Another major school shooting today ... Newtown, Conn

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

i noticed that a mental illness political pressure group is pushing back on calls to deprive more of the mentally ill of the right to carry, I assume not because they care about this issue but rather have a knee jerk reaction to oppose all such calls, saying that only 4% of violent acts are committed by the "seriously" mentally ill (which they decline to define)........this does not move me, I think having responsible systems in place is a good idea even if they only marginally help a particular problem, good habits are worth pursuing because they tend to produce more good habits.

One of the problems with groups concerned about rights...is they sometimes get so focused on keeping the rights for the subject group...they forget about the rights of the hole.

Not sure how anybody can come up with a number like 4% for violent acts committed by the seriously mentally ill. Most of the violent stuff I read about sounds like the kind of thing ONLY a mentally ill person would do.

Anyway...setting the parameters of this kind of thing will be a bitch. Not sure how I would handle it if I had the say...so I guess I will just listen to the ideas being floated and come down in support of positions I think have a chance of working.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

bump

0 Replies

I think that the most overlooked aspect of the Second Amendment is the adjective "well-regulated."

2 Replies

@wandeljw,

wandeljw wrote:

I think that the most overlooked aspect of the Second Amendment is the adjective "well-regulated."

Section 311 of US Code Title 10, entitled, "Militia: composition and classes" in its entirety:

"(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are —

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia."

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

Were those who wrote that over 45?

Have the over 45s a right to bear arms? Or females who are not members of the National Guard?

1 Reply

@spendius,

For the one thousand and one times the national guard is not the militia and women can now assume any position in our regular military less alone the milit.

1 Reply

10 U.S.C. § 311 : US Code - Section 311: Militia: composition and classes

0 Replies

@BillRM,

Quote:

Re: spendius (Post 5242932)
For the one thousand and one times the national guard is not the militia and women can now assume any position in our regular military less alone the milit.

Quote:

Re: spendius (Post 5242932)
For the one thousand and one times the national guard is not the militia and women can now assume any position in our regular military less alone the milit.

Bill...why don't you answer his questions?

I have the sames ones regarding men over 45 years of age...or women who are not members of the National Guard.

Read what you actually submitted earlier...and you should have those questions also.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Once more the national guard is not the militia that is mention in the 2 amendment so what is so hard for you to understand that point?

The national guards of the states can be pull out of the control of the states and placed in federal service at anytime and the states militia can not be as they are under the final control of the states.

Final note no federal law can impacted the states rights to have militia and place whoever they wish to in them under the second amendment.

1 Reply

http://www.pakalertpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Dianne-Feinstein-declares-war-on-Bill-of-Rights-calls-for-American-citizens-to-be-disarmed-or-registered.jpg

0 Replies

@BillRM,

Quote:

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5242957)
Once more the national guard is not the militia that is mention in the 2 amendment so what is so hard for you to understand that point?

The national guards of the states can be pull out of the control of the states and placed in federal service at anytime and the states militia can not be as they are under the final control of the states.

Final note no federal law can impacted the states rights to have militia and place whoever they wish to in them under the second amendment.

Why don't you actually answer the questions Spendius put to you...and which I also put to you...rather than try to weasel out of it with all this nonsense?

Quote the questions one at a time...and ANSWER them.

Or continue to avoid them because the correct answer screws up your entire premise.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Sorry that you do not like the plain answer the the 2 amendment does not grand any power to congress over the state militias or how they are define or who can service in them and that the national guard is not a state militia.

The federal government could not order the states militias into Canada for example during the war of 1812 but would have no problem calling national guard into Federal service and having them invade Canada tomorrow.

2 Replies

@BillRM,

Quote:

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5242990)
Sorry that you do not like the plain answer the the 2 amendment does not grand any power to congress over the state militias or how they are define or who can service in them and that the national guard is not a state militia.

The federal government could not order the states militias into Canada for example during the war of 1812 but would have no problem calling national guard into Federal service and having them invade Canada tomorrow.

Obviously you are not going to answer the questions...but instead are going to duck them using this nonsense you keep posting.

I do not blame you, because if you do answer them...you blow your case to pieces...unless you have something else to offer, which apparently you do not or you would simply offer it.

You have clearly established that the militia contains ALL able-bodied males between the ages of 17 and 45 who are citizens or becoming citizens…and any women (apparently of any age) who are citizens and who are members of the National Guard.

They clearly have a right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to bear arms.

That leave the question of whether men over the age of 45 (who are not a member of the National Guard) have that right. That also leaves the question of whether women who are not in the National Guard have that right.

That is the thrust of the questions which you are dodging and evading.

(I might suggest you at least look to see what section 313 of title 32 [since you quoted reference to it] says about the issue.)

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Once more the national guard is not the militia in the meaning of the 2 amendment so who can serve or who can not serve in the national guard is beside the point and congress have zero power to decide who the states can placed in a state militia.

You can surely understand such simple points so please stop playing games.

4 Replies

@BillRM,

Jeezus Bill dont you ever get a haircut?

0 Replies

@BillRM,

Bill--you are just operating under a selected mish-mash of legal fictions which happen to be holding out at this time.

Every last jot and tittle of the Constitution and its Amendments would be crossed out and rendered null and void should it become necessary to do so. And everything you gun fanatics say accelerates the journey to when it does.

And many an American millionaire owns property in Europe just in case it does. Getting the NFL playing in London is just a method of owning property in Europe and getting the football fans pay for it.

The Russians are here too.

Give us an idea of the economic cost of the rather playful interpretations of the 2nd. and its intentions. The 300 million guns and their various functions are of no economic value in the present circumstances. If ever they do have an economic function you won't want to be around.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

You can surely understand such simple points ...

I think you have overextended credit to FrankA.

0 Replies

@spendius,

Frankly it I was living in the UK without all the safe guards to freedoms the US citizens have I would be investing a great part of my funds into what is the world reserve currency an keeping an eye out for the need to move to Canada.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Quote:

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5243012)
Once more the national guard is not the militia in the meaning of the 2 amendment so who can serve or who can not serve in the national guard is beside the point and congress have zero power to decide who the states can placed in a state militia.

You can surely understand such simple points so please stop playing games.

Once more you have not answered the questions.

The information YOU PROVIDED indicates that men over 45 years of age WHO ARE NOT IN THE NATIONAL GUARD...are not part of any militia. And women of any age who are not in the National Guard...are not part of any militia.

What about them?

Why don't you stop playing games yourself, Bill...and simply acknowledge that you cannot answer those questions...rather than pretending that nonsense you are posting is actually answering them?

0 Replies

@BillRM,

Quote:

Frankly it I was living in the UK without all the safe guards to freedoms the US citizens have I would be investing a great part of my funds into what is the world reserve currency an keeping an eye out for the need to move to Canada.

Who cares what you would do Bill? You would say what you would do in whatever way meets the requirements of the moment.

I was talking about what a lot of American millionaires have done. Dylan has a pad in rural Scotland.

0 Replies

Another major school shooting today ... Newtown, Conn

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know