Militia

Post #157,921

5/31/04 11:30:25 PM

Militia

Did you miss the definition? It is not a state run organization. (read army). It is private citizens.

Which is why, no matter how you slice it, no matter how you try and interpret it differently, the 2nd amendment affords me the right to own a firearm.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #157,947

by CRConrad

6/1/04 4:31:57 AM

Did *you* understand the *original* definition?

BeeP wonders:

Did you miss the definition? It is not a state run organization. (read army). It is private citizens.

As is easily deduced from [link|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=157919|the Other Scott's post on the Virginia Bill of Rights], it is "a state-run organisation"; it's what the individual states' have in stead of a standing army, consisting of its private citizens. But, what something is, is not the same as what it consists of.

Which is why, no matter how you slice it, no matter how you try and interpret it differently, the 2nd amendment affords me the right to own a firearm.

Yeah, sure -- as long as you belong to "the Militia" of your state.

As many have pointed out, that means, in one sense of the word, "all able-bodied males of military age". But, that is only what the word "means", in the one specific sense of "what is 'a militia' made up of". Some other meanings would be, "the organisation as an organ of the state, as opposed to being a federal organ", or "the populace of a state, organised as a (para-)military unit for the defense of that state", and whatever else you can come up with. It can of course also, at least nowadays, mean "any bunch of kooks that gangs up in the mountains and declares itself to be a 'militia'..."

So which meaning do you really think was the intended one in those Bills of Rights? You aren't seriously arguing that they specifically intended this to apply to fuckwits that want to usher in The Kingdom Of The White Aryan Male God On Earth, are you? (Naah, didn't think so.) But -- isn't it almost as silly to assume that they were using the word "militia" in the (for this usage, over-specific as well as over-inclusive! :-) sense of its recruiting base? If they'd meant "absolutely everybody at all", why wouldn't they just have said (i.e, written) "everybody", or something such -- without having to mention the word "militia" at all?

So AFAICS, the only logical interpretation leads one to ask: Do you belong to "The Militia" of your state? Then you can whine about how your private "right" to own a firearm is logically supported by the "Militia" statute. Does your state (New Jersey, right?) even have "a militia"? I suppose the closest it gets is the National Guard... Which you'll probably protest is not a "militia" in the sense of the Bill of Rights. (Right?) But, then the problem is (probably, from your point of view) that your "state militia" is too federally-run -- not that you, Bill "Hasn't-enrolled-in-any-State-Militia" Patient, are being robbed of anything the Bill of Rights has promised you.

[link|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode|Christian R. Conrad]
(I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.)

Your lies are of Microsoftian Scale and boring to boot. Your 'depression' may be the closest you ever come to recognizing truth: you have no 'inferiority complex', you are inferior - and something inside you recognizes this. - [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=71575|Ashton Brown]

Post #157,948

by Ashton

6/1/04 6:03:54 AM

Nice try, but..

Reason on this topic was Out to Launch billions of lines of bafflegab ago. Even her autistic-child, logic cannot withstand the temperature of flambunctiousness of an NRA Preacher at his Gunstock-walnut pulpit. When Charlatan Heston gets that throb in his voice, you'll have to pry it outta my cold dead fingers cha cha cha - well, all phrase-parsing or faux-sincerity re What They Really Meant\ufffd, goes the way of Our Special ~~Relationship~~ sociopathy.

(Now in MIB, Mr. Militia-of-One tried that line on Mr. visiting Bugman; 112 mSec later he WAS Mr. Bugman (well, sorta, physiognomically speaking))

By now, of course, here -- where Every problem launches a (War on (Wars on (Wars))) -- it's a sub-Religion just below Unrestrained Capitali$m. The myth of the Free Market cha cha, despite where all the loot ends up - now more than ever - is sustained via recitation of the daily mantra never Mind looking at Those results. Ditto re the carnage with the kiddies + their AK-47s in matching gang-Colors plastic stocks.

Both of these National Religions are vastly more popular than that other one that gets so much lip service and lip-trembling for an hour a week, and helps launch all those ((Wars On)) Crusades n'stuff. Impermeable; both fantasies.

I suppose these derive from the criminal nature of the Yahoo-entrepreneurs who came, saw, snuffed and then became instantly sanctimonious about their Gawd-given Right to Snuff [any old previous owners] because .. well, Gawd Said they Could because They Did It for <--- Gawd.

Confucius warned what happens when language itself becomes fucked through disregard (and then for profit): "justice" will go astray. QED in Chinese -
(Would that be a pictogram of a dictionary burning?)

I suppose that when you expand the hubris a few orders of magnitude, create a whole plurality of folks claiming the personal Ear of the One True Gawd (in Whose Name you can do any piece-of-shit sophistry you can say) ~~ entoned, with Hammond organ music in background: who needs digital logic to fuck it up even more.

Have a case of Scotch, a carton of Camels; but no pot - that can get you 40 yrs-to-life.

Ashton - who heard a discussion t'other night re "Is, 'One Nation Under God\ufffd' a religious statement?" Yes, they were all wearing suits..

c/o Bedlam, USA

..whenever I hear a logo beginning with Compassionate ___, I go buy more guns.

Post #157,949

by imric

6/1/04 6:27:08 AM

No.

It was specifically because the people wanted the right to defend themselves; they specifically did NOT want to be disarmed by the new government - they did not want to be like the bulk of european nations - whose governments could not trust an armed populace not to revolt. We were supposed to be a government of the people.

Then, like now, the people did not want to give up thier guns to any government.

The militias of the time fought BEFORE there was an army; they were groups of unpaid citizens. THAT was the definition they used - or do you think they changed the definition of militia that they used at the time specifically for the Bill?

As far as individal States definitions go, States had FAR more power, then - the Bill was intended to trump any State law. Once again, it is not the 'Militia' part of the amendment which should be looked at, but the "well regulated" part. Well regulated militias would provide training with the weapons, some discipline, and also preclude your "bunch of kooks" argument.

Even if one were to accept your arguments, we would STILL have the right to keep guns after we left the armed forces, for at least as long as we could be called to serve again.

THe whole point of the Bill was CITIZENS rights, not government privelege, no matter what gun control nuts say.

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.

Post #157,960

by SpiceWare

6/1/04 9:50:31 AM

that is a very good point

THe whole point of the Bill was CITIZENS rights, not government privelege, no matter what gun control nuts say.

Wonder why we don't hear it more often?

Darrell Spice, Jr.                      [link|http://www.spiceware.org/cgi-bin/spa.pl?album=./Artistic%20Overpass|Artistic Overpass]\n[link|http://www.spiceware.org/|SpiceWare] - We don't do Windows, it's too much of a chore

Post #158,005

by bepatient

6/1/04 2:24:35 PM

Wanna read what started it?

[link|http://www1.law.ucla.edu/~volokh/2amteach/sources.htm#TOC2|I. Text of the Second Amendment and Related Contemporaneous Provisions]

Second Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

English Bill of Rights: That the subjects which are protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law (1689). 1

Connecticut: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state (1818). 2

Kentucky: [T]he right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned (1792). 3

Massachusetts: The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence (1780). 4

North Carolina: [T]he people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power (1776). 5

Pennsylvania: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power (1776). 6

The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned (1790). 7

Rhode Island: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed (1842). 8

Tennessee: [T]he freemen of this State have a right to keep and bear arms for their common defence (1796). 9

Vermont: [T]he people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State -- and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power (1777). 10

Virginia: That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. 11

It doesn't look like Ct, Ky, Pa and a load of others were talking about well regulated militia. They were pretty specific about protection of self as part of the right to keep and bear arms.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Welcome to IWETHEY!