Another major school shooting today ... Newtown, Conn

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

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. The information YOU PROVIDED indicates that women of any age who are not in the National Guard...are not part of any militia.

Is the government allowed to restrict the rights of men over 45 years of age WHO ARE NOT IN THE NATIONAL GUARD...and women of any age who are not in the National Guard, since they are not of a militia, let alone a well-regulated militia?

I do not know how many many times the fact that the national guard have nothing to do with state militias mention in the constitution need to be stated.

In fact the very word national in national guard is kind of a large hint of that fact.

State militias are creatures of the states not a national anything.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Cameras don't kill and injure people although I daresay you could find an incident somewhere where one has done so.

They help to bring people before a judge. And they have reduced road accidents. The law abiding citizen has no worries about our cameras but plenty have had cause to be worried about guns.

2 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

he law abiding citizen has no worries about our cameras but plenty have had cause to be worried about guns.

We have a right to privacy also under our constitution beside having the right to be armed.

Something you are lacking in both regards.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

Quote:

Quote:
Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5244939)
Quote:
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. The information YOU PROVIDED indicates that women of any age who are not in the National Guard...are not part of any militia.

Is the government allowed to restrict the rights of men over 45 years of age WHO ARE NOT IN THE NATIONAL GUARD...and women of any age who are not in the National Guard, since they are not of a militia, let alone a well-regulated militia?

I do not know how many many times the fact that the national guard have nothing to do with state militias mention in the constitution need to be stated.

In fact the very word national in national guard is kind of a large hint of that fact.

State militias are creatures of the states not a national anything.

Yes, Bill...we know all that. But you keep ducking the actual question.

You presented a US code that identified what a militia IS.

It includes men between the ages of 17 and 45 no matter if in a regulated militia or not...and men up to the age of 65 if in the National Guard.

It also includes women of any age...who are in the National Guard.

I REPEAT...YOU FURNISHED THAT INFORMATION.

It appears that the INFORMATION THAT YOU FURNISHED indicates that men under the age of 17 and over the age of 45 (unless in the National Guard)...and all men over the age of 65...and all women of any age who are not in the National Guard...

...ARE NOT PART OF ANY MILITIA.

So, considering the wording of the second amendment...do you see the possibility that those people are not guaranteed the right to bear arms under the provisions of that amendment?

Try actually answering that, Bill.

C'mon...give it a try!

1 Reply

http://paladin.typepad.com/files/guns_are_bad.jpg

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

It appears that the INFORMATION THAT YOU FURNISHED indicates that men under the age of 17 and over the age of 45 (unless in the National Guard)...and all men over the age of 65...and all women of any age who are not in the National Guard...

...ARE NOT PART OF ANY MILITIA.

Sorry but the plain fact is that unless congress wish to amend the constitution and get the states to agree they have zero rights to define who can or who can not be part of a state militia.

Any such acts by congress that is short of an amendment to the constitution are on their face unconstitutional.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Quote:

Sorry but the plain fact is that unless congress wish to amend the constitution and get the states to agree they have zero rights to define who can or who can not be part of a state militia.

Okay...for the sake of discussion, let's just assume that is true (I do not know that it is)...

...do you know of any states that have defined their militias to include males under the age of 17 or over the age of 65...or who have indicated that all women are part of the militia?

If you do not know of any states that have...please answer the question as originally put. After all...YOU were the person who furnished that information.

Quote:

Any such acts by congress that is short of an amendment to the constitution are on their face unconstitutional.

I'll defer to you on that. I am not a constitutional scholar...and apparently you are. In any case, this does not impact on what I said up above.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

No I am not willing to do the research to find what every state in the union age limit on militia age happen to be and it does not matter in regard to the 2 amendment rights to be armed in any case.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Quote:

No I am not willing to do the research to find what every state in the union age limit on militia age happen to be and it does not matter in regard to the 2 amendment rights to be armed in any case.

I didn't think so.

So that earlier statement of yours about who can or who cannot define a militia was just a dodge.

No problem. I understand why you are dodging my question. It presents problems for you.

0 Replies

@spendius,

There is very little to worry about from law abiding citizens with guns. Is it possible that an accident involving a gun owned by a law abiding citizen will result in someone's death? Of course it is but it is greatly more possible that an accident involving a car owned by a law abiding citizen will result in someone's death.

That someone is very unlikely to ever be killed by a camera is not a reason to assume they are a totally benign tool of the government. I'm a little surprised that you would suggest this.

Apparently Brits, in general, are content with being protected by their government, in a way Americans are not, and part of that contentment allows for 24 hour surveillance in all public spaces.

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

There is very little to worry about from law abiding citizens with guns.

Really!

Up until they started shooting people, just about every mass killer using a gun was a "law abiding citizen with a gun."

Law abiding citizens are just fine...until they decide they feel like shooting some people...then they ain't so fine.

To suppose we have very little to worry about from them is absurd.

0 Replies

Is the story about the navy seals über sniper, being shot, by a law abiding citizen, at a shooting range. Getting much traction in the US. That seems from this distance to be the quintessential example of why MORE GUNS isn't much of a guarantee of safety.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Apparently Brits, in general, are content with being protected by their government, in a way Americans are not, and part of that contentment allows for 24 hour surveillance in all public spaces.

Indeed, some communities even ask for more.

But what they (and others)) wouldn't allow, is e.g. that the records the emails of nearly all citizens, like it's done in the USA (there, even including members of congress). And in some US-states, phone records can be handed over without a search warrant ...

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Quote:

But what they (and others)) wouldn't allow, is e.g. that the records the emails of nearly all citizens, like it's done in the USA (there, even including members of congress). And in some US-states, phone records can be handed over without a search warrant ...

LOL programs like pgp can protected email from anyone looking at them with or without a search warrant.

Phone calls over the internet can be protected that give the same level of protection as pgp programs give to email.

Elements of the UK government have been trying to get a filtering system in placed for years to censor the whole internet.

Note by the very nature of the internet the informations traveling over it is open to be look at unless it is encrypted by a great many people along the path it travel and the places it is store at.

I never allow anything that I would not mind being on the front page of the NYT to leave my computers to travel on the internet without the protection of encryption.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

I never allow anything that I would not mind being on the front page of the NYT to leave my computers.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

I never allow anything that I would not mind being on the front page of the NYT to leave my computers

So you never put financial informations or love notes and so on the internet?

Never do online banking or online shopping or.........................

1 Reply

Who are we as a nation?
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jan/18/mark-shields/pbs-commentator-mark-shields-says-more-killed-guns/

Why do you think Americans are more likely to shoot one another than citizens of all other developed nations (not to mention Yemen) ? If there were more guns, the NRA says, we'd be safer, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
Perhaps we should try to reducing the availability of guns for about the next one hundred years and see how we do. Yes?

Joe(Please, gunowners, stop shooting people)Nation

3 Replies

@Joe Nation,

Once more the murder rate in the US is now at a 50 years low and near the bottom of the range of the scale for the last 100 years.

And the tools to murder others that are used is kind of beside the point as dead is dead.

Another major school shooting today ... Newtown, Conn

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know