quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

And there is a remedy for that, called basic training, AIT and all, and that is done thru the militas (to wit): the national guard and the reserves. And it is paid (or in these days of fiscal irresponsibility; borrowed with out thought of payback) thru taxpayer dollars.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, dont most military retirees have a background including basic and AIT?

Guess what. Growing up, every child at 12 years old in this town (and it had been going on for as long as past what I could remember) went thru nra gun training. males and females, didnt matter if your family didnt own a gun and you would never see one again. When our first laws here came out for concealed carry, all that was required is that you had training. Some 40 years later, I called the state, and they had the list of everyone who took nra gun training in Minnesota. I was given a cc. now you gotta take it all over again for every renewal of your cc. but its like a couple hours, here is the barrel, here is where the bullets go, you have a 9mm, get only those bullets, lets go to the range, and shoot the clip (one only) and give me $80 and fill out the form.

If you flush standing armies, and go with militias as envisioned, then you are looking at mandatory service periods like Switzerland, Japan, Germany and so on and so forth.

When we had a draft, there wasnt quite the craziness in our America that there is today, there were less opportunities for armchair generals to act as fools that vend, for knaves to gulp many of the ideological claptraps that are making their rounds as the voice of god to the feeble-minded. (and mentally unstable people had less access to guns, but my bets is the per capita ownership is reasonably constant over time)

quote:

10 U.S. Code § 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:


Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress

quote:


Actually, the article is wrong about no tradition of the unorganized militia.

Perhaps you could cite for us the times the "unorganized militia has been used?

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:


Actually, the article is wrong about no tradition of the unorganized militia.

Perhaps you could cite for us the times the "unorganized militia has been used?

Either people act as individuals, in a completely unorganised way, or they act in groups. But if they act in groups ... how the *fuck* could such groups be 'unorganised'? I mean, really - that's true even if they had no real aim to be effective - but to be effective against the finely-tuned (not to mention splendidly-financed) machine that the US's military is supposed to be?

Seriously, this really is utter balls, isn't it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:


Actually, the article is wrong about no tradition of the unorganized militia.

Perhaps you could cite for us the times the "unorganized militia has been used?

Either people act as individuals, in a completely unorganised way, or they act in groups. But if they act in groups ... how the *fuck* could such groups be 'unorganised'? I mean, really - that's true even if they had no real aim to be effective - but to be effective against the finely-tuned (not to mention splendidly-financed) machine that the US's military is supposed to be?

Seriously, this really is utter balls, isn't it?

You know full well that people cooperate in groups without formal organization.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:


Actually, the article is wrong about no tradition of the unorganized militia.

Perhaps you could cite for us the times the "unorganized militia has been used?

Either people act as individuals, in a completely unorganised way, or they act in groups. But if they act in groups ... how the *fuck* could such groups be 'unorganised'? I mean, really - that's true even if they had no real aim to be effective - but to be effective against the finely-tuned (not to mention splendidly-financed) machine that the US's military is supposed to be?

Seriously, this really is utter balls, isn't it?

You know full well that people cooperate in groups without formal organization.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

Actually, unorganized militias have someone in authority as disignated by the governor or who ever called for volunteers.

What otter and the brit are trying to do is twist everything so it is anti private gun.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

Actually, unorganized militias have someone in authority as disignated by the governor or who ever called for volunteers.

What otter and the brit are trying to do is twist everything so it is anti private gun.

Really telling that you don't use my screen name, JLF. Very classy of you.

Re the rest: I can't speak for 'Otter' - but your surmising of my argument is balls. You're just desperately trying to create a straw man and clearly getting upset that I won't take on the role. My argument is that the notion of the militia, in the 2nd Amendment, is full of holes as support for the ownership of private guns.

quote:

Groups of people are lead by natural leaders, many times I have been in groups that had no "leader" but I found they took orders real well. That is an unorganized militia which still functions just fine as a group. Don't you have people over there who just naturally take charge in a crisis, or is that something bred out in the "civilizing" process.

quote:

United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174

Jack Miller and Frank Layton "did unlawfully ... transport in interstate commerce from ... Claremore ... Oklahoma to ... Siloam Springs ... Arkansas a certain firearm ... a double barrel ... shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length ... at the time of so transporting said firearm in interstate commerce ... not having registered said firearm as required by Section 1132d of Title 26, United States Code ... and not having in their possession a stamp-affixed written order ... as provided by Section 1132C

In this case, the court ruled in favor of the United States, but stipulated the following:

quote:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to any preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.
Justice McReynolds



This basically states that a sawed off shotgun did not have a specific military counterpart and therefore not protected under the 2nd Amendment.

Of course there are other statements that need to be looked at:

quote:

Nor is the right involved in this discussion less comprehensive or valuable: "The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta! And Lexington, Concord, Camden, River Raisin, Sandusky, and the laurel-crowned field of New Orleans, plead eloquently for this interpretation! And the acquisition of Texas may be considered the full fruits of this great constitutional right.


Nowhere else in the Constitution does a "right" attributed to "the people" refer to anything other than an individual right. What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention "the people," the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. This contrasts markedly with the phrase "the militia" in the prefatory clause. As we will describe below, the "militia" in colonial America consisted of a subset of "the people"— those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to "keep and bear Arms" in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as "the people"

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority in Heller

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

I love it when the crazies accuse everyone else of being crazy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

I love it when the crazies accuse everyone else of being crazy.

All I did was point out that everything we have been saying about militia, the rights of the people to own guns, which is in total disagreement with the people from outside the US who think they know our laws better, were right, and used the words of a supreme court justice to prove the point.

Nothing crazy, just statement of fact.

Now unless peon is a practicing lawyer with years on the bench hearing cases on constitutional law, he can stop telling us we have no clue as to what we are talking about.