quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

The militia, as stated in the second amendment still exists, whether the anti gun people want to admit it or not.

And I am not referring to the militias you read about in the news.

And I am not referring to the National Guard, which can be put under federal control by decree of the President.

Under the law, a state or local militia cannot be co-opted into National service EXCEPT by the consent of the state or territory governor.

A state and local militia is not funded by the Federal government in any way shape or form, again this eliminates the national guard.

You're talking about State Defense Forces.

The National Guard is the militia of each State and Territory of the United States and operates under each state or territorial authority (usually a governer). The Militia Act of 1903 provided federal funds for National Guard training and equipment and in exchange allowed for the federalisation of the National Guard. Specifically the President of the United States was empowered to call up the National Guard for up to nine months to repel invasion, suppress rebellion, or enforce federal laws.

Now, the National Guard of the United States is the federalised version of these forces including any Naval Militia a state may possess. So while each state may have an Army National Guard and/or an Air National Guard, they (and any Naval Militias) serve under the governor, except when the President decrees otherwise. When you enlist in the National Guard, you also have to enlist in the National Guard of the United States.

The Militia of the United States (which is what the second amendment refers to) is essentially these federalised forces (collectively known as the organised militia) and all otherwise able-bodied men between 17 and 45 (women, notably have zero responsibility in this instance) who are citizens or would-be citizens of the United States (known as the unorganised militia).

The Militia of the United States is what the second amendment refers to. The main Constitutional misinterpretation which has allowed the proliferation of handguns is the failure to realise that "the people" is a collective noun. "The right of the People to keep and bear arms" refers to the people of the United States as a collective entity. If unrestrained gun ownership had been intended the Constitution would have been written as, "the right of citizens to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

In other words, the founding fathers fully intended that armed state militias be an intrinsic part of the people's defense against both foreign and domestic enemies and the Constitution was written to ensure the federal government could not reserve that power for itself. The second amendment is part of a delicate balancing act of rights between the Federal government and the States. It's not an assertion of the an individual's right to a gun, it's an assertion of the right of the States to have their own armed militias, a right the Federal Government may not infringe upon.

Contrary interpretations are fucking poppycock.

As for State Defense Forces, well only 22 States have active forces and some of them are fucking useless with political appointments being made by governors doing favours for donors and so on. The States have a statutory right to train and maintain such forces, but the fact is without military discipline and training methods, most of them are pretty crap. They are not, in any way, useful in an argument about the second amendment.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

The militia, as stated in the second amendment still exists, whether the anti gun people want to admit it or not.

And I am not referring to the militias you read about in the news.

And I am not referring to the National Guard, which can be put under federal control by decree of the President.

Under the law, a state or local militia cannot be co-opted into National service EXCEPT by the consent of the state or territory governor.

A state and local militia is not funded by the Federal government in any way shape or form, again this eliminates the national guard.

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

The militia, as stated in the second amendment still exists, whether the anti gun people want to admit it or not.

And I am not referring to the militias you read about in the news.

And I am not referring to the National Guard, which can be put under federal control by decree of the President.

Under the law, a state or local militia cannot be co-opted into National service EXCEPT by the consent of the state or territory governor.

A state and local militia is not funded by the Federal government in any way shape or form, again this eliminates the national guard.

Jlf, my lawyer told me years ago that any three people can form a militia. And then take in as many more people as they want. And yes they are (not) part of the National Guard. That would defeat the whole purpose wouldn't it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

Texas...open carry outside his rally
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/its-open-carry-season-for-gun-owners-at-trumps-dallas-rally/article/2594186

My point is that both sides are being called out on hypocrisy, by taking an extreme approach to the gun control argument, which neither candidate has actually embraced.

It's an idiotic debate over an abstract. Hillary's Secret Service detail has gone through all the proper background screenings. They've had training and continuous instruction on their jobs and the possible use of force with their weapons. I think it's safe to assume that most had prior military service as well. None of that goes against what Hillary has said publicly about gun control.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

dear God, you are all crazy. The whole issue is idiotic.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

At least two republican congressional candidates in the last major election suggested "2nd amendment solutions to the election of democrats," including Obama.

The good news is that a growing number of prominent republicans are going on record stating that Trump is not qualified.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

dear God, you are all crazy. The whole issue is idiotic.

Debatable that. It should be a non issue in an ideal world, but can you imagine the screeching and whining from the Trumptooners in here if Clinton had suggested that somebody shoots the circus peanut? It's a bit pathetic that they have no issue with this sort of thing at all, but go moaning about hypocritical liberals the second the other candidate says a single about the circus peanut attracting the nutter vote.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness

The Militia of the United States (which is what the second amendment refers to) is essentially these federalised forces (collectively known as the organised militia)...

The main Constitutional misinterpretation which has allowed the proliferation of handguns is the failure to realise that "the people" is a collective noun. "The right of the People to keep and bear arms" refers to the people of the United States as a collective entity. If unrestrained gun ownership had been intended the Constitution would have been written as, "the right of citizens to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Yeah, no. Everywhere that the Constitution refers to a "right of the People" it intends an individual right.

The great object is that every man be armed ~Patrick Henry
The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed ~Alexander Hamilton

K.

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:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or
She is not honest enough to say any such thing..

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

dear God, you are all crazy. The whole issue is idiotic.

Debatable that. It should be a non issue in an ideal world, but can you imagine the screeching and whining from the Trumptooners in here if Clinton had suggested that somebody shoots the circus peanut? It's a bit pathetic that they have no issue with this sort of thing at all, but go moaning about hypocritical liberals the second the other candidate says a single about the circus peanut attracting the nutter vote.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Trucker6254


It seems to have slipped your mind, or maybe you never heard about it from the liberal media, that Hillary Clinton hinted that Bernie Sanders be done in before the California primary.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech

Ruminating on the subject of "militia". Ever hear of a "Kentucky Colonel"?
Back in the territorial days; a person that funded the outfitting of a militia company was given a commission as a "Colonel" in the militia. The honorary commission carried on into the 20th century as a way to honor people who had made significant contributions to the state. (Note: the territorial days I refer to are the early 1800s before the southern states were states.)

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

dear God, you are all crazy. The whole issue is idiotic.

Debatable that. It should be a non issue in an ideal world, but can you imagine the screeching and whining from the Trumptooners in here if Clinton had suggested that somebody shoots the circus peanut? It's a bit pathetic that they have no issue with this sort of thing at all, but go moaning about hypocritical liberals the second the other candidate says a single about the circus peanut attracting the nutter vote.