quote:

So your assertions that the militia, as envisioned at the writing of the constitution and the amendments, is no longer valid, is wrong both by the amendment itself and the Federal Code.

quote:

Now as to the reasons that civilians do not go out and buy F16's etc is purely financial.

quote:

So the armed resistance to such a move on the part of the president would have more than a mob of untrained civilians opposing it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

The circumstances of the modern world of communications and logistics render the notion of homeland security by an unorganized militia just a hilariously funny and ridiculous joke. The notion that a bunch of fat, beer-swilling dudes playing "guns" in the hinterlands of Michigan are a protection anyone can rely upon is

Your descent into fat-shaming is noted, but there is no evidence that the average gun-owner is a "fat beer-swilling dude." In my experience, most of them are more skilled with their weapons than you are with argument. Heller "reviewed contemporaneous state constitutions, post-enactment commentary, and subsequent case law to conclude that the purpose of the right to keep and bear arms extended beyond the context of militia service to include self-defense." Thus, arguments about the usefulness of "fat beer-swilling dudes" to our territorial security have no traction against it.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

So your assertions that the militia, as envisioned at the writing of the constitution and the amendments, is no longer valid, is wrong both by the amendment itself and the Federal Code.

Never said that. Said they are archaic and useless, which you agreed further down, so in the unlikely event a president would attempt a coup whatever militia exist are as useless as tits on a bull.

quote:

Now as to the reasons that civilians do not go out and buy F16's etc is purely financial.

Ah, no. Read my quote from Heller above.

quote:

So the armed resistance to such a move on the part of the president would have more than a mob of untrained civilians opposing it.

Right, the militia are useless.

quote:

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER
certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit
No. 07–290. Argued March 18, 2008—Decided June 26, 2008

District of Columbia law bans handgun possession by making it a crime to carry an unregistered firearm and prohibiting the registration of handguns; provides separately that no person may carry an unlicensed handgun, but authorizes the police chief to issue 1-year licenses; and requires residents to keep lawfully owned firearms unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device. Respondent Heller, a D. C. special policeman, applied to register a handgun he wished to keep at home, but the District refused. He filed this suit seeking, on Second Amendment grounds, to enjoin the city from enforcing the bar on handgun registration, the licensing requirement insofar as it prohibits carrying an unlicensed firearm in the home, and the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits the use of functional firearms in the home. The District Court dismissed the suit, but the D. C. Circuit reversed, holding that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess firearms and that the city’s total ban on handguns, as well as its requirement that firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional even when necessary for self-defense, violated that right.

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment . Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment . The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

If you want to rely on the language of the fluff or continue to try and debate the role of an irregular militia... so be it - but "The Right of the People" cannot be misconstrued in any which way.

You brought up the 1792 Militia Act. When it comes back to bite you in the ass you ignore it. Bollocks.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

I would suggest you read up on the Heller Decision again - At no point does it ever imply that constitutional protection ONLY is applicable to arms commonly owned by the people. What's more if that was the case - that arms commonly owned by the people are protected - the AK-47 is the most commonly owned fire arm in the world, with it and it's variations accounting for 1 out of every 5 guns owned/used.

It may be that the AK-47 is the most commonly owned fire arm in the world but we are talking about the U.S. Constitution here. Try to keep up.

This is directly copy and paste from Scalia's Opinion:

Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

Here is the Link Copy/paste from a pdf is tedious at best so I will trust in your ability to read it yourself. You will see that Scalia said all that I claimed.

quote:

And what is their MOS?

go on... Of the 940,000 personal stationed at bases in the United States... How many of them are 'Grunts'?
Rifleman? Infantry Support? Grenadier? CAS pilot?

or are most of them in noncom roles?
Radio operator, cook, minister, intel analyst?

The CONUS has ~1000-2000 active duty combat service troops deployed in the United States at any given moment.

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 the 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. Aymette v. State,

quote:

As for the militia being useless, modern military history is ripe with examples of under equipped, barely organized fighting forces defeating much better equipped military occupation.

Vietnam, Afghanistan in the 80's, the US Involvement in Iraq AND Afghanistan (there is no stretch of the term 'pacified' that comes close to the Modern military forces involved putting a stop to the guerilla and insurgent activities.)

In point of fact, a number of fire bases in Afghanistan were closed as being untenable.

As in Vietnam, US forces barely had total control of the cities, outside the urban areas it was Indian country.

quote:

When i provided clarification in which a 'Citizen Militia'(or more commonly known as an Irregular Militia) you attacked me again stating that the constitution does not identify an 'irregular militia' - which i in turn again defended (Post 48 of this thread) by stating that in the language of the constitution - a Militia was defined by the Militia Act of 1792.

quote:

Most support roles are non-combatants, or are not directly involved in conflict.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

The Court switched focus from national defense to home protection, and in doing so diluted the traditional claim for the usefulness of a militia, imo.

The 2nd says nothing about the "usefulness" of the militia. Rather, it takes the position that an armed populace is necessary to the natural right of self-defense, both individual and civil.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

One thing that is notable about this discussion about the second amendment and the constitutionally protected right to form a militia in the backwoods somewhere, is that between 2009 and last year, many such discussions on here extended the debate about the second amendment into an insistence that it's essential in the event of a dictator seizing control of the 'States as it will facilitate overthrowing them if there's militias all over the place.
I wonder why some of the more right leaning anti gun control evangelists in here have shut up about their constitutionally protected right to stage a terroristparamilitary coup in order to depose an unwanted President since November?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

The Court switched focus from national defense to home protection, and in doing so diluted the traditional claim for the usefulness of a militia, imo.

The 2nd says nothing about the "usefulness" of the militia. Rather, it takes the position that an armed populace is necessary to the natural right of self-defense, both individual and civil.

Please read the case law discussed above.

I've read your posts, and your implication that there is something in them that contradicts mine is baseless.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

Snicker Yeah, right. Like the marriage of missile technology and nuclear weapons hasn't made a joke of the potency of the militia.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

We all know there are some things we are going to disagree on.

There are some things we can agree on up to a point.

However, in trying to find common ground, we sort of need to know where to start, so in an effort to find that common ground....

Some of the choices will require some explanation on your part explaining what you mean when you agree to it, and I am even including some things I do not agree with at all.

And due to board limits, please fill free to add something.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

We all know there are some things we are going to disagree on.

There are some things we can agree on up to a point.

However, in trying to find common ground, we sort of need to know where to start, so in an effort to find that common ground....

Some of the choices will require some explanation on your part explaining what you mean when you agree to it, and I am even including some things I do not agree with at all.

And due to board limits, please fill free to add something.

No.

I'm simply no longer interested in finding common ground.

That request has been a ploy used by the left for decades, who then proceed to use emotionally comforting but specious arguments to slowly destroy every facet of a moral society.

The lines have been drawn, although many do not yet recognize it.

They will.

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

Snicker Yeah, right. Like the marriage of missile technology and nuclear weapons hasn't made a joke of the potency of the militia.

First, should nukes be used against the US, the resulting wasteland would be pretty much useless to the aggressors.
Second, with the retaliation of the US nuclear forces, the world will pretty much be useless to everyone.

As for Afghanistan in the 80's, the only true advanced weaponry we supplied were stinger shoulder fired anti aircraft missiles. Outside of that, we provided little more than training, and some advisors 'unofficially' in country.

As for Vietnam, the low land villager population majority might have supported the Viet Cong, however the tribesman of the uplands were not supporters of the communists (technically they did not support much of anyone for that matter.)

And again, the insurgent units were primarily supplied with RPG's, AK's and mortars, not more advanced weaponry.

The large unit battles were fought by the NVA, not the Viet Cong, which replace the Viet Minh by the late 50's after Vietnam had been divided into two different countries.

The VC staged hit and run raids against US bases and urban areas. And unless they were actually captured in the act, it was difficult at best to know who was VC and who wasnt.

There was one case, known as 3 O'clock Charlie, a sniper who plagued a Marine Fire base set up around a mountain in South Vietnam. Every day at precisely 3PM he fire one shot, from the mountain.

Strangely enough, he never hit anyone. The marines took to making bets on what he would hit. And with one exception, he only fired one shot.

The exception being a day were at 3PM he fired a shot through the duels on a deuce supply truck. After the driver and his helper pulled the tires, patched the holes and put them back on the truck, he fired a second time, hitting the same set of duels.

Every day the Marines scoured that mountain looking for him.

It was discovered at the time the US began pulling troops out of South Vietnam, he had actually been the barber on the fire base.

During the TET offensive, civilian personnel who had worked for years on the Marine base at Danang set off satchel charges within the base as NVA troops tried assaulting the wire. None of these people were suspected of being VC.

As for the uselessness of militias, I suggest you read the history of the conflict in Lebanon. Christian and Muslim militias not only fought each other, but the Lebanese military with great success, and operated primarily from refugee camps set up all over that country in an effort to bring peace.

A further example of ill equipped militia style units fighting off larger, better equipped armies and winning would be the early Israeli-Arab wars. The Israeli independence army pretty much fought not only the Palastinian guerilla forces to defeat, but the armies of Egypt, Syria, Jordan as well, to establish their country.

Even with all the technology allied against them, the Taliban made significant gains and victories against coalition forces, with little more than AK's, RPG's and IED's.

And when a guerilla force makes maintaining a fire base WITH technologically advanced weapons untenable, such as happened in Afghanistan, that is saying something about the usefulness of ill equipped forces.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka
I guess that is dependent on your personal definition of a 'moral society'.

quote:

As for Afghanistan in the 80's, the only true advanced weaponry we supplied were stinger shoulder fired anti aircraft missiles. Outside of that, we provided little more than training, and some advisors 'unofficially' in country.

quote:

As for Vietnam, the low land villager population majority might have supported the Viet Cong, however the tribesman of the uplands were not supporters of the communists (technically they did not support much of anyone for that matter.)

quote:

The large unit battles were fought by the NVA, not the Viet Cong, which replace the Viet Minh by the late 50's after Vietnam had been divided into two different countries.

quote:

As for the uselessness of militias, I suggest you read the history of the conflict in Lebanon. Christian and Muslim militias not only fought each other, but the Lebanese military with great success, and operated primarily from refugee camps set up all over that country in an effort to bring peace.

quote:

First, should nukes be used against the US, the resulting wasteland would be pretty much useless to the aggressors.
Second, with the retaliation of the US nuclear forces, the world will pretty much be useless to everyone.