Well regulated militia?

[ZigZagZeke]

I don't understand this discussion. As far as I can see the constitution and country was just sold for free cell phones, rubbers, free abortion, food stamps, welfare, and whatever else the hind tit suckers can get. Two hours after being re-elected, Obama (Proven Communist) has called for the resume of the UN small arms treaty. Our Constitution and Bill-of-Rights are a mute subject. Wake up; it is happening right before your eyes.

After Obama win, U.S. backs new U.N. arms treaty talks | Reuters

How about some facts to go with that huge helping of paranoia? This is from the article attached to your sensational and irrelevant headline.

The month-long talks at U.N. headquarters broke off after the United States - along with Russia and other major arms producers - said it had problems with the draft treaty and asked for more time.

But the U.N. General Assembly's disarmament committee moved quickly after Obama's win to approve a resolution calling for a new round of talks March 18-28. It passed with 157 votes in favor, none against and 18 abstentions.

U.N. diplomats said the vote had been expected before Tuesday's U.S. presidential election but was delayed due to Superstorm Sandy, which caused a three-day closure of the United Nations last week.

An official at the U.S. mission said Washington's objectives have not changed.

"We seek a treaty that contributes to international security by fighting illicit arms trafficking and proliferation, protects the sovereign right of states to conduct legitimate arms trade, and meets the concerns that we have been articulating throughout," the official said.

"We will not accept any treaty that infringes on the constitutional rights of our citizens to bear arms," he said.

Now, it turns out it wasn't Obama, it was the UN (157 yes to 0 no votes) and the US had exactly one vote. It turns out it wasn't timed to the election, but to the major storm disruption. And the 2nd Amendment is not being threatened. But you go ahead and send the NRA-ILA money because they've paraded a big, bad bogey man in front of you. Try to imagine what would happen if the blue helmets start going door to door to collect guns. It ain't happening.

I have some huge problems with Mr. Obama, but lies and distortions are just plain wrong, counterproductive, and hurt everyone.

 

[Father of four]

Oh for God's sake, people! Get a grip! This whole discussion is off in the weeds because you don't understand what the founders were talking about in the 2nd Amendment when they used the term "militia". Do you remember what happened in WWII? There was a world wide threat to freedom and the US started drafting people to serve in the military. Yes, people also volunteered, but the draft was random. Anyone between 18 and 45 was eligible for the draft. Now, what was the average skill level and familiarity level of the average new soldier with weapons? It was extremely high compared to the countries we were fighting against (where only nobles, for instance, are permitted weapons). Why? Because the citizens were allowed to own guns in their private lives!!! They were farmers, cooks, mechanics, ditch diggers, carpenters, bankers, etc. but everyone (nearly) was familiar with guns. That is the sum total of what the 2nd Amendment is talking about. "Militia", as used in the 2nd Amendment means everyone potentially able to serve if called. it does not mean a standing army. It does not mean the National Guard. It does not mean groups of fruit loops running around the countryside in fatigues looking for 'gubmint' agents. It means all able bodied citizens who could be soldiers if needed.

"Regulated" means trained and practiced. It doesn't mean trained in a classroom or by a drill sergeant. It means "skilled", as in taught by their fathers or uncles, or self-taught. It means "experienced with their weapons", as in plinking at tin cans.

It literally means "A populace experienced and comfortable with the weapons they own who could be called to service if needed". And that call might not even come from the federal government. As the founders saw it, the federal government getting out of hand and trying to dictate to the citizens might be the reason for the call. That's not paranoia and it's not something to be hidden in the shadows by subversive paramilitary whackos. It's part of the writings of the founders of this country. Read the Declaration of Independence, for God's sake, and then tell me that distrust of the government is crazy or should be hidden from sight.

This is a central point to the Supreme Court's deliberations. They've been asked to determine whether the 2nd Amendment means an organized militia or individual citizens when it talks about the "militia". They've rightly determined that it means all potential soldiers, in short, everybody, and that makes it an individual right. Argue about organized militias is you must, but remember that every time you talk about officially recognized, organized "militias" you are knocking holes in your own interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, that is of course, unless you think only "Bubba's Irregulars" should have the right to own firearms. SHEESH!!!

Best post so far in the whole thread. Thanks.

 

[Father of four]

And it doesn't mean you need to first ask permission for a dang CHL either.

 

[FortunateSon]

It is so clear, that it took a war and the 14th Amendment to actually apply it against the states.

Correct me if I am mistaken, but I believe the 14th Amendment, Section 1, assured that states would not be able to infringe upon the rights granted citizens under the Constitution. It has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment specifically or how it is interpreted. Only in how it is applied at the state level.

My statement is that the validity of the 2nd shouldn't even be up for debate.

 

[fd15k]

Correct me if I am mistaken, but I believe the 14th Amendment, Section 1, assured that states would not be able to infringe upon the rights granted citizens under the Constitution. It has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment specifically or how it is interpreted. Only in how it is applied at the state level.

My statement is that the validity of the 2nd shouldn't even be up for debate.

It is still a matter of interpretation - are the rights outlined in the BoR universal, or only the existing within the federal framework ? Moreover, since the 2A contains provisions for state powers (similar to 10th) and individual ones, it is again a matter of interpretation. Basically feds didn't try to disarm citizens or state militias, thus 2A was theoretically observed ?

 

[hermannr]

It is still a matter of interpretation - are the rights outlined in the BoR universal, or only the existing within the federal framework ? Moreover, since the 2A contains provisions for state powers (similar to 10th) and individual ones, it is again a matter of interpretation. Basically feds didn't try to disarm citizens or state militias, thus 2A was theoretically observed ?

The constitution applies to the federal and state governments, not the people...what the 2a really states is that the state governments may not restrict this particular natural right of the PEOPLE,,,basically...it says this natural right belongs to the people, and this right may not be restricted by the state governments.

For the anti "CPL necessary" to carry concealed crowd...there is nothing that restricts the right of the state to regulate HOW the people may "Bear arms", only that the people must be allowed to possess and bear arms. Think WDC and NY...where you must receive permission from the king to even possess...I have no problem with restricting concealed carry...I have a great problem with the restricting of possession and ANY carry. If the state wishes to restrict and license legal concealed carry (FL, TX...etc) then open carry MUST be legal by default (like WA and ID)

If you don't understand this, read this Idaho Supreme court decision from 1902: In re BRICKEY. It's short and sweet.

The present arguments in California now are addressing the question, "If I cannot carry concealed, I must be allowed to carry openly." One of the California suits was thrown out because even though you could not get a CPL in San Diego, you could openly carry...Now that California law has prohibited even unloaded Open carry...this suit is back active again.

If you want to follow the latest 2A suits, The Firing Line law and civil rights forum does the best job..watch particularly Al Norris

 

[fd15k]

The constitution applies to the federal and state governments, not the people...what the 2a really states is that the state governments may not restrict this particular natural right of the PEOPLE,,,basically...it says this natural right belongs to the people, and this right may not be restricted by the state governments.

We were just talking about that - 14th Amendment.

 

[Father of four]

hermannr
".there is nothing that restricts the right of the state to regulate HOW the people may "Bear arms", only that the people must be allowed to possess and bear arms."

So the state can make a law that would make the firearm bearers firearms so useless that it wouldn't even be worth the trouble carrying it and you would be alright with that?

How can your 2nd Amendment right not be infringed when laws are made against it?

 

[Father of four]

Or better yet...How can your 2nd Amendment right not be infringed when laws are made to keep you from exercising that right?

 

[hermannr]

hermannr
".there is nothing that restricts the right of the state to regulate HOW the people may "Bear arms", only that the people must be allowed to possess and bear arms."

So the state can make a law that would make the firearm bearers firearms so useless that it wouldn't even be worth the trouble carrying it and you would be alright with that?

How can your 2nd Amendment right not be infringed when laws are made against it?

Read "in re Brickly" In re BRICKEY. and you will understand the reasoning. It is very short and easy to read and understand...OK?

As the old man told my dad (and I was there) yeas ago..."those up to no-good hide their weapons"

 

[Father of four]

Read "in re Brickly" In re BRICKEY. and you will understand the reasoning. It is very short and easy to read and understand...OK?

As the old man told my dad (and I was there) yeas ago..."those up to no-good hide their weapons"

So your dad thinks all CHL holders are up to no good?

 

[Father of four]

OOps..sorry. The old man not your dad is not entirely correct.

 

[Father of four]

As for In re BRICKEY..... to me its total crap.

"While it is undoubtedly within the power of the legislature to prohibit the carrying of concealed deadly weapons, and such regulation is a proper exercise of police power,...."

Blah, blah, blah....Infringement!

 

[hermannr]

Read it again, a little more carefully this time...if you still don't get it I will explain it for you.

BTW: The FBI study a few years ago agrees with the old man (he was my grandfather's age) those up to no good conceal the fact that they are armed, and also generally do not use proper holsters either.

read carefully and try again...

 

[Father of four]

I read it carefully. The guy was arrested for caring the firearm and the judge threw it out. To me it is all crap.

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!!! Not, shall not be infringed after the legislators pass laws regulating the use of firearms. It is Infringed upon when laws are made. It is no longer a right.

 

[Father of four]

BTW: The FBI study a few years ago agrees with the old man (he was my grandfather's age) those up to no good conceal the fact that they are armed, and also generally do not use proper holsters either.

Well sorry but the FBI and the old man are not entirely correct. Just because i hid something, does not necessarily mean I am up to no good.

 

[Father of four]

I do not think there should be any laws, rules and regulations, a class, a fee to make it legal for me to hide something on my person to protect myself.

 

[hermannr]

Well sorry but the FBI and the old man are not entirely correct. Just because i hid something, does not necessarily mean I am up to no good.

That is not what the old man said, and that is not what the FBI said, and that is not what I wrote.

OK, a bit of background...this happened in the 50's. My dad was a German Lutheran pastor, living and citizen of, Canada. Both severely restrict the right to bear arms...OK?

I do not exactly remember if this happened in Bonners Ferry, ID or Seaside, OR (he served both at different times...Bonners Ferry (from Creston, BC) from 1949 to 1955 and Seaside (at Seaside) from 1955 to 1960. I think this happened in Bonners Ferry. Anyway, this old man came to church, armed with an old Colt revolver in a western style holster, and dad asked him about the legality of doing so..among other thing, the quote is one of the things the old man stated to dad. Dad was not an anti, he was just not versed in the freedom to carry that exists and existed in ID and OR. BTW: once we perminently moved to the US, dad never did look back.

Now, what did he actually state? did the old man say you were up to no good if you concealed your weapon? No! He said "those that are up to no good..." there is a lot of difference in the meaning of the two statements.

In re Brickly may have been where that statement ooriginally came from...remember the Idaho supreme court said that the 2A and the ID constitution guarantee the right to bear arms. They also stated that the 2A and the Idaho constitution did NOT guarantee the right to conceal those arms. They also stated that it was in the public interest that the public knew who was armed, and who was not...therefore, their decision was as written.

 

[Father of four]

Well maybe i should move to Arizona. It seems that they agree that it is Our Constitutional Right to carry concealed.


http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarep...29/20100729arizona-concealed-weapons-law.html

"Today is the day gun-rights advocates have had in their sights for a long time.

Starting today, Arizona residents at least 21 years old can carry a concealed weapon without a permit."

 

[Father of four]

And stay away for Idaho...:winkkiss:

I wonder if they have a militia there?...