Well regulated militia?

[Blitzkrieg]

The court says that the operative clause should be consistent with the purpose of the operative clause but that it is not a limit on the operative clause.

Best sentence in the thread so far


The two parts of the 2nd are in perfect harmony as soon as the olde English word "Regulated" is properly understood

For backup read the 4th Amendment, it is laid out in the same manner

 

[The B]

Best sentence in the thread so far


The two parts of the 2nd are in perfect harmony as soon as the olde English word "Regulated" is properly understood

For backup read the 4th Amendment, it is laid out in the same manner

Old English is basically a separate language. The founding-fathers of America spoke and wrote Modern English, the only difference is that it's in a slightly archaic dialect.

Old English runic alphabet:


The closest word to MnE "regulated" I can find is the OE word "regollic," which translates much more closely to MnE "regular." I don't speak OE, so I have no idea how to conjugate it into "regulated," or any tense of a current equivalent.

I just know the Constitution ain't mufuccin Old English.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

It was intended humor, but the definition of many words was far different than back then.. that was my point

 

[Member 18201]

An organized militia pretty much goes without saying. I'ts the NG.


The unorganized militia is really without any rational reason at all.

We have NO NEED for an unorganised mitia in the USA.

NO ONE is going to invade the continental USA. I say again, NO ONE.

So what need do we have of an unorganized militia? NONE, that I can see.

We are a nation with multiple ITRVs targeted upon whomever pisses us off enough that are completely immune to a 1st strike or any other rationally believable scenario.

Our territorial sovereignty is not in question, from the US Virgin Islands to Guam.

Where, exactly, other than extremist militant groups claim comfort from a century -old law that protects no one?

I need no authorizing lae, I NEED no arguments to let me work to protect my neighborhood in the event of extreme emergency. In no case that I could realistically imagine would that protection be needed beyond a matter of hours or a few days.

I WOULD ALREADY DO THAT, regardless of whatever authorizing federal law. So tell me exactly what we need an "unorganized" militia for?

The rights " of the people " as written in other Amendments besides the Second, are to prevent the tyranny of Government.
The Right to peaceably assemble, and to be secure in their persons, for instance.
The security of a free State should be emphasised.

 

[The B]

It was intended humor, but the definition of many words was far different than back then.. that was my point

Gotcha. Totally. And the evidence of the evolution of the language is in the fact that we have three distinct versions of the English language. Definitions of words definitely change, and original intent is all that matters, from a legal perspective.

 

[Misterbill]

No ONE, (Certainly not me) is arguing against the need and desire for an armed citizenry.

I'm all for EVERYONE being armed.

A "well-regulated," in terms of 18th century language, simply means well trained or organized.

Read the 2nd amendment and it's arguments, most pressingly presented by the commonwealth of Pennsylvania and NH at the time of the constitutional convention. They were all in favor of an individual's right to bear arms. *I* for one, would never dispute that contention.

The argument on THIS thread, however, is that we need an "unorganized" militia, consisting of every able bodied man between 17 and 45.

FOR WHAT?

Does anyone here really think that an effort to disarm Americans by force wouldn't be met by revolution? The Congress sure as Hell doesn't, let me tell you.

Does anyone here actually think that an invading force wouldn't be met by intercontinental ballistic missiles? You're smoking crack if you think not.

So for WHAT PURPOSE do we need, in 2012, an "unorganized militia" other than as a paramilitary force dominated by right-wing kooks dedicated to opposing federal authority wherever their idiot/nutcase/uneducated twit of a leader says?"

I DON'T NEED a GD militia to protect my neighborhood, and through friends, my town, against marauders or interlopers. I know the people around me. We will organize as necessary.

The founding fathers never envisioned a large, standing military. NO KIDDING. You think you and you're assh*** buddies are going to stand up to the entire US military? Good luck with that. When you're getting droned out of existence and bombed into extinction with terrain-mapping radar and thermal-scouting optics, let me know how you're going to do against a US military fully involved against you. And I don't scare if they legalize FA weapons and explosives for all comers tommorow.

1: You will loose that fight. (Fast)

2. That fight is never going to happen outside the wet-dreams of some idiots.

3. The only reason anyone remembers that 1917 law is a (comparably) recent recitation of the 2nd amendment.

As long as congress and the SC continue to affirm a (relatively, I think we should all be able to have full-autos) robust RKBA, I see no issues. And of ythere WERE a need for insurgent militias, a public foru om guns would be the LAST place I would be looking for them. Unless you think the .gov is really THAT stupid.

Seriously, what a load of Bollocks.

Go fomont your anti-government hate someplace else. Christ knows the US .Gov has long since been monitoring this site. If the evil illuminati ever took over, you clowns would be on a short list of people being arrested. And my bet is that the vocal "patriots" out there would be the least protesting of the bunch. -Not when their asses were REALLY on the line.

If you had a brain, you'd be doing this conversation on FAR more private lines. -But hey, it's cool to sound tough when nothing is aligned against you isn't it?

Fair-Weather patriots indeed!

 

[Misterbill]

Because at the time of the writing of the 2nd Amendment, the founders envisioned no standing armies, no national guard, no US Army, etc. They wanted to provide for a common defense by arming all individual citizens rather than spending large amounts of tax money on a permanent military (how smart of them!), which could then be used by a despotic regime to control the citizens. So yes, the 2nd Amendment is based on an unorganized citizen militia that would leave the farms and fields and assemble carrying their own personal firearms in times of danger. This is a great argument for why civilians should be able to own full automatic weapons, etc. In short, anything the military would issue should be legal for civilians to own.

And WTF does any of this have to do with a CURRENT need for an "unorganized" militia? We have ZERO potential invaders and no Indian threat, which is what that concept was envisioned for.

Tell me WHAT SPECIFICALLY you see the "unorganized militia" ever being called upon to do?

 

[Thebastidge]

Well, Bill:

You've got your fairly silly argument against it, and other people have arguments ranging from absurd to well-thought-out FOR it. If it's so GD silly, why do you keep engaging on it?

The point you're leaving out is that the tradition of the unorganized militia feeds into many other important aspects of our civil society model, and indeeed directly into our formal military capabilities. Just like volunteer citizen corps and emergency response teams feed directly into local, state, and federal disaster relief efforts.

Take the Japanese military leader in WWII who said it would be ridiculous to invade America because there would be a rifleman behind every blade of grass. That perception WOULD. NOT. EXIST without the 'unorganized militia' tradition. Which in turn is preserved (not given to us, not started by, but preserved in part) by keeping it explicitly in the USC.

You seem to think you're so much more mature on the topic than the rest of us- why not leave us to our "childish fantasies"? (Although I'm not exactly sure how you figure I'm anti-government when I am a veteran, a patriot, hold a current security clearance, actively work in my primary job at the moment supporting soldiers and US policy abroad, volunteer in my community, and engage in public debate rather than plotting conspiracies and treason.)

You say things that directly justify the unorganized militia ("Does anyone here really think that an effort to disarm Americans by force wouldn't be met by revolution? The Congress sure as Hell doesn't, let me tell you.") then you contradict yourself a couple sentences later. ("When you're getting droned out of existence and bombed into extinction with terrain-mapping radar and thermal-scouting optics, let me know how you're going to do against a US military fully involved against you. And I don't care if they legalize FA weapons and explosives for all comers tommorow.")

That simply doesn't make any sense. If you take the reasoned position that one thing makes the other thing much less likely to happen, then it's all congruent, and no need to start foaming at the mouth about what "GD idiotic anti-government conspiracy whackos" we are. It seems to me you're refusing to acknowledge the connection in concept between what you do and what it's called. The functions you have described as what individual gun owners DO; (get together wtih neighbours to help in dsiasters, to control a situation in a civilized manner from looters afterward) that's what the unorganized militia IS.

Just calm down, dood. Nobody here wants armed insurrection, civil war or anything like that. I've seen what war-torn countries look like, and I'll give nearly anything to keep my homeland from suffering that.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

Gotcha. Totally. And the evidence of the evolution of the language is in the fact that we have three distinct versions of the English language. Definitions of words definitely change, and original intent is all that matters, from a legal perspective.

The libtards like to say it's a "living document" well it is but it lives in original intent, to represent liberty, not the perverted Orwellian plans of traitors. Anyone who wants to take my liberty is a domestic enemy

We have 7,000 enemies invading us every day..raping, robbing, murdering, meth cooking, human trafficking, etc. Mr Bill is a domestic enemy like Grima Wormtongue, trying to quell our concerns (go back to sleep now...) and our liberties.. where is Gandalf when you need him?

 

[Jamie6.5]

So for WHAT PURPOSE do we need, in 2012, an "unorganized militia" other than as a paramilitary force dominated by right-wing kooks dedicated to opposing federal authority wherever their idiot/nutcase/uneducated twit of a leader says?"

I DON'T NEED a GD militia to protect my neighborhood, and through friends, my town, against marauders or interlopers. I know the people around me. We will organize as necessary.

For those not familiar with the term "cognitive dissonance," please read the quote above, and then consider the definition:

Cognitive dissonance is the term used in modern psychology to describe the state of holding two or more conflicting cognitions (e.g., ideas, beliefs, values, emotional reactions) simultaneously.

It comes VERY close to a perfect example, and could easily be listed under the very definition of the term.

So despite Misterbill's contention of the opposite, especially his attempts to tie the notion of a local militia to "right wing kooks," his notions (at least) and/or plans (at best) is to indeed form such a local militia.
The only difference? His definition of "marauders and interlopers" apparently doesn't include those in "authority" even though if one reads many of his posts here, one can easily read of his disdain for that very same "authority."

Welcome to the "right wing extremist" club Misterbill.
Now, how do YOU like being pigeonholed? In this case by the same ridiculous rhetoric (yours) that we read in the press almost daily.

Case in point: The judge tossed out the case against 80% of Hutaree arrestees, and returned the guns, and ammo to those acquitted.
"Right-wing kooks" indeed.

They're just citizens, the same as you.
The difference?
They had sense enough to practice.

 

[Father of four]

Bill, your first mistake is not understanding that the founding fathere did not want ANY perminent standing army as a perminent standing army could be misused to supress liberty.

That is exactly what we have today.

Let The People stand up for their rights against the government for suppressing their liberty and see what happens.
The People must get a permit and permission from the government to protest. If The people do not have the permit then the government will first try to stop The Peoples freedom of speech and freedom to gather by a smaller permanent army...LEOs. Then if that doesn't work they will send in the Military.

They would do this not for The Will Of The People but for the will of the government.

If the government turns on The People of the United States would the National Guard fight for The People against the LEOS and the Military or are they part of them?

 

[Father of four]

It looks like there is a divide between the LEOS and the National Guard in New York.

<broken link removed>

Mayor Bloomberg has snubbed Borough President Markowitz's impassioned plea to bring the National Guard to Hurricane Sandy-scarred Brooklyn &#8212; arguing that approving the Beep's request would be a waste of federal manpower and turn the borough into a police state.

"We don't need it," Mayor Bloomberg said on Wednesday during a press update on the city's ongoing Hurricane Sandy cleanup. "The NYPD is the only people we want on the street with guns."

 

[Father of four]

Might I suggest you stop splitting hairs? The WHOLE POINT is that the founders expected non-professional, unsalaried citizen soldiers to show up when needed, trained formally or not, with WEAPONS THAT THEY OWNED. Obviously, they expected the citizens would own weapons that were on a par with the English military. THE POINT is that this would bear on what they intended the 2nd Amendment to mean. But you go ahead and CONTINUE to argue the point that ONLY PROFESSIONAL SOLDIERS are who they intended to have the 2nd Amendment apply to. It seems counter-productive to what I think your position is on the 2nd Amendment, so I can only wonder incredulously at your confusion and stubbornness.

Maybe you're the one that needs a little more education. You can read all about it here: Militia in the Revolutionary War

Bloomberg seems to think that only his LEOs alone have the 2nd Amendment right. If the mayor has his way he would have the ultimate power to dictate what he wants and have his local LEOs to back it up....That Is what's happening.

 

[Father of four]

O yeah...A well regulated militia first needs to ask the government for permission to have a CHL permit.

Unless they want to open carry without ammo.

 

[One-Eyed Ross]

O yeah...Unless they want to open carry without ammo.

maybe in Oregon, but here in WA, we can open carry fully loaded...

 

[Father of four]

We are not smart enough here in Portland to open carry fully loaded or pump our own gas.

 

[The Redpaw]

Yes, that is because the militia has been stigmatized, terrorized and even outlawed in some states for this very purpose. You can hardly attract a better class of warrior that way

I'll be chiming in from time to time in this thread with my thoughts and comments:

Are far as being labeled a militia and being demonized..... They said this lately about preppers too. They said preppers might be domestic terrorists and black labeled a lot of people who like to stock up, which is wrong.

Look at the east coast, look at the people who didn't prep, look at how they pick out certain people to scream "where is our food".... If those people had prepped correctly, and not brainwashed into thinking about how the government will save them, and thought about themselves first and stocking supplies like they should have then we'd see a different story.

Mainstream media owes every single person who took steps for days and events like this an apology.

 

[The B]

We are not smart enough here in Portland to open carry fully loaded or pump our own gas.

Not to derail the thread, but doesn't Portland's ordnance conflict with Oregon's preemption clause? WTF up with that

 

[The Redpaw]

For those not familiar with the term "cognitive dissonance," please read the quote above, and then consider the definition:


It comes VERY close to a perfect example, and could easily be listed under the very definition of the term.

So despite Misterbill's contention of the opposite, especially his attempts to tie the notion of a local militia to "right wing kooks," his notions (at least) and/or plans (at best) is to indeed form such a local militia.
The only difference? His definition of "marauders and interlopers" apparently doesn't include those in "authority" even though if one reads many of his posts here, one can easily read of his disdain for that very same "authority."

Welcome to the "right wing extremist" club Misterbill.
Now, how do YOU like being pigeonholed, in this case by the same ridiculous rhetoric (yours) that we read in the press almost daily.

Case in point: The judge tossed out the case against 80% of Hutaree arrestees, and returned the guns, and ammo to those acquitted.
"Right-wing kooks" indeed.

They're just citizens, the same as you.
The difference?
They had sense enough to practice.

Will you be my brother?....if not can I friendly stalk you?. You speak what I feel and talk about daily. Your freedom of expression and inflection of tone in your typing is what we need as free thinking American people.

You sir, deserve a handshake. ( I was kidding about stalking you, and your replies are spot on, long may your replies wave across my screen )

On another note:

Tomorrow, I fly my American Flag no matter the outcome, for the voters that took the time to express their rights. Below it I will fly the Oregon flag.... So if you see a Chevy ( old school Chevy, before the bailouts ) flying the American and Oregon flag in Salem tomorrow....give me a honk or atleast the finger so I know where you stand.

 

[drew]

Not to derail the thread, but doesn't Portland's ordnance conflict with Oregon's preemption clause? WTF up with that

ORS 166.173 allows cities or counties to regulate possession of a loaded firearm in a public place. One of my least favorite laws.