I am so sick of this bullshit.
Biden isn’t going to do anything, neither is Obama.
This political posturing would not have stopped Adam Lanza, or the future Adam Lanzas.
The Democratic Party stopped pursuing gun control years ago, because it was a lost cause, and they will lose again.
So sick and tired of Obama and these foolish pearl-clutching sissies, we had 8000 gun deaths last year, among a population of 320 million people. That is a rate of .0087%.
Today we had a high school shooting in Taft, California.
The weapon used was a shot-gun, not a high capacity weapon, not a machine gun, not an uzi, not an RPG, not a fully automatic anything. A SHOT GUN.
We also have the 5th most strict gun laws in the country, and this still happened.
Unless you plan to tackle “crazy”, you will never stop shit like this from happening.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Unless you plan to tackle “crazy”, you will never stop shit like this from happening. [/quote]
Agree.
What are we going to do? Make everyone take a psychological exam every time someone wants to buy a gun? I have no answers, but have opinions on this subject. If someone crazy wants in my house to hurt my family he will have my biggest investment, lead, heading his direction at high velocity.
The only way to stop a monster with a gun is a good guy with a gun.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
But to cancel or restrict their rights prior to a crime or some type of due process, and by extension therefore give the states the legal ability to restrict the non-mentally ill? I don’t think so. It doesn’t work. It falls into slippery slope territory. Think about it. [/quote]
It is not so much that no one can call it to work: to their way of thinking, it works, for people who desire structured lines of authority to control society regardless of the price.
I don’t believe TB is blind,. He may be upholding what he believes is right for him and by extension, his society. This may be where he places his value.
I have asked this before on a different thread: why is one person’s value superior to another’s?
My impression is that those who believe that government is good and will/should act in the name of good overlook the fact that historically and in practice, government can and has used power to dominate men to his own injury.
The implication of saying the state can extend limited power to the mentally ill into the non-mentally ill in the name of (insert whatever your higher value is ) results in power grabs that end in absolute power to the state - that being a trade off they are willing to make.
I think it is a matter of different values.
[quote]JEATON wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
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]
I find myself confused.
I see the law–10 USC 311.2.b–but I do not remember that I was ever in a militia–no oath or uniform or instruction or time commitment. (Unless you count my time as a “yellow beret”–in the event of hostilities, I was to be taken hostage.)
I have tried to find more about the section of the law, and I skimmed through Titles 10 and 32 and the Militia Acts of 1792, and I can find nothing else that pertains to the “non-organized” militia as described in 311.2.b.
Could you point out to me the authorizing legislation (In Titles 10 or 32 or elsewhere), organization, command structure, etc., by which I was an unconscious member of a militia for 28 years?[/quote]
I have always accepted and known this to be true. Why else did I register with Selected Services when I turned 18? Because I was a United States Citizen, male, and of legal age. Therefore I was obligated to register myself in a data base as a member of a non active, unorganized militia available to be called up in time of war or conflict. [/quote]
I do not think so…When I registered with The Draft, it was specifically for the organized defense arms --Army, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard–but not for non-organized militias. I would have to look up the details of the Selective Service Act, but once someone was drafted, they were not drafted into an “non-organized” militia.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
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.
~Patrick Henry~[/quote]
Yes, I saw that title, and it is the only reference I can find in Titles 10 and 32 for an unorganized militia. That is why I am asking for the authorized legislation, guidance, etc. I take you at your word: it is fine that you believe that this is the law–of which I was never informed–but where else can I get confirmation that I am so obliged? Show me.
(Patrick Henry’s word is respected, but his opinion is not law binding on me.)
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Unless you plan to tackle “crazy”, you will never stop shit like this from happening. [/quote]
Agree.
What are we going to do? Make everyone take a psychological exam every time someone wants to buy a gun? I have no answers, but have opinions on this subject. If someone crazy wants in my house to hurt my family he will have my biggest investment, lead, heading his direction at high velocity.
The only way to stop a monster with a gun is a good guy with a gun.[/quote]
I agree with you.
My conclusion is, that some people are comfortable with being around guns, while others are not.
This is what Libs fail to understand, personal responsibility. You can have guns around some people with no issue, while having to remove metal utensils around others to prevent an issue.
How do you manage one group without censoring the other ? Let Social Darwinism take place. When people realize the possible threat of lethal recourse, they reconsider the situation.
I don’t drive through Compton, California because I openly know the crime is so bad, I respect the idea that the bullets of gangbangers don’t have names on them.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Unless you plan to tackle “crazy”, you will never stop shit like this from happening. [/quote]
Agree.
What are we going to do? Make everyone take a psychological exam every time someone wants to buy a gun? I have no answers, but have opinions on this subject. If someone crazy wants in my house to hurt my family he will have my biggest investment, lead, heading his direction at high velocity.
The only way to stop a monster with a gun is a good guy with a gun.[/quote]No PM’s.
TB23,
You apparently missed my post containing the specific location in the U.S.C. that defines THE militia. There is only one recognized militia
And you still haven’t given a direct answer.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]atypical1 wrote:
[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.
[/quote]
Maybe, but the part of the foundation of this country is that ALL people, whether atheist/Catholic/catholic/protestant/agnostic/hypocrite, were endowed with natural rights by their Creator, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness–which by definition could be positively opposed to God in the hands of an atheist, but that is the definition of free choice and natural rights. In addition this same Constitution names as a natural right the ability of a man to defend himself regardless of belief or disbelief. That is a principle that is definitively aside from Religion, because it is a right the founding fathers recognized as Divinely given to ALL men regardless of whether they acknowledged the source of the right or not.
So yes, these rights were enumerated for atheists and hypocrites as well as true believers. You seem to imply this is not the case.
[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]
I would totally agree, but again, off topic so maybe “hijack haven”
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
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).[/quote]
Federal law defines the meaning of the word militia.
Even if you made assumptions on JP, you could have shown knowledge of the federal law instead of spinning back to your ideas of libertarian militia you consider inferior.
We still don’t know if you are legally part of the militia or if you were conscious you were at some point in your life part of the militia.
As for the nature of my posts: Yes, I am aware I reason from a difference perspective than most which makes my expressions difficult to understand. Just put it down to my being female, if you will.
I was also unsure if you were being intellectually honest so that affects our exchange.
I have no problem with bluntness, so no offense taken.
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Yes, I saw that title, and it is the only reference I can find in Titles 10 and 32 for an unorganized militia. That is why I am asking for the authorized legislation, guidance, etc. I take you at your word: it is fine that you believe that this is the law–of which I was never informed–but where else can I get confirmation that I am so obliged? Show me.
(Patrick Henry’s word is respected, but his opinion is not law binding on me.)[/quote]
Oh, my brother.
The USC, or United States Code, is an abbreviated reference to ‘The Code of Laws of the United States of America’. It is the law!
[quote]Alpha F wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty,
~Patrick Henry~ Speech to the Virginia Convention at St. John’s Church, Richmond, Virginia, March 25, 1775[/quote]
The “holy cause of liberty”.
Do you know where I see the problem?
Nothing, absolutely nothing is sacred anymore. “Right and Wrong” is what you make it, 'The Constitution is what you make it" " God is what you make it" “Value is what you make it and reinforce”.
Vice is virtue and virtue is a commodity to get what you want from others.
I doubt that most people would read this speech and be able to relate let alone resonate with the values he is talking about.
Their core is hollow. And without integrity there is no solidity.
Without solidity there can be no platform for the exercise of courage.
And without the exercise of courage there can be no hope for transformation.
And without transformation there can be no liberation.
This is how, to most, liberty is lost.
[/quote]
Alpha F
I am forced to admit I am absolutely in love with you. Your posts here (specifically this from pg 17) and elsewhere are fantastic and very well thought out. Brains and integrity is sexy. Hard to accept my dream e-woman is married.
That is all.
Oh, and if you ever decide you don’t want to be married…I’m free! 
/hijack
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
That is why I am asking for the authorized legislation, guidance, etc. I take you at your word: it is fine that you believe that this is the law–of which I was never informed–but where else can I get confirmation that I am so obliged? Show me.
[/quote]
It appears to be definition of the word, which being law would seem to mean the fact of being part of the militia. The law seems a more authoritative source of definition of a legal word than a dictionary or a webpage, yes?
It doesn’t appear itself to accrue an obligation.
The text is at Document not Found
Within Title X it doesn’t say who, other than Congress, “authorized” it.
“The Code of Laws of the United States of America[1] (variously abbreviated to Code of Laws of the United States, United States Code, U.S. Code, or U.S.C.) is a compilation and codification of the general and permanent federal laws of the United States. It contains 51 titles[2] (along with a further 4 proposed titles[3]). The main edition is published every six years by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel of the House of Representatives, and cumulative supplements are published annually.[4][5] The current edition of the code was published in 2006, and according to the US Government Printing Office, is over 200,000 pages long.”
Alternatively, so your authorization line of reasoning can get into court and obtain a positive legal answer, you can try violating criminal provisions of the US code and ask the judge if the USC is authorized. But for the most part it seems strange to create arguments doubting if a law is authorized.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Yes, I saw that title, and it is the only reference I can find in Titles 10 and 32 for an unorganized militia. That is why I am asking for the authorized legislation, guidance, etc. I take you at your word: it is fine that you believe that this is the law–of which I was never informed–but where else can I get confirmation that I am so obliged? Show me.
(Patrick Henry’s word is respected, but his opinion is not law binding on me.)[/quote]
Oh, my brother.
The USC, or United States Code, is an abbreviated reference to ‘The Code of Laws of the United States of America’. It is the law![/quote]
Well, that particular subsection is a definition. What I am asking for is the law by which I must behave. Where do I report? When? How often? What is the command structure? If none exists, to whom was authority delegated?
Since I was unaware and did not report, yellow beret in hand, and recognize no one in authority over me, have I not broken the law? Will my attorneys at Dewey, Cheatham and Howe, have to mount a defense in federal court?
I would softly suggest that this clause is there in much the same way that humans are born with an appendix; once an evolutionary necessity, now a vestige of another age (or, more likely a vestige of superceded laws. e.g., see the enabling legislation of 1903).
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Alpha F
I am forced to admit I am absolutely in love with you. Your posts here (specifically this from pg 17) and elsewhere are fantastic and very well thought out. Brains and integrity is sexy. Hard to accept my dream e-woman is married.
That is all.
Oh, and if you ever decide you don’t want to be married…I’m free!
/hijack
[/quote]
I am deeply honored.
I do see your qualities and make no mistake, you do have a lot to bring to the table in a marriage.
I encourage you to stay firm in your manhood to only commit to a woman who is equally worthy of you.
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]JEATON wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
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]
I find myself confused.
I see the law–10 USC 311.2.b–but I do not remember that I was ever in a militia–no oath or uniform or instruction or time commitment. (Unless you count my time as a “yellow beret”–in the event of hostilities, I was to be taken hostage.)
I have tried to find more about the section of the law, and I skimmed through Titles 10 and 32 and the Militia Acts of 1792, and I can find nothing else that pertains to the “non-organized” militia as described in 311.2.b.
Could you point out to me the authorizing legislation (In Titles 10 or 32 or elsewhere), organization, command structure, etc., by which I was an unconscious member of a militia for 28 years?[/quote]
I have always accepted and known this to be true. Why else did I register with Selected Services when I turned 18? Because I was a United States Citizen, male, and of legal age. Therefore I was obligated to register myself in a data base as a member of a non active, unorganized militia available to be called up in time of war or conflict. [/quote]
I do not think so…When I registered with The Draft, it was specifically for the organized defense arms --Army, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard–but not for non-organized militias. I would have to look up the details of the Selective Service Act, but once someone was drafted, they were not drafted into an “non-organized” militia.
[/quote]
This is correct. The militia has nothing to do with the Selective Service.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
TB23,
You apparently missed my post containing the specific location in the U.S.C. that defines THE militia. There is only one recognized militia
And you still haven’t given a direct answer. [/quote]
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
One needs read no further than the first four words, specifically the very first word, of the 2nd Amendment to sink whatever argument you are trying to make with your purposely skewed interpretation of the U.S.C.
If I may wax Clintonesque for a moment - ‘A’ is a completely different barrel of monkeys than ‘the’.
One could even argue that “THE militia” you reference from the U.S.C. does not meet the standard of “well regulated”, and therefore cannot be what is allowed for under the 2nd Amendment. Such an argument would fly in the face of Justice Scalia’s abysmal majority opinion in DC v. Heller, but I would submit that the first part of the 2nd Amendment is reserved expressly for the states.
Regardless of my opinion of Scalia’s opinion, Thunderbolt 23 is absolutely correct
[quote]Alpha F wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Alpha F
I am forced to admit I am absolutely in love with you. Your posts here (specifically this from pg 17) and elsewhere are fantastic and very well thought out. Brains and integrity is sexy. Hard to accept my dream e-woman is married.
That is all.
Oh, and if you ever decide you don’t want to be married…I’m free!
/hijack
[/quote]
I am deeply honored.
I do see your qualities and make no mistake, you do have a lot to bring to the table in a marriage.
I encourage you to stay firm in your manhood to only commit to a woman who is equally worthy of you.
[/quote]
Hahaha, well played!
And yes, I enjoy being a real man too much to want to give that up for anybody haha. No way no how.