Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: SCOTUS, Second Amendment and gun control laws.


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

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: SCOTUS, Second Amendment and gun control laws. Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: SCOTUS, Second Amendment and gun control laws. - 10/18/2015 10:58:29 AM   
BamaD


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

FR

Just as a matter of interest: is there any argument out there about individuals' requirements for a 'well-regulated militia' *other* than just having a gun? I mean, for instance, government soldiers have to be physically fit. A militia wouldn't be very effective if it was made up of massively-overweight people who could barely walk a hundred yards never mind run it, presumably. Still, perhaps a matter for another thread.

No

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to PeonForHer)
Profile   Post #: 21
RE: SCOTUS, Second Amendment and gun control laws. - 10/18/2015 11:19:31 AM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Also it refers to a right, not a privilage granted to militia members.


So girls,blacks,native americans and those over and under the age for militia service can't have guns?


(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 22
RE: SCOTUS, Second Amendment and gun control laws. - 10/18/2015 11:23:59 AM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

FR

Just as a matter of interest: is there any argument out there about individuals' requirements for a 'well-regulated militia' *other* than just having a gun? I mean, for instance, government soldiers have to be physically fit. A militia wouldn't be very effective if it was made up of massively-overweight people who could barely walk a hundred yards never mind run it, presumably. Still, perhaps a matter for another thread.

No


The "well regulated" section should speak directly to that don't you think? Even lincoln was an officer in the militia. Werent they required to show up for muster and drill on a regular bassis? Would those "unfit" for service not be responsible to their officers for their derilection just as if they were unarmed?

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 23
RE: SCOTUS, Second Amendment and gun control laws. - 10/18/2015 11:57:45 AM   
BamaD


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

A local militia doesn't need to trek anywhere. The enemy is coming to them, and a few fat sharpshooters firing from cover can pin down and pick off many times their number.

Then it would not be too difficult for you to link us to those that have happened in the u.s. in the past couple of hundred years?

Northfield MN, Coffeville TX.

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 24
RE: SCOTUS, Second Amendment and gun control laws. - 10/18/2015 12:58:58 PM   
littleclip


Posts: 869
Joined: 5/31/2012
Status: offline
the big problem I see is that those who want to keep guns don't keep them safe from children it is the responsibility of the gun owner to keep them in a safe manner so many children are killed or injured by a gun owner who left it loaded in the nightstand. it is a right to keep arms to protect the home but it should be the owners responsibility to keep others safe and if it was not so kept be liable for the damage done by the gun also to be required to sell the gun to a registered person

_____________________________

currently owned by LadyAthena15805
i will always come to the call of those i love


(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 25
RE: SCOTUS, Second Amendment and gun control laws. - 10/18/2015 1:47:11 PM   
BamaD


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: littleclip

the big problem I see is that those who want to keep guns don't keep them safe from children it is the responsibility of the gun owner to keep them in a safe manner so many children are killed or injured by a gun owner who left it loaded in the nightstand. it is a right to keep arms to protect the home but it should be the owners responsibility to keep others safe and if it was not so kept be liable for the damage done by the gun also to be required to sell the gun to a registered person

A registered person?
As per Consumer reports, firearms accidents are way down while most other home accidents are up. This includes fatal accidents.


_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to littleclip)
Profile   Post #: 26
RE: SCOTUS, Second Amendment and gun control laws. - 10/18/2015 1:55:25 PM   
ifmaz


Posts: 844
Joined: 7/22/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: littleclip (with punctuation)

The big problem I see is that those who want to keep guns don't keep them safe from children. It is the responsibility of the gun owner to keep them in a safe manner. So many children are killed or injured by a gun owner who left it loaded in the nightstand. It is a right to keep arms to protect the home but it should be the owners responsibility to keep others safe and, if it was not so kept, be liable for the damage done by the gun. Also to be required to sell the gun to a registered person.


A vast majority of firearm owners do keep their firearms safe; with some 506,877 NICS checks for handguns in September 2015 alone, the cases of children mishandling a firearm would undoubtedly be far greater were that not the case. One hears about a child mishandling a firearm when it makes the news so I can understand your viewpoint.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation distributes free locks and safety kits. I know of no anti-rights group distributing locks or safety kits, free or otherwise.

As for being "required to sell the gun to a registered person": your statement suggests firearm owners "register" to exercise their rights which would set a dangerous precedent for all other rights. One could argue citizenship is the only "registration" needed to exercise any right.

(in reply to littleclip)
Profile   Post #: 27
RE: SCOTUS, Second Amendment and gun control laws. - 10/18/2015 2:06:17 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

ORIGINAL: BamaD


ORIGINAL: thompsonx

A local militia doesn't need to trek anywhere. The enemy is coming to them, and a few fat sharpshooters firing from cover can pin down and pick off many times their number.

Then it would not be too difficult for you to link us to those that have happened in the u.s. in the past couple of hundred years?

Northfield MN, Coffeville TX.

Where is the link?

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 28
RE: SCOTUS, Second Amendment and gun control laws. - 10/18/2015 2:12:49 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

ORIGINAL: littleclip

the big problem I see is that those who want to keep guns don't keep them safe from children it is the responsibility of the gun owner to keep them in a safe manner so many children are killed or injured by a gun owner who left it loaded in the nightstand. it is a right to keep arms to protect the home but it should be the owners responsibility to keep others safe and if it was not so kept be liable for the damage done by the gun also to be required to sell the gun to a registered person


Before the authorities can take a persons license to drive which would most likely lead to the car being sold a great deal of issues have to occure to convince the authorities that that particular person should no longer drive. Driving is not a right. Don't you feel that restricting a right should have a more stringent protocol?

(in reply to littleclip)
Profile   Post #: 29
RE: SCOTUS, Second Amendment and gun control laws. - 10/18/2015 2:16:11 PM   
BamaD


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


ORIGINAL: BamaD


ORIGINAL: thompsonx

A local militia doesn't need to trek anywhere. The enemy is coming to them, and a few fat sharpshooters firing from cover can pin down and pick off many times their number.

Then it would not be too difficult for you to link us to those that have happened in the u.s. in the past couple of hundred years?

Northfield MN, Coffeville TX.

Where is the link?


You mean you need a link for what happened to the James gang in Northfield and to the Daltons in Coffeville?

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 30
RE: SCOTUS, Second Amendment and gun control laws. - 10/18/2015 2:18:52 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
I would like a link showing when the govorner called up the militia?
There was no militia used at north field or coffeeville which is in kansas not texas.


< Message edited by thompsonx -- 10/18/2015 2:23:37 PM >

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 31
RE: SCOTUS, Second Amendment and gun control laws. - 10/18/2015 2:20:16 PM   
BamaD


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

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

I would like a link showing when the govorner called up the militia?

You know full well that they didn't wait for the governor, they just took action when the sheriff called them out.
This was the non-select militia, but it is well within the meaning of the militia as meant in the 2nd. They were well ordered because they responded to the threat and well trained because they shot the gangs to peices.
If they had waited for the governor the gangs would have gotten away.

< Message edited by BamaD -- 10/18/2015 2:27:24 PM >


_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 32
RE: SCOTUS, Second Amendment and gun control laws. - 10/18/2015 2:27:30 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

ORIGINAL: BamaD

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

I would like a link showing when the govorner called up the militia?

You know full well that they didn't wait for the governor, they just took action when the sheriff called them out.
This was the non-select militia, but it is well within the meaning of the militia as meant in the 2nd. They were well ordered because they responded to the threat and well trained because they shot the gangs to peices.

The sherrifs posse may have done it but the militia did not.

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 33
RE: SCOTUS, Second Amendment and gun control laws. - 10/18/2015 2:31:28 PM   
BamaD


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

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


ORIGINAL: BamaD

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

I would like a link showing when the govorner called up the militia?

You know full well that they didn't wait for the governor, they just took action when the sheriff called them out.
This was the non-select militia, but it is well within the meaning of the militia as meant in the 2nd. They were well ordered because they responded to the threat and well trained because they shot the gangs to peices.

The sherrifs posse may have done it but the militia did not.


A sherrif's posse fit the purpose of a militia by the 2nd amendment definition.

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 34
RE: SCOTUS, Second Amendment and gun control laws. - 10/18/2015 3:04:04 PM   
jlf1961


Posts: 14840
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: Somewhere Texas
Status: offline
Bana, there is a reason that I have him on ignore.

But in order to help him understand the complete concept and to save you from unnecessary typing (I know, improbable) here is everything the individual needs to know.

32 U.S. Code § 109 - Maintenance of other troops

(a) In time of peace, a State, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, Guam, or the Virgin Islands may maintain no troops other than those of its National Guard and defense forces authorized by subsection (c).
(b) Nothing in this title limits the right of a State, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, Guam, or the Virgin Islands to use its National Guard or its defense forces authorized by subsection (c) within its borders in time of peace, or prevents it from organizing and maintaining police or constabulary.
(c) 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.
(d) A member of a defense force established under subsection (c) is not, because of that membership, exempt from service in the armed forces, nor is he entitled to pay, allowances, subsistence, transportation, or medical care or treatment, from funds of the United States.
(e) A person may not become a member of a defense force established under subsection (c) if he is a member of a reserve component of the armed forces.

However, to break it down even further, under US law, the "unorganized" militia includes every able bodied individual that can be called in response to a local need by the governor, sheriff, or local police chief in direct response to an immediate emergency until such time as the state defense forces or the National Guard are mobilized.

However, in 1990, the United States Supreme Court ruled in the case of Perpich v. Department of Defense that the federal government has plenary power over the National Guard, and greatly reduced (to the point of nonexistence) the state government's ability to withhold consent to federal deployments and training missions of the National Guard.

This cemented the fact that the National Guard is in fact part of the US military reserve structure and therefore, not part of the state militia (not subject to Federalization) and completely eliminated the argument by gun rights opponents that the national guard is in deed the modern militia.

While many states do not maintain state defense forces, the governors of every state, under the constitution, has the power to call up every able bodies person to serve in a state militia in a time of emergency.

Now, this includes person up to age 64, which means that some of these folks are going to be too old to ruck up and march 90 miles in a couple of days. In this instance (just for our brit protagonist) able bodied means a person of sound mind and reasonable physical ability who can use a firearm proficiently and can understand the orders given them.

_____________________________

Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?

You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of.

Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 35
RE: SCOTUS, Second Amendment and gun control laws. - 10/18/2015 3:09:14 PM   
BamaD


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

Bana, there is a reason that I have him on ignore.

But in order to help him understand the complete concept and to save you from unnecessary typing (I know, improbable) here is everything the individual needs to know.

32 U.S. Code § 109 - Maintenance of other troops

(a) In time of peace, a State, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, Guam, or the Virgin Islands may maintain no troops other than those of its National Guard and defense forces authorized by subsection (c).
(b) Nothing in this title limits the right of a State, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, Guam, or the Virgin Islands to use its National Guard or its defense forces authorized by subsection (c) within its borders in time of peace, or prevents it from organizing and maintaining police or constabulary.
(c) 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.
(d) A member of a defense force established under subsection (c) is not, because of that membership, exempt from service in the armed forces, nor is he entitled to pay, allowances, subsistence, transportation, or medical care or treatment, from funds of the United States.
(e) A person may not become a member of a defense force established under subsection (c) if he is a member of a reserve component of the armed forces.

However, to break it down even further, under US law, the "unorganized" militia includes every able bodied individual that can be called in response to a local need by the governor, sheriff, or local police chief in direct response to an immediate emergency until such time as the state defense forces or the National Guard are mobilized.

However, in 1990, the United States Supreme Court ruled in the case of Perpich v. Department of Defense that the federal government has plenary power over the National Guard, and greatly reduced (to the point of nonexistence) the state government's ability to withhold consent to federal deployments and training missions of the National Guard.

This cemented the fact that the National Guard is in fact part of the US military reserve structure and therefore, not part of the state militia (not subject to Federalization) and completely eliminated the argument by gun rights opponents that the national guard is in deed the modern militia.

While many states do not maintain state defense forces, the governors of every state, under the constitution, has the power to call up every able bodies person to serve in a state militia in a time of emergency.

Now, this includes person up to age 64, which means that some of these folks are going to be too old to ruck up and march 90 miles in a couple of days. In this instance (just for our brit protagonist) able bodied means a person of sound mind and reasonable physical ability who can use a firearm proficiently and can understand the orders given them.

That you, and I am getting real close to putting him back on hide, he seems to disagree just for the sake of disagreing.

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 36
RE: SCOTUS, Second Amendment and gun control laws. - 10/18/2015 4:09:26 PM   
PeonForHer


Posts: 19612
Joined: 9/27/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

FR

Just as a matter of interest: is there any argument out there about individuals' requirements for a 'well-regulated militia' *other* than just having a gun? I mean, for instance, government soldiers have to be physically fit. A militia wouldn't be very effective if it was made up of massively-overweight people who could barely walk a hundred yards never mind run it, presumably. Still, perhaps a matter for another thread.

No



Seems strange, in a way. A militia, whose purpose is to go up against governmental military forces should that ever become necessary - and the only sense in which such a militia can even hope to compete against such forces is in terms of some firepower. (Just minor firepower, too - because those military forces have weapons that go way beyond just guns and rifles, of course.) One might have thought that the idea of a militia, as per the 2nd, would encourage many more people to train the way professional soldiers train - discipline, physical fitness, team-work, strategy ... all the rest of it ....

_____________________________

http://www.domme-chronicles.com


(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 37
RE: SCOTUS, Second Amendment and gun control laws. - 10/18/2015 4:59:06 PM   
ifmaz


Posts: 844
Joined: 7/22/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

FR

Just as a matter of interest: is there any argument out there about individuals' requirements for a 'well-regulated militia' *other* than just having a gun? I mean, for instance, government soldiers have to be physically fit. A militia wouldn't be very effective if it was made up of massively-overweight people who could barely walk a hundred yards never mind run it, presumably. Still, perhaps a matter for another thread.

No



Seems strange, in a way. A militia, whose purpose is to go up against governmental military forces should that ever become necessary - and the only sense in which such a militia can even hope to compete against such forces is in terms of some firepower. (Just minor firepower, too - because those military forces have weapons that go way beyond just guns and rifles, of course.) One might have thought that the idea of a militia, as per the 2nd, would encourage many more people to train the way professional soldiers train - discipline, physical fitness, team-work, strategy ... all the rest of it ....


Firearm enthusiasts do train for defensive use, many of whom are more fit than the stereotypical firearm owner. One should note that a militia is, by definition, not the military so military rules (or training) do not necessarily apply. Pitting a militia against the military, the militia (or any resistance force) would likely employ guerrilla tactics.

(in reply to PeonForHer)
Profile   Post #: 38
RE: SCOTUS, Second Amendment and gun control laws. - 10/18/2015 5:25:11 PM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

FR

Just as a matter of interest: is there any argument out there about individuals' requirements for a 'well-regulated militia' *other* than just having a gun? I mean, for instance, government soldiers have to be physically fit. A militia wouldn't be very effective if it was made up of massively-overweight people who could barely walk a hundred yards never mind run it, presumably. Still, perhaps a matter for another thread.

No


You fail 18th Century Militia 101....

The men of the militias had a number of requirements. Generally ages 16-74 and those of physical ability to walk a few miles (remember most of them didnt have horses). So a male, age 35 missing a left leg due to illness would not likely be in a 'combat' militia area, but more likely in a support position (i.e. weaponsmith).

In addition the person had to be free of criminal and other civil charges (i.e. drunk on duty, behaving while representing the militia in another town, etc.). They had many rules and most of them were pretty common sense unless you were a total moron (in which case you were accompanied by your brother whom had to keep you out of trouble).

BamaD doesn't really study some of the fine details you cant find in the general US History books. I live a stone's throw from North Bridge in Concord, MA. Maybe BamaD could tell you the significance of that battle; but could he tell you which militia was in the vanguard position on the charge? And more importantly....why?

There's much more to the concept of "A well regulated militia...." then just having guns!


(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 39
RE: SCOTUS, Second Amendment and gun control laws. - 10/18/2015 5:27:47 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
ORIGINAL: BamaD
A sherrif's posse fit the purpose of a militia by the 2nd amendment definition.

The sheriff's posse is not the militia...well perhaps in the minds of those who got their history degree from the history channel.

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 40
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: SCOTUS, Second Amendment and gun control laws. Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
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

0.107