Civil War, in Texas ?

@Joe Nation,

Joe Nation wrote:

I'd have to check in with Setanta to be sure, but I don't the Founding Fathers envisioned a volunteer militia. Every able-bodied free male was required in the earliest days of the Republic to purchase and keep a long rifle and, I think, a sidearm of some kind, sword or pistol.

If we were to fully implement the Second Amendment as it reads, everyone, male or female presently, would have to be a participant in each State Miltia.

Yes for the most part. Your purchase requirements are a little off. But your overall gist is correct.

I'll go look up the purchase requirements in awhile (the militia included artillery and light cavalry, and the purchase requirements differed for each job).

Joe Nation wrote:

Anyone not participating would, of course, forfeit the right to own arms of any kind.

That is incorrect.

The right to have militia weapons could be tied to membership in the militia.

But people not in militia would still have the right to carry weapons suitable for self defense when they went out in public.

Joe Nation wrote:

Joe(way too late for that now)Nation

Why too late?

As I said, if someone covers my legal bills, I will go join the Michigan Volunteer Defense Force, and then sue the government for my right as a militiaman to own automatic rifles, grenades/grenade launchers, and bazookas, and to keep them in my own home.

We're only one or two Supreme Court rulings away from bringing back the militia as the Second Amendment demands.

We could have machineguns and bazookas in half the households of America in no time.

1 Reply

Frank, you sly rascal. If there stood a possibility of there being gods, I would have to guess. As the possibility is nil, I don't need no stinking guesses.

Back on topic, I concede that in the days before and shortly after the American Revolution, the need for each citizen to have a gun and be prepared to act with a state militia was a real necessity. What has that to do with the present gun culture, where dozens are killed non stop, usually for no good reason at all?

3 Replies

@edgarblythe,

Throughout American history, the militia have been useless far, far more often than they've been useful. Running away was always their strong suit.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Anyway, we have no need of them these days.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

That is an unamerican statement!!! We never run away when we have a gun as opposed to bows and arrows!!

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

The two New York City cops who reacted to the shooter at the Empire State Building apparently fired 16 shots. Seven hit the shooter...the target.

NINE innocent people were also hit...all by fire from the police.

I don't need no stinking militia if trained policemen have a record like that.

Just imagine if there were as many gun toting civilians in the crowd as on a typical Texas street. The carnage would have been something to behold.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

Joe Nation wrote:
I'd have to check in with Setanta to be sure, but I don't the Founding Fathers envisioned a volunteer militia. Every able-bodied free male was required in the earliest days of the Republic to purchase and keep a long rifle and, I think, a sidearm of some kind, sword or pistol.

If we were to fully implement the Second Amendment as it reads, everyone, male or female presently, would have to be a participant in each State Miltia.

Yes for the most part. Your purchase requirements are a little off. But your overall gist is correct.

I'll go look up the purchase requirements in awhile (the militia included artillery and light cavalry, and the purchase requirements differed for each job).

Infantry:

That every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall within month thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock of a bore not smaller than seventeen balls to the pound, a sufficient bayonet and belt, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges suited to the bore of his muket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball, two spare flints, and a knapsack;

Light Cavalry:

Each dragoon to furnish himself, at his own expence, with a serviceable horse, at least fourteen hands high, a good saddle, bridle, housing, holsters, and a breast plate and crupper, a pair of boots and spurs, a pair of pistols, a sabre, and a cartouch box to contain twelve cartridges for pistols.

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

If there stood a possibility of there being gods, I would have to guess. As the possibility is nil,

Nonsense.

edgarblythe wrote:

Back on topic, I concede that in the days before and shortly after the American Revolution, the need for each citizen to have a gun and be prepared to act with a state militia was a real necessity.

Need? Necessity???

Nonsense.

edgarblythe wrote:

What has that to do with the present gun culture, where dozens are killed non stop, usually for no good reason at all?

The Second Amendment requires that the government have a proper armed militia for people to join if they wish.

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

Anyway, we have no need of them these days.

Irrelevant. The Constitution demands that we have them.

1 Reply

I see your nonsenses and raise you one.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

NINE innocent people were also hit...all by fire from the police.

I figured.

That's what happens when gun control advocates are able to rampage unchecked.

The NRA protects me from the anti-gunners, but no one protects the NYPD from the ravages of gun control.

Frank Apisa wrote:

I don't need no stinking militia if trained policemen have a record like that.

I wouldn't blame the police. It isn't their fault they are required to carry guns that are impossible to aim.

And need is irrelevant. The nation is required to have a militia.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Just imagine if there were as many gun toting civilians in the crowd as on a typical Texas street. The carnage would have been something to behold.

Well, since the civilians would have been carrying guns that are actually possible to aim, the carnage would probably have been a lot less if civilians had been doing the shooting.

In any case, the Supreme Court is within two years of mandating that large cities in America allow everyone to carry guns in public. So that day is coming, and sooner than you think.

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

You are playing the wrong game. This is how low can you go.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

Irrelevant. The Constitution demands that we have them.

This is, as with just about all the bullshit you post about the constitution, utterly false. Nowhere does the constitution "demand" that there be a militia. It merely assumes that there is one.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

I see your nonsenses and raise you one.

If you think you can show any points that I am wrong about, feel free to point them out.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

You are playing the wrong game. This is how low can you go.

You too. If you think you can show any points that I am wrong about, feel free to point them out.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

That has been done repeatedly.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

oralloy wrote:
Irrelevant. The Constitution demands that we have them.

This is, as with just about all the bullshit you post about the constitution,

Interesting claim considering the fact that you can't show a single thing I've ever said about the Constitution that is untrue.

Setanta wrote:

utterly false. Nowhere does the constitution "demand" that there be a militia. It merely assumes that there is one.

Wrong. The first half of the Second Amendment is a requirement that the government always have a militia.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

That has been done repeatedly.

Nope. All you've done here is make vague insinuations that I am somehow wrong.

You've not made any concrete arguments whatsoever.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

I've shown your bullshit again and again, such as that the constitution prohibits the militia from serving outside the borders of the country, a subject on which it is mute. The first clause of the second amendment reads "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State . . . " That is an observation, not an injunction. It certainly is not a requirement that government always have a militia, merely tht it's a good idea. (It's a **** idea, the only thing our militia has done consistently is run away.)

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

parados wrote:
That has been done repeatedly.

Nope. All you've done here is make vague insinuations that I am somehow wrong.

You've not made any concrete arguments whatsoever.

Actually I have. As has Setanta and several others. Because you remain unwilling to accept it doesn't change reality.

1 Reply

Civil War, in Texas ?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know