Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: How are background checks NOT regulating the militia?


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: How are background checks NOT regulating the militia? Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: How are background checks NOT regulating the militia? - 4/21/2013 6:30:19 PM   
SilverMark


Posts: 3457
Joined: 5/9/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

quote:

ORIGINAL: SilverMark

We do indeed have a well regulated militia, hence the National Guard being units from individual states. I am certain they are indeed background checked, any other "militia" isn't regulated nor are they recognized as anything more than vigilantes.


During the Civil War (or for those sensitive types The War Between the States or War of Northern Aggression), there were units comprised solely of State citizens; i.e. 9th Massachusetts or 12th Pennsylvania, all being regular Army.

The National Guard (having been federalized) was called up for duty in Vietnam. The Militia was not.



And much like the Revolutionary, Civil and any other war, the Federal Government has the right to use the militia as part of the common defense. The guard comprised a lot of the units in all of our wars. They serve at the behest of the governor of the state in which the unit is made up from. Once again, the National Guard units are indeed the states militias.

_____________________________

If you have sex with a siamese twin, is it considered a threesome?

The trouble with ignorance is that it picks up confidence as it goes along.
- Arnold H. Glasow

It may be your sole purpose in life to simply serve as a warning to others!

(in reply to Yachtie)
Profile   Post #: 21
RE: How are background checks NOT regulating the militia? - 4/21/2013 6:34:11 PM   
SilverMark


Posts: 3457
Joined: 5/9/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: SilverMark

We do indeed have a well regulated militia, hence the National Guard... any other "militia" isn't regulated nor are they recognized as anything more than vigilantes.

You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

When the framers referred to the equivalent of our National Guard, they uniformly used the term "select militia" and distinguished this from "militia". Indeed, the debates over the Constitution constantly referred to organized militia units as a threat to freedom comparable to that of a standing army, and stressed that such organized units did not constitute, and indeed were philosophically opposed to, the concept of a militia.

Get over it.

K.



They also feared ANY standing army, those facts not withstanding, the Guard are comprised of those units within the states themselves, select or otherwise, militia none the less.

_____________________________

If you have sex with a siamese twin, is it considered a threesome?

The trouble with ignorance is that it picks up confidence as it goes along.
- Arnold H. Glasow

It may be your sole purpose in life to simply serve as a warning to others!

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 22
RE: How are background checks NOT regulating the militia? - 4/21/2013 6:50:07 PM   
SilverMark


Posts: 3457
Joined: 5/9/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: SilverMark

We do indeed have a well regulated militia, hence the National Guard being units from individual states. I am certain they are indeed background checked, any other "militia" isn't regulated nor are they recognized as anything more than vigilantes. As to the claims of felonies being victimless, not quite true, here are the top 20 crimes considered felonies:
(1) Drug abuse violations 1,841,182 Nope no injury here
(2) Driving while Intoxicated 1,427,494 (aka Felony DUI) Nope no injury here
(3) Property crime 1,610,088 (includes burglary, larceny, theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson.) yep injury here
(4) Larceny-theft 1,172,762 yep injury here
(5) Assault 1,305,693 yep injury here
(6) Disorderly conduct 709,105 unknown usually no injury
(7) Liquor laws 633,654 Nope no injury here
(8) Violent crime 597,447 (including murder, non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault. yep injury here
(9) Drunkenness 589,402 Nope no injury here
(10) Aggravated assault 433,945 yep injury here
(11) Burglary 303,853 yep injury here
(12) Vandalism 291,575 yep injury here
(13) Fraud 252,873 yep injury here
(14) Weapons violations (carrying or possession) 188,891 Nope no injury here
(15) Curfew and loitering 143,002 Nope no injury here
(16) Robbery 126,715 yep injury here
(17) Offenses against family and children 122,812 unknown
(18) Stolen property (buying, receiving, possession) 122,061 yep injury here
(19) Motor vehicle theft 118,231 yep injury here
(20) Forgery and counterfeiting 103,448 yep injury here

All laws that are created by a legislature are under "legislative fiat" fiat in this case only means a decree or sanction, so therefore if within the body of law that governs a state or country, they decide that felons lose their right to carry a weapon, it has standing within that state or country. Your point makes little sense Real, not that I was looking for you to make sense.


yep that is what the kings did, is set law by decree or sovereign prerogative.

anything you did not vote on are police operations, sanctioned under a ficticious sub-sovereign known as the state with the same powers roughly as the old english "estates", (manors). lovely small world.

First a crime was a trespass upon the realm, here the state, it was extended to include private injuries. The usual improper democratic incorporation that removes rights with one shoe fits all decrees and public extortion by licensed privileges.

the national guard does not include all able bodied men and they are a standby army, not a militia.

the present day police forces are domestic armies.

they do not have the lawful authority to ban felons unless stipped in the constitution with an amendment. That is why it is the police state because it extends the meaning of the constitution according to their construction, regardless of constitutionality.

The legislatures have no obligation what so ever to produce so called law that is constitutional, the test is whatever they can push through the government based court system.

in so far as what a police state is, well you can read the redmon case for starters, again our fav usurper marshall on the bench and the best read is cover to cover of 1st through 5th editions of keeton prosser restatement of torts. They make those lines expressly clear.

as you can see felonies include so called crimes that injure no one yet these people having injured no one are being robbed of their "unalienable" right (that means a right that you cannot give up under any circumstances even if you want to) to protect themselves by bullshit unconstitutional policing.

reminds me of a funny story. was in the law library, met this kid who was a paralegal and starting his first year of law school to grow up to be an attorney. He was struggling with the code trying to get a grip on how to get his car back from his previous gf and was ready to give up.

The kid just about fell over when I pointed out the applicable decisions and how to properly bring it into court. he said: "Thats it! Thats exactly what I need! Damn, they never taught any of this stuff my paralegal course".

If you read them from cover to cover even though some things are repeated you will then understand what I talk about in so far as the distinctions that they make. Then we can have fun with equity and trust law next.

cheers.

btw the kid won his case.


and a final thought on this.

do me a favor, this is a standing challenge to anyone who believes they are sharp in law, if you have any facts and evidence that the federal, state, constitutions or municipal charters apply to me (or you for that matter) please post them. and no the 14th stating that I am subject to the jurisdiction is not a probative substantial fact or evidence. I have made this challenge many times and no one regardless of their title or experience has done it yet.

~The house of cards!









You become subject to the laws of the society in which you live based on simply being there. If you disagree so vehemently with the laws of a given society you remedy in leaving that group, otherwise you imply consent through participation. When you enjoy the use of roads, public facilities etc. you give implied consent, much like holding a driver's license in most states.(all states that I know of) you enjoy the privileges you endure the laws of the country. I suppose that if the laws by which the country are used and enforced, you would have to leave for a country who's laws you agree with. I doubt any argument you would have in rebuttal would fail within the judiciary, otherwise all those sovereign types who wish to make that argument concerning taxes would not wind up in jail or with tax penalties 1/2 the size of the national debt.

_____________________________

If you have sex with a siamese twin, is it considered a threesome?

The trouble with ignorance is that it picks up confidence as it goes along.
- Arnold H. Glasow

It may be your sole purpose in life to simply serve as a warning to others!

(in reply to Real0ne)
Profile   Post #: 23
RE: How are background checks NOT regulating the militia? - 4/21/2013 7:12:22 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

I mean, the very first thing you do when you regulate the militia is ensure that you check out people's backgrounds to ensure they're not felons, or crazy, and are trustworthy around firearms and other people, right?

Intent, create a national registry and turn a right into a privilage.

(in reply to farglebargle)
Profile   Post #: 24
RE: How are background checks NOT regulating the militia? - 4/21/2013 7:13:24 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SilverMark
You become subject to the laws of the society in which you live based on simply being there. If you disagree so vehemently with the laws of a given society you remedy in leaving that group, otherwise you imply consent through participation.


Is this a much more eloquent way of saying, "Get out, or stfu?"

quote:

When you enjoy the use of roads, public facilities etc. you give implied consent, much like holding a driver's license in most states.(all states that I know of) you enjoy the privileges you endure the laws of the country.


You are consenting to following the rules of the public facility. Driving on my street doesn't mean I am consenting to every law of the land, just the laws that rule the stretches of road I'll be on. This is probably what you meant, but I wanted to make sure it is put out there. Using any government service isn't implicit consent to every law within the US. Since the Jim Crow laws were law of the land, using a public road didn't imply consent to those laws.

quote:

I suppose that if the laws by which the country are used and enforced, you would have to leave for a country who's laws you agree with. I doubt any argument you would have in rebuttal would fail within the judiciary, otherwise all those sovereign types who wish to make that argument concerning taxes would not wind up in jail or with tax penalties 1/2 the size of the national debt.


Each individual has the right to ignore any law that he or she feels is unConstitutional. Some might call it a duty to do so, but I don't necessarily see it that way. While the right to break a law one feels is unConstitutional is there, you may still end up facing consequences if you're wrong, or until you're shown to be correct. By disagreeing with a law's Constitutionality and not following it, one is not barred from partaking of any public service.


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to SilverMark)
Profile   Post #: 25
RE: How are background checks NOT regulating the militia? - 4/21/2013 7:14:24 PM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SilverMark

They also feared ANY standing army, those facts not withstanding, the Guard are comprised of those units within the states themselves, select or otherwise, militia none the less.

Agreed. But the Guard is a select militia, not "the" militia. Congress specifically authorized the National Guard under its power to "raise and support armies" in order to avoid the limits imposed on its power over the constitutional militia.

K.

(in reply to SilverMark)
Profile   Post #: 26
RE: How are background checks NOT regulating the militia? - 4/21/2013 7:17:00 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline
quote:

trustworthy around firearms and other people, right?

_____________________________


Trustworthy can be a very dangerous requirement.

(in reply to farglebargle)
Profile   Post #: 27
RE: How are background checks NOT regulating the militia? - 4/21/2013 7:18:28 PM   
Powergamz1


Posts: 1927
Joined: 9/3/2011
Status: offline
That isn't what the state's constitution, or federal law say.
quote:

ORIGINAL: SilverMark

<SNIP...Once again, the National Guard units are indeed the states militias.



_____________________________

"DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment" Anthony McLeod Kennedy

" About damn time...wooot!!' Me

(in reply to SilverMark)
Profile   Post #: 28
RE: How are background checks NOT regulating the militia? - 4/21/2013 9:56:35 PM   
YN


Posts: 699
Status: offline
Don't all republics have a militia? We certainly do though we do not have an army. It is a Latin word describing certain of the forces of Rome and the Greek states; among others in ancient times.

Not the besides the dichotomy of barring violent criminals from serving in their nations forces during a war, for presumably this is a situation where these men can honorably use their criminal skills in a socially useful manner, for almost everything described in the criminal code (save sexual offenses nowadays) are legitimate tactics and praiseworthy when done to the nation's enemy.

(in reply to Powergamz1)
Profile   Post #: 29
RE: How are background checks NOT regulating the militia? - 4/22/2013 5:32:58 PM   
LookieNoNookie


Posts: 12216
Joined: 8/9/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle
I mean, the very first thing you do when you regulate the militia is ensure that you check out people's backgrounds to ensure they're not felons, or crazy, and are trustworthy around firearms and other people, right?


Where are you going with this? I'm not seeing what you want readers to see.



(I was wondering the same thing).

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 30
RE: How are background checks NOT regulating the militia? - 4/22/2013 5:34:16 PM   
LookieNoNookie


Posts: 12216
Joined: 8/9/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

Where are you going with this? I'm not seeing what you want readers to see.

He doesn't know what the phrase "well regulated" means. Let him have some fun. This should be good.

K.



I suspect what he was wondering (although I can't speak for him) was....sentence structure, intent, formulation of thought....ya know....like...a question?

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 31
RE: How are background checks NOT regulating the militia? - 4/23/2013 4:02:14 AM   
JennyDevine


Posts: 21
Joined: 11/20/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

quote:

ORIGINAL: SilverMark

We do indeed have a well regulated militia, hence the National Guard being units from individual states. I am certain they are indeed background checked, any other "militia" isn't regulated nor are they recognized as anything more than vigilantes.


During the Civil War (or for those sensitive types The War Between the States or War of Northern Aggression), there were units comprised solely of State citizens; i.e. 9th Massachusetts or 12th Pennsylvania, all being regular Army.

The National Guard (having been federalized) was called up for duty in Vietnam. The Militia was not.


Oops

(in reply to Yachtie)
Profile   Post #: 32
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: How are background checks NOT regulating the militia? Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.094