees. Throughout much of our past in many cases militia units (civilian) were "federalized" to become part of the military and government employees.

means that we can no longer claim any of those actions as a right.
Means no such thing. The Constitution in the Bill of Rights lists the Rights of individual citizens. The Constitution gives certain specific powers to government. The government has no Rights and it certainly cannot take the Rights already given to the individual citizen except through due process.

While the militia is drawn from the citizenry, it is not citizens forming themselves into militia, independent of law; no right to such action survives for as long as the Constitution is in force . .

Obviously untrue. As noted the vast majority of militia units were NOT formed by government or by Congress. You continue to confuse militia with regular military. Two entirely different things.

You have a head of cement. Now you are denying what are the most foundational principles of the Republic.

.

 

[rupol2000]

Maybe you should try actually reading the Constitution?

The President is Commander in Chief of the part of the (state) militia when they are called into service of the nation. The same goes for Congress' power to "govern" the militia, the federal power to "govern" only becomes actionable when and for those specific militia corps that are called into service of the nation.

Yes, everything is correct here. I just misunderstood you, sorry.
In this case, they act as the federal army, the combined forces of the federation.

This suggests that the federal army is not needed at all, the state militias can do everything.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I think that you do not understand them because of the low IQ.

I ask, who is taking on the additional risks that come from Barbie girls trying to command army units instead of officers? Is it clear now?

Much better wording and easier to understand, but just as stupid. My daughter is an exceptional commander. She replaced a male Captain as commander. Calling them Barbie girls is just a testament to your misogyny.

 

[rupol2000]

My daughter is an amateur boxer and would kick your ass from here to Sunday. She spars with men! She also rappels better than about 99% of other soldiers because she loves doing it!

lol

You keep forgetting that other then special operations, hand-to-hand combat means you have already lost. We discussed this before. You think you are some kind of macho man, but I suspect you are a 98 pound weakling who never served in the military.

In the army of my country, ordinary guys serve, they don't do anything special there, just stupid drill.
Therefore, this is generally not an indicator.
I had a good panch, I sent the guys to the hospital several times, and I played chess well, so I think I have military qualities.

 

[rupol2000]

but I suspect you are a 98 pound weakling who never served in the military.

I served, in our army, but there is nothing special, even in the special forces, a woman could serve there, they just jog and do exercises, they teach little there.
If someone on the street yells that he served in the airborne assault and therefore I should be afraid of him, I laugh. I did boxing and kickboxing, I know that their hand-to-hand combat is only in their fantasies, they can not do anything. The same goes for the functional. The maximum is that they can do a couple of exits by force on the bar.

 

[rupol2000]

served in the military

There are such divisions as sports companies, from which sports teams were formed earlier. I don't know what the point was, but a friend of mine served in such a company. He said that the threshold for entering there seemed to be a few jerks of a 24 kg kettlebell and several rises with a coup on the bar. They went in for kettlebell lifting there, and their kettlebells were 24 kg. This is a woman's weight in kettlebell lifting. 32 they did not use.

I use weight 40

 

[rupol2000]

In the mass armies of the Prussian type, women are not used not because of special requirements for soldiers, they are simply needed for childbearing, so their lives are more valuable.
And what they show in the promo videos is just a means to attract conscripts, because they can find loopholes so as not to go to the army.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Virginia is unique in that there is an allowance to form a militia (although still directed by state law).


You have a head of cement. Now you are denying what are the most foundational principles of the Republic.

.

No, that would be you. You are denying recorded history. Militias existed long before the republic or the Constitution. The people who wrote the Constitution had just used them to make the new republic. The UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) doesn't apply to militias because militias are civilian; not military until and unless federalized at which time they become military rather than militia.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

lol

In the army of my country, ordinary guys serve, they don't do anything special there, just stupid drill.
Therefore, this is generally not an indicator.
I had a good panch, I sent the guys to the hospital several times, and I played chess well, so I think I have military qualities.

How is being fat a good military quality? The word is "punch" I hope is what you meant to type.

In other words, you have no experience and talk out of your ass! That's exactly what I thought all along!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

In the mass armies of the Prussian type, women are not used not because of special requirements for soldiers, they are simply needed for childbearing, so their lives are more valuable.
And what they show in the promo videos is just a means to attract conscripts, because they can find loopholes so as not to go to the army.

You cannot compare your early 20th century style military with our professional and modern military. You are full of shit!

 

[rupol2000]

You cannot compare your early 20th century style military with our professional and modern military. You are full of shit!

I'm talking about European armies, they are unprofessional, jerk

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I'm talking about European armies, they are unprofessional, jerk

Your OP is about organizing militia. That was answered in about the first 5 replies.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

2nd Amendment provides the creation of the state militia to defend the rights of the people of the state.

Incorrect.

The 2nd Amendment bans federal (at least) authority over the right of the people.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State"

a clause that has no other operation but to state a purpose.

 

[Abatis]

No, that would be you. You are denying recorded history. Militias existed long before the republic or the Constitution.

But AFTER the Constitution was ratified, the formation, organization and structure of the militia, essentially the militia's entire existence was altered, codified by and under the federal Constitution. The doctrine of preemption demands that no other entities can exercise the militia organization and command powers conferred to and claimed by the federal government, including any effort of the citizens, independent of law, to organize and deploy citizens as militia (see Presser). Once the Militia Act of 1792/95 became law, that law was the only lawful process for anyone to call-up and organize the citizens as militia.

The Supreme Court explained federal preemption of militia powers:

"Upon the subject of the militia. Congress has exercised the powers conferred on that body by the constitution, as fully as was thought right, and has thus excluded the power of legislation by the States on these subjects, except so far as it has been permitted by Congress . . . ." -- Houston v. Moore 18 U.S. (5 Wheaton) 1, 24 (1820)​

The UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) doesn't apply to militias because militias are civilian; not military until and unless federalized at which time they become military rather than militia.

For the criminal prosecution of, "a capital, or otherwise infamous crime", the 5th Amendment excludes "the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger", from the grand jury presentment right, and dispenses justice to those militia the same as the federal "land or naval forces" (under the UCMJ).

The 5th Amendment says:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; . . . "​

I'm not sure what more we have to discuss; you have your beliefs that rely on the denial of the existence and enforcement of well-established, settled law and long-standing Supreme Court determinations.

I never realized how powerful such self-delusion could be.

I've been enjoying the gun debate since 1993 and I never thought to just deny the existence of the lower federal court's "militia right" and "state's right" interpretations. So, while those decisions served to legally invalidate any recognition and protection of the individual citizen's right to arms under the 2nd Amendment, all I had to do to win the debates back then was deny those rulings existed.

Wow, here I thought Heller really meant something!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

But AFTER the Constitution was ratified, the formation, organization and structure of the militia, essentially the militia's entire existence was altered, codified by and under the federal Constitution. The doctrine of preemption demands that no other entities can exercise the militia organization and command powers conferred to and claimed by the federal government, including any effort of the citizens, independent of law, to organize and deploy citizens as militia (see Presser). Once the Militia Act of 1792/95 became law, that law was the only lawful process for anyone to call-up and organize the citizens as militia.

The Supreme Court explained federal preemption of militia powers:

"Upon the subject of the militia. Congress has exercised the powers conferred on that body by the constitution, as fully as was thought right, and has thus excluded the power of legislation by the States on these subjects, except so far as it has been permitted by Congress . . . ." -- Houston v. Moore 18 U.S. (5 Wheaton) 1, 24 (1820)​

For the criminal prosecution of, "a capital, or otherwise infamous crime", the 5th Amendment excludes "the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger", from the grand jury presentment right, and dispenses justice to those militia the same as the federal "land or naval forces" (under the UCMJ).

The 5th Amendment says:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; . . . "​

I'm not sure what more we have to discuss; you have your beliefs that rely on the denial of the existence and enforcement of well-established, settled law and long-standing Supreme Court determinations.

I never realized how powerful such self-delusion could be.

I've been enjoying the gun debate since 1993 and I never thought to just deny the existence of the lower federal court's "militia right" and "state's right" interpretations. So, while those decisions served to legally invalidate any recognition and protection of the individual citizen's right to arms under the 2nd Amendment, all I had to do to win the debates back then was deny those rulings existed.

Wow, here I thought Heller really meant something!

Your inability to read for comprehension is laughable.