Gun Control

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
801

[quote]drunkpig wrote:

[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]
Do you make words mean whatever suits what you want, or do you look for what was meant?

What, for example, does it mean today to say that a watch is well-regulated, or for that matter, the operation or mechanism of a firearm is well-regulated?

That would not refer to whether the government has written some good regulations: it would refer to the watch or firearm operating smoothly and well. That is so even today.

At the time of the Bill of Rights, the term “well-regulated” was common. It took only a moment to find where others had found from the Oxford English Dictionary how the phrase was used and the meaning:

The meaning of the phrase “well-regulated” in the 2nd amendment
From: Brian T. Halonen halonen@csd.uwm.edu

The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: “If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations.”

1714: “The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world.”

1812: “The equation of time … is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial.”

1848: “A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor.”

1862: “It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding.”

1894: “The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city.”

The phrase “well-regulated” was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. [ end of quote ]

Or, Federalist Papers #29 shows clearly how Hamilton used the word. As above, and not in the sense of being under government regulations. The Avalon Project : Federalist No 29

If the 2nd Amendent were referring to good government regulations, wouldn’t it make more sense that it would then have followed with requirements for what sorts of regulations? It certainly doesn’t read, “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, Congress shall regulate…” or anything like that. Well, at least if reading past the first 4 words.

Quite the opposite. Very clearly “well-regulated” does not refer to the qualities of regulations.

So we will see how you treat that, or whether you put on the meaning that suits your purpose.

802

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

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? [/quote]
Herein lies the biggest problem with the modern American idea of what the militia is; our media and our government has turned the term ‘militia’ into a synonym for ‘wannabe military nutbag’. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

If your neighbor’s door gets kicked in by some criminal in the middle of the night, and you take up arms to defend them, you are performing your civic militia duty.

If your community is under attack by gang thugs, and you band together to drive them out, you are performing your civic militia duty.

You don’t need a chain of command, and the authority is in the hands of the people.

This duty does not exempt you from law while performing it! Just like the police or the sheriff, you are expected to obey the law while you uphold the law. You are to honor and defend the Constitution at all times, just as any member of the military would and should.

No, of course not.

No, sir. The militia is quite literally “We the People” at its absolute finest.

http://constitution.org/col/5508_col.htm

803

[quote]drunkpig wrote:

[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]
Then what is your definitive idea of the class ‘unorganized militia’, in said 10 USC 13 311?

If you only recognize the militia defined as ‘organized militia’, then why is the other class even mentioned?

You seem to have the wrong idea of what a militia actually is. So, then, if you’d like to channel Clinton, tell me what your definition of ‘militia’ is.

804

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

You apparently missed my post containing the specific location in the U.S.C. that defines THE militia. There is only one recognized militia[/quote]

No, I’ve seen it now, which is why I gave you my answer on it.

And we have several militia, as I mentioned.

And you;re not going to get one. Read my answer again.

805

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

And we have several militia, as I mentioned. [/quote]

“Straight history” ( the US code ) says The militia.

You did not recognize that even after it was shown.

806

Oh I’m so sorry. I apologize in failing to add this little note to my post about ObamaCare. It changes the gun control debate somewhat in that it would force an executive decision to insert new gun bans.

You older guys and gals that graduated more than 48 months ago may need a refresher course since everything you learned is irrelevant and racist. The professional students who haven’t made a mark in the world yet will explain it to you.

807

Do you think that when Congress passes a law then at a later time it cannot pass a different law which supersedes the previous?

How does any provision of Obamacare make it any more difficult to pass a new gun control law? Did Congress tie its own hands where it is not allowed to create new laws, or create a barrier for itself such as requiring a supermajority to do so, or… ?

808

Pfff… You believe that changes the game?

809

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Then what is your definitive idea of the class ‘unorganized militia’, in said 10 USC 13 311?[/quote]

I don’t know that any idea can be definitive. I think The Militia is an involuntary inactive ready reserve. How I define it is irrelevant, though. 311 describes The Militia of the United States clearly enough as to be obvious to a rational person.

At what point did I recognize one and not recognize the other? I’m not chasing you down any rabbit holes. Obviously, you skipped right over the first word of the 2nd Amendment, and started attacking the next three. My position on 10 C13 311(b) is only with respect to the Second Amendment, which has nothing to do with either (1) or (2).

Which militia are you talking about? The Militia of the United States as laid out in Title 10? Or A state militia given consideration under the 2nd Amendment? A militia is not The Militia.

810

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

“Straight history” ( the US code ) says The militia.[/quote]

10 U.S.C. Section 311: Militia: composition and classes

(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.

States also have their own state-based militia:

State defense forces (SDF) (also known as state guards, state military reserves, or state militias) in the United States are military units that operate under the sole authority of a state government; they are partially regulated by the National Guard Bureau but they are not a part of the Army National Guard of the United States.[1] State defense forces are authorized by state and federal law and are under the command of the governor of each state.

So, when you say “militia”, you could mean:

-organized militia under federal law (National Guard and Naval Militia)
-unorganized militia under federal law
-state militia, as recognized under both state and federal law

We have, therefore, several militia. As I noted before.

Though it is quite entertaining for you to continue and try to lecture on what American law says and what it doesn’t, you may want to reconsider doing so for your own sake.

811

atypical,

Trying to keep this on topic…but my general idea is that bankruptcy is, at its basic level, people making bad decisions at the cost of others’ resources. That is basically the definition of crime. That’s why your credit is screwed for the next 7 years after a bankruptcy, it’s your PUNISHMENT for making bad decisions.

From what I’ve been able to find in a few minutes, it looks like approximately half the people who file for bankruptcy are repeat offenders.

Felonies, from the first 3 websites I looked at, about 50-60% of felons have previously been convicted of a felony.

You see where I’m going here, I’m sure…they BOTH have a good chance of not fixing their ways. So to me, the general treatment should be the same, as far as the length of their legal consequences. I think that sounds reasonable and fair.

812

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

Do you make words mean whatever suits what you want, or do you look for what was meant?

What, for example, does it mean today to say that a watch is well-regulated, or for that matter, the operation or mechanism of a firearm is well-regulated?

That would not refer to whether the government has written some good regulations: it would refer to the watch or firearm operating smoothly and well. That is so even today.

At the time of the Bill of Rights, the term “well-regulated” was common. It took only a moment to find where others had found from the Oxford English Dictionary how the phrase was used and the meaning:

The meaning of the phrase “well-regulated” in the 2nd amendment
From: Brian T. Halonen halonen@csd.uwm.edu

The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: “If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations.”

1714: “The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world.”

1812: “The equation of time … is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial.”

1848: “A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor.”

1862: “It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding.”

1894: “The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city.”

The phrase “well-regulated” was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. [ end of quote ]

Or, Federalist Papers #29 shows clearly how Hamilton used the word. As above, and not in the sense of being under government regulations. The Avalon Project : Federalist No 29

If the 2nd Amendent were referring to good government regulations, wouldn’t it make more sense that it would then have followed with requirements for what sorts of regulations? It certainly doesn’t read, “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, Congress shall regulate…” or anything like that. Well, at least if reading past the first 4 words.

Quite the opposite. Very clearly “well-regulated” does not refer to the qualities of regulations.

So we will see how you treat that, or whether you put on the meaning that suits your purpose.

[/quote]

I understood what the framers meant by use of “well-regulated”.

Perhaps I was too vague and assumed incorrectly that my direction was easily enough to follow without bloating the post to the point of boredom.

In Halonen’s words - “Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected”.

“Well regulated” refers to the working order of a militia. A state militia. THEIR right to keep and bear arms that are functional and well maintained shall not be infringed.

My point was that the unorganized portion of The militia of the United States, simply by definition of unorganized, cannot be what the 2nd Amendment is referring to in it’s first four words. I hope that clears it up for you.

If you want to get into a full blown discussion specifically regarding the Heller decision and how wrong some of Scalia’s opinion was that will be fine by me.

813

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

10 U.S.C. Section 311: Militia: composition and classes

(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.[/quote]

One militia, two classes. Sorry about your reading comprehension problem. Maybe you should have gotten a real education.

[quote]States also have their own state-based militia:

State defense forces (SDF) (also known as state guards, state military reserves, or state militias) in the United States are military units that operate under the sole authority of a state government; they are partially regulated by the National Guard Bureau but they are not a part of the Army National Guard of the United States.[1] State defense forces are authorized by state and federal law and are under the command of the governor of each state.[/quote]
Again, a subset of the militia who are not in the NG or naval militia.

So, when I say “militia”, I mean:

THE MILITIA, which includes but is not limited to the following subsets:
-organized militia under federal law (National Guard and Naval Militia)
-unorganized militia under federal law
-state militia, as recognized under both state and federal law

Though it is quite entertaining for you to continue and try to lecture on what American law says and what it doesn’t, you may want to reconsider doing so until you acquire a proper education on the matter.

814

This is how much our government cares about our kids.

And so many people are cramming it into our heads that these are the only people who are supposed to have guns!!

Because these are the only people who can be trusted with them!!

815

I’ll stand with this man, instead, thank you very much!!

816

[quote]drunkpig wrote:

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

Do you make words mean whatever suits what you want, or do you look for what was meant?

What, for example, does it mean today to say that a watch is well-regulated, or for that matter, the operation or mechanism of a firearm is well-regulated?

That would not refer to whether the government has written some good regulations: it would refer to the watch or firearm operating smoothly and well. That is so even today.

At the time of the Bill of Rights, the term “well-regulated” was common. It took only a moment to find where others had found from the Oxford English Dictionary how the phrase was used and the meaning:

The meaning of the phrase “well-regulated” in the 2nd amendment
From: Brian T. Halonen halonen@csd.uwm.edu

The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: “If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations.”

1714: “The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world.”

1812: “The equation of time … is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial.”

1848: “A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor.”

1862: “It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding.”

1894: “The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city.”

The phrase “well-regulated” was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. [ end of quote ]

Or, Federalist Papers #29 shows clearly how Hamilton used the word. As above, and not in the sense of being under government regulations. The Avalon Project : Federalist No 29

If the 2nd Amendent were referring to good government regulations, wouldn’t it make more sense that it would then have followed with requirements for what sorts of regulations? It certainly doesn’t read, “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, Congress shall regulate…” or anything like that. Well, at least if reading past the first 4 words.

Quite the opposite. Very clearly “well-regulated” does not refer to the qualities of regulations.

So we will see how you treat that, or whether you put on the meaning that suits your purpose.

[/quote]

I understood what the framers meant by use of “well-regulated”.

Perhaps I was too vague and assumed incorrectly that my direction was easily enough to follow without bloating the post to the point of boredom.

In Halonen’s words - “Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected”.

“Well regulated” refers to the working order of a militia. A state militia. THEIR right to keep and bear arms that are functional and well maintained shall not be infringed.

My point was that the unorganized portion of The militia of the United States, simply by definition of unorganized, cannot be what the 2nd Amendment is referring to in it’s first four words. I hope that clears it up for you.

If you want to get into a full blown discussion specifically regarding the Heller decision and how wrong some of Scalia’s opinion was that will be fine by me.
[/quote]

Correct me if I’m wrong Alpha F, but…

As far as I can tell, that was her WHOLE point…that “well-regulated” has nothing to do with organized/unorganized. It just means, in that context, functional. In existence. There. Did you actually read her post, or just skim, and assume?

817

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
This is how much our government cares about our kids.

And so many people are cramming it into our heads that these are the only people who are supposed to have guns!!

Because these are the only people who can be trusted with them!![/quote]

My favorite part is where they said that the DEA agents acted within the scope of the warrant…despite the fact they busted down the door OF THE WRONG HOUSE! Isn’t that, by definition, OUTSIDE the scope of the warrant? Just throwing that out there.

818

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

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? [/quote]
Herein lies the biggest problem with the modern American idea of what the militia is; our media and our government has turned the term ‘militia’ into a synonym for ‘wannabe military nutbag’. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

If your neighbor’s door gets kicked in by some criminal in the middle of the night, and you take up arms to defend them, you are performing your civic militia duty.

If your community is under attack by gang thugs, and you band together to drive them out, you are performing your civic militia duty.

You don’t need a chain of command, and the authority is in the hands of the people.

This duty does not exempt you from law while performing it! Just like the police or the sheriff, you are expected to obey the law while you uphold the law. You are to honor and defend the Constitution at all times, just as any member of the military would and should.

No, of course not.

No, sir. The militia is quite literally “We the People” at its absolute finest.

http://constitution.org/col/5508_col.htm[/quote]

Okay. I understand you now.

The reference you provide is tautologic. But here is one you might like:
http://www.lawandliberty.org/what_mil.htm

I particularly like the etiolated definitions borrowed from George Mason.

So we citizens should have been perpetually organized into squads of 50 to 200 local citizens. I have not seen this happen. (I can only Imagine what the Beverly Hills-West Hollywood Ready Militia might look like.) Note, too, that The Militia should not be–horrors–a Select Militia. And all, save the State Defense Militias (of which there are only 23), must be subject to Federal authority in times of emergency.
Federal authority? (Yes, because the defining clause is in the US Code, and without delegation to State law.) Hmmm.

This has become so complicated, JP.

819

[quote]drunkpig wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Then what is your definitive idea of the class ‘unorganized militia’, in said 10 USC 13 311?[/quote]

I don’t know that any idea can be definitive. I think The Militia is an involuntary inactive ready reserve. [/quote]
You can’t be for srs. The definition, which is definitive by nature IIRC, is right there in black and white.

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

820

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

Again, a subset of the militia who are not in the NG or naval militia.[/quote]

Not exactly.

32 USCS § 109: Maintenance of other troops

i In addition to its National Guard, if any, a State, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, Guam, or the Virgin Islands may, as provided by its laws, organize and maintain defense forces. A defense force established under this section may be used within the jurisdiction concerned, as its chief executive (or commanding general in the case of the District of Columbia) considers necessary, but it may not be called, ordered, or drafted into the armed forces.[/i]

So, you say state defense forces aremerely a “subsets” of the federal militia. Federal law says, no, they aren’t “subsets” - state defense forces may not be called, ordered, or drafted into the armed forces. This differs from a state’s National Guard units, which can be federalized under the National Defense Act of 1933.

As such, state defense forces - the state militia - are separate and independent of the federal militia. In other words, a different militia. Just like I said earlier.

I wouldn’t worry too much about my “education” when it would take you all of 3 minutes to Google this and learn about different militia, if you had common sense.