Specifically, Title 10 Subtitle A Part 1 chapter 13 paragraph 311 states:
quote 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. [/quote]
It does not state that you must be trained as such or even informed of your membership. It is expected of you, and has been since the founding of this nation, to pick up arms and march in defense of your country if trouble should arise. THAT is what the militia truly is.
THAT is why we need assault weapons. THAT is why true assault weapons should be available! It was made abundantly clear in the writings of our Founders that WE THE PEOPLE should be a fighting force so numerous and frightening that the thought of attacking us would be immediately dismissed as suicide.
This is not the same nation it was then Jay. Arms in the hands of a citizenry that has forgotten God are at least as destructive to themselves and the society they live in as their being unarmed and chained by tyrants.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Strong words from Patrick Henry:
This is not the same nation it was then Jay. Arms in the hands of a citizenry that has forgotten God are at least as destructive to themselves and the society they live in as their being unarmed and chained by tyrants. [/quote]
We need to leave religion out of any discussion of the Second Amendment. I’m very pro gun ownership but once you start bringing God into the discussion many people turn off. As much as I believe in the Second Amendment I also believe in the separation of church and state.
[quote]hungry4more wrote:
To clarify…of course it’s not a crime in the legal sense. I meant a much more general idea, along the lines of that rule “If everyone did as I did, would it be ok?”. That kind of crime.
After all, if nobody declared bankruptcy, the interest rates of loans would be MUCH lower, as a result allowing the “average joe” to live a better quality life, and possibly avoid bankruptcy himself, if he was previously teetering on the edge of making it financially. As for the people who were reasonably well-to-do already, they now have more money to spend, since less of it has to go to their mortgage, car loan, whatever…that extra money creates/allows more jobs, etc etc, blah blah blah, yay right wing! You get what I’m saying, yes?[/quote]
I get what you’re saying and can understand that position. I don’t agree with the follow up point but that’s a different thread altogether.
Maybe the answer is for a felony to actually mean something. In other words maybe too many crimes are considered to be “felonies”.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
This is not the same nation it was then Jay. Arms in the hands of a citizenry that has forgotten God are at least as destructive to themselves and the society they live in as their being unarmed and chained by tyrants. [/quote]
This isn’t the same government that gave the people the right to arm themselves. Even a Godless people deserve self-defense from tyranny. You seem okay with taking the rights away from a free people because of their Godlessness and, in the same breath, equally okay with giving the government more ability to expand its tyrannical expansion for the same reason.
I distrust any government more than I distrust a free citizen.
Maybe the answer is for a felony to actually mean something. In other words maybe too many crimes are considered to be “felonies”.
james
[/quote]
Possibly. Will elaborate later on this.[/quote]
Not “possibly”. Most definitely.
War on Crime = more laws = more criminals
War on Drugs = more laws = more criminals
War on Terror = more laws = more criminals
Federal Hate Crimes bill = more laws = more criminals
Tangentially back to the point that Tribulus made, the American citizenry didn’t become Godless, they were forcibly moved to that point by a Government who sees itself as greater than God.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Strong words from Patrick Henry:
This is not the same nation it was then Jay. Arms in the hands of a citizenry that has forgotten God are at least as destructive to themselves and the society they live in as their being unarmed and chained by tyrants. [/quote]
We need to leave religion out of any discussion of the Second Amendment. I’m very pro gun ownership but once you start bringing God into the discussion many people turn off. As much as I believe in the Second Amendment I also believe in the separation of church and state.
james
[/quote]Right. along with my wall again ( http://gregnmary.gotdns.com/index3.html ) I’ll just say that the type of people the 2nd amendment, indeed all our founding principles were written for, are all but extinct in this country. Those principles don’t work for just anybody. Weren’t intended to.
Sure is taking you a long time to post a yes or no answer. Would you like me to spoon-feed you the location of the information you need to accurately and concisely answer the question?[/quote]
Well, as I said before you need to be specific. There is more than one militia.
Were you talking about the federal militia, aka the National Guard? Here is a link so you can learn up:
Or were you talking about organized state militia? You might find this useful:
Or were you talking about the “unorganized” militia recognized by federal statute (Militia Act of 1903, etc.) as the pool of able-bodied men between 17 and 45?
Or were you referring to the weirdo anti-government “militia movement” militias?
You weren’t clear - but I am not surprised.
I told you I wasn’t part of any organized militia. As for being part of the unorganized militia, I guess that would depend on my age, wouldn’t it, which you don’t know, do you?
[quote]drunkpig wrote:<<< Tangentially back to the point that Tribulus made, the American citizenry didn’t become Godless, they were forcibly moved to that point by a Government who sees itself as greater than God. [/quote]I disagree. The government has followed perfectly the will of the people. No government can force personal conviction on it’s citizenry. DC is full of characterless whores because so is the country. As the wise man once said. In a representative republic, the people get the government they deserve. Well, that’s my version anyway.
[quote]drunkpig wrote:<<< Tangentially back to the point that Tribulus made, the American citizenry didn’t become Godless, they were forcibly moved to that point by a Government who sees itself as greater than God. [/quote]I disagree. The government has followed perfectly the will of the people. No government can force personal conviction on it’s citizenry. DC is full of characterless whores because so is the country. As the wise man once said. In a representative republic, the people get the government they deserve. Well, that’s my version anyway.
[/quote]
I misspoke AND misspelled your name, my apologies. The people weren’t forcibly moved. They were coaxed into the new paradigm of no personal responsibility and moral decay.
To your de Tocqueville reference - I would disagree that we live in a true representative republic. Given the fact that the responsibility of actual governance has been handed off to a bureaucracy, our elected officials can absolve themselves of any blame. But this is veering off topic.
[quote]drunkpig wrote:<<< Tangentially back to the point that Tribulus made, the American citizenry didn’t become Godless, they were forcibly moved to that point by a Government who sees itself as greater than God. [/quote]I disagree. The government has followed perfectly the will of the people. No government can force personal conviction on it’s citizenry. DC is full of characterless whores because so is the country. As the wise man once said. In a representative republic, the people get the government they deserve. Well, that’s my version anyway.
[/quote]I misspoke AND misspelled your name, my apologies. >>>[/quote]No trouble and no need to apologize.[quote]drunkpig wrote: The people weren’t forcibly moved. They were coaxed into the new paradigm of no personal responsibility and moral decay. >>>[/quote]I would agree that the natural depravity of man has been very shrewdly harnessed by those whose goals are greatly advanced by the dissolution of faithful responsible families. They needed to be in office first though and we put them there.[quote]drunkpig wrote:<<< To your de Tocqueville reference - I would disagree that we live in a true representative republic. Given the fact that the responsibility of actual governance has been handed off to a bureaucracy, our elected officials can absolve themselves of any blame. But this is veering off topic. [/quote]There is some question of whether that quote is actually from Tocqueville and regardless of the precise form of government, Henry would not be nearly so quick to arm the citizens of today as he was those of his own. All one need do is read Tocqueville’s “Democracy in America” (speaking of him) to see that the United States of 2013 might as well be on another planet from the one he described. Other than a flag and some land, they bear almost no resemblance to one another whatsoever. The people Tocqueville reported were required for our form of government to function and this nation to survive are gone and so is the nation. And here we are discussing principles of freedom as if they are equally applicable today. For the record? I’ll keep my guns. Just to be clear.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
The people Tocqueville reported were required for our form of government to function and this nation to survive are gone and so is the nation. And here we are discussing principles of freedom as if they are equally applicable today. For the record? I’ll keep my guns. Just to be clear.
[/quote]
I don’t think they’re gone. Either they can’t get elected, or they understand the futility of the effort to do anything once the get elected. But yes. America is dead. The America that existed even as recently as my adolescence is nonexistent anymore.
I have one gun. Not really that much of a gun guy.
Note how they contend “good guys with guns” can be a good or bad thing, depending on how things turn out. Sounds like a good theory, but in the first example, the good guy stops a mass killing. In the second example, the good guy “almost” shoots the wrong man. But nothing bad actually happens. CNN implies these examples support both side of the gun-control argument.
Note how they contend “good guys with guns” can be a good or bad thing, depending on how things turn out. Sounds like a good theory, but in the first example, the good guy stops a mass killing. In the second example, the good guy “almost” shoots the wrong man. But nothing bad actually happens. CNN implies these examples support both side of the gun-control argument. [/quote]
CNN has gone all in on trying to out left MSNBC…it’s the only chance they have remaining to try and grab some market share.
I told you I wasn’t part of any organized militia. As for being part of the unorganized militia, I guess that would depend on my age, wouldn’t it, which you don’t know, do you?[/quote]
You had been asked directly whether you were a part of the militia. You evaded direct answer, and left no answer of any kind that let us know whether you were a part of the militia or not. Basically, it’s like someone asking you if you are an American citizen, and you answering, “I’m not a resident of the Pacific Northwest.”
Evasive. At best.
Further, I would say that you were unclear because you could have said: “I do not wish to give my age.”
And we would have known you were aware of your civil duties to your country.
As a non citizen female I knew I did not qualify.
Upon receiving British Citizenship I had to it was a condition of, becoming a British national to swear allegiance to the queen and should the situation present itself, to fight for that country.
Besides all this, it had nothing to do with JP’s point as to whether you are in the organized or unorganized militia. Few if any else here are interested in constant spin-backs to your arguments instead of the conversation that everyone else is having. You had been asked a straight question, and more than once.
To all of you who either attained US citizenship and males turned 18 who signed your papers with an unconscious pen:
Do you in fact think you can be an able bodied male part of a country that will not expect you to fight should the need arise?
Should the military fail or run short in some way, were you actually thinking that you would still be residing in the comfort and the safety of your home?
Were you really so entitled to enlist other males in place of you to fight for you and your women whilst you are not willing to fight for yourself or their women and children left behind?
Really?
Or is the whole question unconscious, perhaps from the US military being so strong that you felt you were excused in all possible circumstances.
If you are not willing to fight for yourself should others fight for you?
This is an actual question rather than rhetoric… I in fact don’t know what the situation may be here. In Britain this was understood but here perhaps not?
You had been asked directly whether you were a part of the militia. You evaded direct answer, and left no answer of any kind that let us know whether you were a part of the militia or not. Basically, it’s like someone asking you if you are an American citizen, and you answering, “I’m not a resident of the Pacific Northwest.”
Evasive. At best.[/quote]
Well, no, “militia” means different things to different people, and given JayPierce’s posts, it wasn’t clear what he was referring to - for all I know, given his posts and views, he was talking about private militia.
And I answered the direct questions. And, just to be blunt, I’m not sure - given the nature of your posts - you’re in much of a position to complain that someone’s response to a post wasn’t “direct” enough.
JayPierce wanted to make a rhetorical point by asking his question - the problem is, he wasn’t clear. People could be in all kinds of militia - for all I knew, he was looking for “libertarian” fellow travelers in the world of the militia movement (which is, incidentally, what I thought he was referring to).