tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,161
|
Post by tallguy on Oct 17, 2015 19:18:57 GMT -5
If you would like to change "properly working" to "properly trained and disciplined" I would agree with you. Still, the clause refers to the militia, as I think you know. They did not think about registering guns. There was no need and it would have served no purpose. Everybody had guns, and the science did not exist to trace them or test them for ballistics. The Second Amendment itself referred only to the necessity of being able to raise a defensive force if necessary. It had nothing to do with CREATING an individual right to keep and bear arms. You cannot thus base an argument for an individual right to own a gun for whatever purpose the owner wished on the Second Amendment.
And as I recall, in the dissent to the Heller decision, Justice Stevens pointed out that language specifically approving an individual right was proposed. Certain states had such language in their own constitutions, and argued for it to be adopted. It was not. That language was defeated and was not included in the Second Amendment itself.
Yes. Question How do you raise that fighting force if the citizens do not have a right to have guns in the first place? Answer: You can't. The Second Amendment creates the individual right to keep and bear arms because arms are required to have a "well regulated" (working and effective) militia. No, it created a collective right in order to ensure the ability to raise a militia. The militia WAS the defense, since there was a deep opposition to a standing army. We have today a standing army. In addition, we have state militias. The National Guard are the state militias of today. Given those two things, it is illogical to suggest that any average citizen should be able to amass an arsenal in his house, and there is absolutely nothing to preclude things like registration and background checks even if one were to assume an individual right.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,477
|
Post by billisonboard on Oct 17, 2015 19:18:53 GMT -5
From those you have screened and given basic training. Those aren't "citizens"... those are "veterans". Care to try again? I am a citizen and a veteran.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 0:52:47 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2015 19:20:58 GMT -5
People can say they are pro-gun, but if they want to limit guns they are not. Maybe they are to an extent. But it is like saying you are for free speech yet want some speech to be regulated. You and many others want to claim the free road but you insist people pay.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,161
|
Post by tallguy on Oct 17, 2015 19:27:04 GMT -5
It must be both tremendously unsatisfying and oddly comforting to live in such a black-and-white world.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 0:52:47 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2015 19:28:12 GMT -5
Yes. Question How do you raise that fighting force if the citizens do not have a right to have guns in the first place? Answer: You can't. The Second Amendment creates the individual right to keep and bear arms because arms are required to have a "well regulated" (working and effective) militia. No, it created a collective right in order to ensure the ability to raise a militia. The militia WAS the defense, since there was a deep opposition to a standing army. We have today a standing army. In addition, we have state militias. The National Guard are the state militias of today. Given those two things, it is illogical to suggest that any average citizen should be able to amass an arsenal in his house, and there is absolutely nothing to preclude things like registration and background checks even if one were to assume an individual right. Incorrect. The state National Guard units are the "state armies". Militia is ordinary citizens that are called to fight and then, and ONLY then, become "citizen soldiers". Back during the Revolutionary War, the militia wasn't made up of "professionally trained" (but unconscripted, unenlisted) people... it was made up of farmers and shop owners and other "non-soldiers" who only became "citizen soldiers" out of necessity. I have no issue with background checks and registrations though... that's prudent and reasonable in my opinion.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 0:52:47 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2015 19:29:55 GMT -5
Those aren't "citizens"... those are "veterans". Care to try again? I am a citizen and a veteran. O.k. ... and? What does that have to do with the question asked? (thank you for your service, by the way) ETA: Militia is not required to be made up of veterans though... just citizens. Some MAY be veterans too... but most will not be.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,477
|
Post by billisonboard on Oct 17, 2015 19:49:18 GMT -5
I am a citizen and a veteran. O.k. ... and? What does that have to do with the question asked? (thank you for your service, by the way) ETA: Militia is not required to be made up of veterans though... just citizens. Some MAY be veterans too... but most will not be. So your citizen soldiers are just those who show up at the town square with their guns? I have no problem with the idea this is what people two centuries ago had in mind. It is a total joke in 2015, but what the hell.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,161
|
Post by tallguy on Oct 17, 2015 19:54:45 GMT -5
We don't have "state armies." Nor are the National Guard units made up of professional soldiers. They are ordinary citizens, except that they have joined the Guard. Their monthly and annual commitments are the training requirements that qualify them as "a well-regulated militia." Their primary duty is to the state, though they can be federalized. Actual duty then is to both state and country. And the National Guard traces its roots directly to the state militias of colonial times. 1636 in Massachusetts to be exact.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 0:52:47 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2015 19:56:35 GMT -5
It must be both tremendously unsatisfying and oddly comforting to live in such a black-and-white world. better then your world where you argue against things you say you are for. The right to bear arms is black and white. You have no right to take them, none. eta: you have no principle to base your views on that I can tell. The one you gave "the harm principle" is completely arbitrary and amounts to nothing more then you want what you want.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,161
|
Post by tallguy on Oct 17, 2015 19:58:53 GMT -5
O.k. ... and? What does that have to do with the question asked? (thank you for your service, by the way) ETA: Militia is not required to be made up of veterans though... just citizens. Some MAY be veterans too... but most will not be. So your citizen soldiers are just those who show up at the town square with their guns? I have no problem with the idea this is what people two centuries ago had in mind. It is a total joke in 2015, but what the hell. Exactly. If you needed 1000 men two centuries ago, you likely had to grab everyone in town, and the next town, and all the farms between. And sure, if every gun owner wants to do their duty today and march off to war, more power to 'em. Problem is, they wouldn't be allowed to, since they are not trained and would create more danger for their own troops than for the enemy.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,161
|
Post by tallguy on Oct 17, 2015 20:10:35 GMT -5
Simplicity may be a virtue. Being simplistic is not. And continually mis-stating arguments because you cannot see more than two aspects or options is a joke. The world is many shades of grey. Embrace that and it becomes much more interesting. More challenging though....
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 0:52:47 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2015 20:40:14 GMT -5
Simplicity may be a virtue. Being simplistic is not. And continually mis-stating arguments because you cannot see more than two aspects or options is a joke. The world is many shades of grey. Embrace that and it becomes much more interesting. More challenging though.... the world may be many shades of grey, that doesn't necessitate choosing grey over black or white.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 0:52:47 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2015 20:52:16 GMT -5
We don't have "state armies." Nor are the National Guard units made up of professional soldiers. They are ordinary citizens, except that they have joined the Guard. Their monthly and annual commitments are the training requirements that qualify them as "a well-regulated militia." Their primary duty is to the state, though they can be federalized. Actual duty then is to both state and country. And the National Guard traces its roots directly to the state militias of colonial times. 1636 in Massachusetts to be exact. Yes. We actually do. They are the individual state National Guard units. I never said the National Guard was made up of "professional soldiers". However they are "trained" soldiers. Their training requirements have no bearing on their status as militia members... because the National Guard isn't militia. To repeat (since you seem to have missed it) (the bolded is what separates it from regular military OR National Guard)
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 0:52:47 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2015 20:54:04 GMT -5
O.k. ... and? What does that have to do with the question asked? (thank you for your service, by the way) ETA: Militia is not required to be made up of veterans though... just citizens. Some MAY be veterans too... but most will not be. So your citizen soldiers are just those who show up at the town square with their guns?I have no problem with the idea this is what people two centuries ago had in mind. It is a total joke in 2015, but what the hell. Once they sign up to fight against tyranny, or otherwise defend our way of life... Yes. Just showing up, gun in hand, isn't enough.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,131
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 17, 2015 20:58:43 GMT -5
Simplicity may be a virtue. Being simplistic is not. And continually mis-stating arguments because you cannot see more than two aspects or options is a joke. The world is many shades of grey. Embrace that and it becomes much more interesting. More challenging though.... the world may be many shades of grey, that doesn't necessitate choosing grey over black or white. true. but you should do so knowing that your choices will not comport with reality.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,161
|
Post by tallguy on Oct 17, 2015 21:00:00 GMT -5
Of course not. You can choose to believe whatever you wish, as any liberal will tell you. What is true, however, is that if there are 1000 shades of grey in an issue, the chances of ONE of those being the most true or correct is 1000 times greater than either black or white being the optimum answer. So go ahead and limit yourself to only black and white. It is the surest way to guarantee that you will almost never be right.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,477
|
Post by billisonboard on Oct 17, 2015 21:03:10 GMT -5
... Yes. Just showing up, gun in hand, isn't enough. Maybe screened and a little basic training?
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,161
|
Post by tallguy on Oct 17, 2015 21:09:30 GMT -5
... Yes. Just showing up, gun in hand, isn't enough. Maybe screened and a little basic training? Like maybe, oh, I don't know, one weekend a month and two weeks a year of training?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,131
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 17, 2015 21:11:09 GMT -5
Maybe screened and a little basic training? Like maybe, oh, I don't know, one weekend a month and two weeks a year of training? as a private pilot, i need a 2 year physical to make sure i am still capable of operating an aircraft. that seems reasonable for something as deadly as a plane.
|
|
mroped
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 17, 2014 17:36:56 GMT -5
Posts: 3,453
|
Post by mroped on Oct 17, 2015 22:05:05 GMT -5
Just a silly question: how many weapons did the average citizen own in or about 1787 when the Constitution was written? Do you think that they had something like 15-20 muskets and maybe 5-6 pistols/revolvers or more like 1-2 of each? I truly believe that the right to keep and bear arms was based on the presumption that if an average citizen has 1-2 muskets in his household but he also has at least one son that could handle weaponry and the government becomes tyrannical then at least they would be minimally armed as to protect themselves against such government. Of course, by joining that well regulated militia that may or may not contain citizens that are also veterans!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 0:52:47 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2015 23:05:47 GMT -5
... Yes. Just showing up, gun in hand, isn't enough. Maybe screened and a little basic training? Nope. No screening or "basic training" necessary for militia. Just signing up. (I really wish you'd quit editing out important context of my posts when you quote them... either leave them in their entirety... or don't quote them at all, please)
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 0:52:47 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2015 23:10:31 GMT -5
Just a silly question: how many weapons did the average citizen own in or about 1787 when the Constitution was written?Do you think that they had something like 15-20 muskets and maybe 5-6 pistols/revolvers or more like 1-2 of each? I truly believe that the right to keep and bear arms was based on the presumption that if an average citizen has 1-2 muskets in his household but he also has at least one son that could handle weaponry and the government becomes tyrannical then at least they would be minimally armed as to protect themselves against such government. Of course, by joining that well regulated militia that may or may not contain citizens that are also veterans! It wasn't unusual for a family home to have several muskets and a few pistols. Remember, guns back then were "single shot". If savages attacked, only having one "single shot" rifle could make you dead... quickly (and they knew that). But also remember... any "oppressive government force" (be they foreign or domestic) would also at the time have been armed with "single shot" weapons.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 0:52:47 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2015 23:12:07 GMT -5
Maybe screened and a little basic training? Like maybe, oh, I don't know, one weekend a month and two weeks a year of training? That wouldn't be for Militia... that would be for National Guard (state armies).
|
|
mroped
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 17, 2014 17:36:56 GMT -5
Posts: 3,453
|
Post by mroped on Oct 17, 2015 23:44:56 GMT -5
So I am to think that if our government turns oppressive and tyrannical, I in fact stand a chance to fight it off because I'll be armed with my knock-off AR-15 or my trusty Marlin 30-30. Add to that mix a couple pistols with 17 rounds magazine capacity.
Nah! I think that is an idea for the suckers or for those that just want to gather a bunch of guns so they could feel "manly"!
You do realize that the government is composed of people just like the rest of the citizenry?! We have as a nation developed so many fail safes against a tyrannical government since the late 1700 that such an action by the government would be impossible. The excuse of tyranny by the government is lame as it were in this day and age.
The days of charging the battlefield are but a fading memory or nostalgia for the things past. Today, we have drones and planes that can spread death in an instant. How does one measure up against such things with a rifle, automatic as it may be?
And for the up-teen time: nobody wants to ban guns!!! Responsible gun ownership is what is wanted. And please, oh please, for the love of God above, how does one justify owning 50 semi-auto rifles and 10-15 pistols with lots and lots of ammo for each as a means to "deffend himself"? Can he operate them all at once? Or maybe he is planing for the whole neighborhood? But wait: the neighbor has the same arsenal!
If this ain't crazy, I don't know what is!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 0:52:47 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2015 0:31:18 GMT -5
So I am to think that if our government turns oppressive and tyrannical, I in fact stand a chance to fight it off because I'll be armed with my knock-off AR-15 or my trusty Marlin 30-30. Add to that mix a couple pistols with 17 rounds magazine capacity. Nah! I think that is an idea for the suckers or for those that just want to gather a bunch of guns so they could feel "manly"! You do realize that the government is composed of people just like the rest of the citizenry?! We have as a nation developed so many fail safes against a tyrannical government since the late 1700 that such an action by the government would be impossible. The excuse of tyranny by the government is lame as it were in this day and age. The days of charging the battlefield are but a fading memory or nostalgia for the things past. Today, we have drones and planes that can spread death in an instant. How does one measure up against such things with a rifle, automatic as it may be? And for the up-teen time: nobody wants to ban guns!!! Responsible gun ownership is what is wanted. And please, oh please, for the love of God above, how does one justify owning 50 semi-auto rifles and 10-15 pistols with lots and lots of ammo for each as a means to "deffend himself"? Can he operate them all at once? Or maybe he is planing for the whole neighborhood? But wait: the neighbor has the same arsenal! If this ain't crazy, I don't know what is! You don't get TV in your house... do you?
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Oct 18, 2015 8:33:30 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 0:52:47 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2015 8:48:06 GMT -5
Like maybe, oh, I don't know, one weekend a month and two weeks a year of training? That wouldn't be for Militia... that would be for National Guard (state armies). We should train for speech and religion also. If we trained for religion we could probably get rid of Scientology and fundamental Christianity. What we really need to train for is parenting. I think all parents should have to go at minimum one weekend a month for parent training. Two weeks of intensive training is a start, but I think maybe a month. If you think guns do bad think of all the terrible parents.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,477
|
Post by billisonboard on Oct 18, 2015 10:15:03 GMT -5
... (I really wish you'd quit editing out important context of my posts when you quote them... either leave them in their entirety... or don't quote them at all, please) I select the part of your post I am referencing, the part I feel is important. I am careful to make sure I indicate that I am quoting only a part of the original using a standardized method. The information is right there for anyone to be able to go back and check the original.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Oct 18, 2015 10:26:01 GMT -5
Seems to a little difference in opinion as to the definition of Militia, If you do not like the current definition. just take you"re definition, trot off to the Supreme Court, get it changed this week. (I made a mistake on this, came back, edited it let's see if anyone caught it.)
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,477
|
Post by billisonboard on Oct 18, 2015 10:26:02 GMT -5
... We should train for speech and religion also. ... A well regulated citizenry, being necessary to the security of a free State, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, ... I guess to follow the Constitution, we should.
|
|