Another major school shooting today ... Newtown, Conn

@BillRM,

Quote:

the national guard is not the militia

It isn't? So what is it then?

Many observers would be hard-pressed to tell the difference.

4 Replies

Bump. And earlier I meant "whole" not "hole." How'd I ever let that get through?

0 Replies

@McTag,

McTag wrote:

Quote:
the national guard is not the militia

It isn't? So what is it then?

Many observers would be hard-pressed to tell the difference.

Is the National Guard the "militia?"

Quote:

The current National Guard is not what was etched into the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment. There is no such thing as an organized and unorganized militia or an unarmed militia. Militia service is compulsory and integrated with the civil authority. The Virginia militia was so well regulated and maintained that this helped enable Virginia to fight the civil war so effectively. This is also why the Militia system guaranteed under the United States Constitution was changed so drastically so that states like Virginia could not wage war again. The concept of the National Guard is an unconstitutional usurpation of the fundamental right to a well regulated militia system.

1 Reply

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-tPF3eXdgMAI/UQ3zpfGZ0BI/AAAAAAAAEJQ/dmMdKka_adI/s400/Obama+BigBird.jpg

0 Replies

@McTag,

Quote:

Many observers would be hard-pressed to tell the difference.

The difference is that the states control their own militia and can withdraw their service from the federal government at anytime if they loan that service to the federal government

They can limit where the militia are employee as in the War of 1812 the states can refused to allowedthe militia to be used outside the borders of the US.

The federal government have no such limits when it come to the national guard so it is not one and the same thing.

0 Replies

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-NjwKB4WP2CM/UQ3zqYn0QvI/AAAAAAAAEKo/eGXKXgxvH4A/s400/Obama+Chinese.jpg

1 Reply

@McTag,

Hark to them Mac. 1812 eh? 1850. They were wiping their arses on doc leaves then. Outside.

As if that lot had anything to do with this madcap, rockin' an' rollin' madhouse.

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

That's ******* disgraceful H2O. I'm no Obarmy fan but that is going too far. And it's cheating.

0 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

Hark to them Mac. 1812 eh? 1850. They were wiping their arses on doc leaves then. Outside.

As if that lot had anything to do with this madcap, rockin' an' rollin' madhouse.

So the constitution had change in regard to to the 2 amendment since the war of 1812?

Sorry 1812 or 1850 or 1950 it does not matter the constitution unless and until if been amended in that area is the same as it is now in 2013.

Silly people............silly foreign people as a matter or fact.

2 Replies

@BillRM,

We're not foreign Bill. Everything you think is in words of English. Just about.

You're ignoring legal fictions and fanciful ambiguities.

It's you that is silly. Plenty of supporters of the 2nd think you've taken leave of your senses. 18 bloody 12 eh. They should have special camps where you can re-enact it for six months.

0 Replies

Guns, guns, guns... Radical Islam is spreading at an alarming rate in many parts of the world and the Obama administration is actually arming radical Islamist with fighter jets and battle tanks. While this happens, Obama and his media try and keep the attention of the people focused on disarming law abiding American citizens... just when public interest began to wain he sets off the immigration smoke bomb to boost emotions. Nothing the Obama administration has done has had a positive effect on the country - nothing! It's clear, even to the blind that Obama has no intentions of preserving and protecting the American way of life and that he also has no plans to abide by our constitution.

Something wicked this way comes.

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

From the above quoted article:

Quote:
Another proposal that Mr. Obama is expected to make could well have slowed Mr. Lanza’s rampage: banning high-capacity magazines, like the 30-round magazines that the police said Mr. Lanza used, which have been factors in several other recent mass shootings.

Luckily most of the proposals for limiting magazine sizes are tied to an unconstitutional ban on harmless cosmetic features.

Since the NRA will almost assuredly block any ban on such harmless features, and since the Supreme Court would strike it down even if it somehow made it past the NRA, the prospects for magazine limits are small.

0 Replies

@Region Philbis,

Region Philbis wrote:

i agree -- mentally unstable people like waterbuoy should not be able to buy or own guns...

Region Philbis is too retarded to come up with an intelligent argument.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

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 Obama's "executive orders on guns" adds anyone who receives a disability check from the government to the list of people prohibited from buying guns, if they are not capable of handling their own finances.

That is clearly unconstitutional and will need to be struck down.

0 Replies

@wandeljw,

wandeljw wrote:

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

What "well regulated" means is that the militia being referred to has trained to the degree that they are capable of fighting as a coordinated group, as opposed to fighting as a bunch of individuals.

It isn't so much that it is overlooked as it is that, without a militia for it to apply to, it is somewhat of a non-issue at the moment.

0 Replies

@McTag,

McTag wrote:

BillRM wrote:
the national guard is not the militia in the meaning of the 2 amendment

It isn't? So what is it then?

Many observers would be hard-pressed to tell the difference.

Militiamen have the right to own their own machine guns, grenades/grenade launchers, anti-tank bazookas, and Stinger missiles, and they have the right to keep them in their own homes.

Until we see guardsmen being allowed to do this, the National Guard can never be counted as the militia.

In addition to that, the militia is limited to the roles of repelling invasion, suppressing insurrection, and enforcing the law.

To count as the militia, the National Guard would have to stop participating in invasions of other countries.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Sophistry.

1 Reply

There was an interesting piece in the NYT today about the mood in Idaho about proposals for gun control.

Seems over there, the people are "voting with their pocket books" and tooling up with all manner of lethal hardware.

Which raises again the question: Why are Americans so afraid?

They know the equation: fewer guns, fewer stiffs. But somehow they think the logic doesn't apply to them.

2 Replies

@H2O MAN,

Information kindly supplied by H2O MAN

Quote:

Militia service is compulsory and integrated with the civil authority

Okay then, so every gun owner should give militia service and be integrated with the civil authority?
This would be a condition of being able to keep a gun?
I'd agree to that, it would be an excellent start.

1 Reply

@McTag,

McTag wrote:

Sophistry.

Nope. The rules imposed by the Constitution are not sophistry.

Those rules might be really inconvenient to your vile quest to stamp out our freedom, but they aren't sophistry.

0 Replies

Another major school shooting today ... Newtown, Conn

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know