Militias and the Second Amendment Abortion and Feminist Equality
 
 
 https://www.youtube.com/v/zekJ7uBcF2I
 
 

 
Since Davik failed to watch the video but decided to respond anyways, his response was deleted since he had no standing in the conversation.
 
Whenever someone else(on the Left) posts a link we generally click it to find out what it is about before responding or not responding. It would be appreciated if they could respond in kind. If not, then you may lose the post.  Just sayin...
 

 

Whittle, again, makes a logical argument. 

I've known women that demanded all the advantages of radical feminism as well as the protections afforded women by old-fashioned standards, such as preferred parking spots. 

There is still today the concept by many that women can physically assault women and men must just take it, never hitting back.  (Let's see what kind of malicious responses I get for that comment.)

good old teabagger censorship!!  any fair person with at least a 4th grade education could read these comments and conversations here every day and realize how few times teabaggers read any of the factchecking articles or listen to the quotes of trump clearly showing what a nazi woman hating asshole he is and a lot of times not even really reading their own cut and pasted right wing articles that show how dishonest the headline is they were referring to, AND THEY DO NOT AUTOMATICALLY GET CENSORED WHEN THEY KEEP SPEWING THE SAME LIES OVER AND OVER AGAIN DESPITE ALL THE FACTS FROM FACTCHECK AND POLITIFACT AND SNOPES THAT PROVES WHAT LIARS THEY ARE AND THEY NEVER PAY ATTENTION TO.  double standards and hypocrisy.  the trademarks of teabaggers. 

Shut your lying mouth, scott toilet paper, you damned asshole.

ankle biter is so stuck in the fifth grade he actually believes "scott toilet paper" is a good insult to constantly spew.  amazing. 

It's not sup[posed to be an insult.  It is a descriptor of you and how full of shit you are.

Wots a widdle Wittle goin on!

Jim is a party pooper!

And if we follow Whittle's advice then EVERYONE gets a gun!

Following what the founders said, and according to what Whittle said, you cannot deny ANYONE a gun!

Criminals get to buy guns.
Crazies get to buy guns.
Babies get to buy guns.

AND they get to keep their guns ALL the time!  Can't take them away at all.

THAT is what Whittle was saying.  Such a SMART man, eh?

isn't it funny, not ha-ha, but funny, pathetic, that whiffle's bitchfests are ALWAYS about democrats, about pro-choice women, about people who want more sensible gun laws, about people who are not bigots and racists towards immigrants and muslims, about those who want a secular country like the Founding Fathers took great care in establishing for us, about people who know how immoral and how ineffective torture is? given the huge instances of scams, lies, insults, and examples of hypocrisy coming from assholes like Trump and Cruz he cannot somehow ever feel any desire to spend even one bitch fest on their real examples of dishonesty and corruption instead of all of them being connected to lying and/or exaggerated claims of much less grievous democratic examples?

AND THEY DO NOT AUTOMATICALLY GET CENSORED WHEN THEY KEEP SPEWING THE SAME LIES OVER AND OVER AGAIN DESPITE ALL THE FACTS FROM FACTCHECK AND POLITIFACT AND SNOPES THAT PROVES WHAT LIARS THEY ARE AND THEY NEVER PAY ATTENTION TO.  double standards and hypocrisy.
 
Yet another false assumption from the board idiot. Responding to something you actually read or view is called "A Personal Opinion", while responding to something you don't even read or see is called "Moronic",  Or the way of the Left..

 

And if we follow Whittle's advice then EVERYONE gets a gun!
Following what the founders said, and according to what Whittle said, you cannot deny ANYONE a gun!
Criminals get to buy guns.
Crazies get to buy guns.
Babies get to buy guns.
AND they get to keep their guns ALL the time!  Can't take them away at all.
THAT is what Whittle was saying.  Such a SMART man, eh?
 
Not biting.  That's not what Whittle said. IF you even listened at all, then that's what you are pretending you heard.  Why don't you specify the minute segment in which he said those words, any of those words,  so I can go back and hear them for myself.

What you are doing is the Leftist trick of trying to put words into someone else's mouth when it only comes from yours.
This is the same technique you use to claim Trump says things he never says.
 

Whittle wants us to follow what the Founding Fathers said EXACTLY and LITERALLY.

He applied that standard to defining the militias.

Soooooo the same standard will apply to the second part about "shall NOT be infringed."

If we follow widdle Whittle's logic about the first part literally,
then the second part MUST be followed literally too!

We cannot have literal interpretation in first part and NOT have a literal interpretation of the second part.
Either the WHOLE thing is interpreted literally or not.

So if we take the entirety of the second Amendment literally, EVERBODY gets a gun!

Case closed.

 
So then, you can't specify where Whittle actually said those words you claimed he said, so instead you will try another song and dance routine in some vain attempt to convince us of what you think the 2nd amendment means hoping we will forget that you just lied about what Bill Whittle said.

It is right there in the first minute where he specifies what he claims the meaning of militia is, then pauses for dramatic effect.

If you can't find it in the first minute then there is no hope for you Jim.

not just a gun, "arms."  here is the definition of "arms," in that context:

weapons, for example guns or bombs
countries that sell arms to terrorists
The British police do not usually carry arms.
the international arms trade,


General words for weapons and ammunition:ammo, ammunition, armaments...

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/arms

"So if we take the entirety of the second Amendment literally, EVERBODY (sic) gets a gun!"

No.  It's the right to choose if you want to or not.  Get it?  And, you do support the right to choose.

wow, what a nitpicker.  do you really think even a dumbass teabagger believes the second amendment FORCES people to have a gun?

So TEABaggers support letting crazies get a gun.
They support letting felons have a gun.
Heck I suppose prisoners should get a gun too.
Babies, kids and teens get guns.
Invalids get guns.
Mentally challenged get guns.

Anyone who wants to buy one gets a gun because govt CANNOT infringe their right to buy one!

That's right, even you can get a gun. <saracasm>

Heck let's give our dogs guns too.  :P

wow, what a nitpicker.  do you really think even a dumbass teabagger believes the second amendment FORCES people to have a gun?
 
Speaking of "nitpickers", why don't you specify where Whittle said "everyone" should own a gun, including criminals?
See? there you both go trying to put words into his mouth he never said NOR implied. This is just your own little worthless brains trying to hear things you never heard because that concept has been so well ingrained into your psyche that you no longer even know you're doing it.

the right to bear arms is a right but not an unregulated right.  the courts have said over and over that our government has the ability to limit the people's right to bear arms.

I notice that no one has commented on the lie that begins Bill Whittle's video.

Bill Whittle: I can read, Paul. The definition of a militia is a group of people who bring their own weapons. Can you read?

Whittle didn't read that ridiculous definition in a credible source. Evidently, Bullshitter Bill pulled that "definition" out of his arse. No, Bill Witless! Needless to say, that's not the definition of a militia.

So a militia is a "group of people who bring their own weapons?" Yeah...Right! Since when was the term militia redefined to mean a group that takes weapons from point A to point B, a group of people who bring their own weapons...where? That definition makes no sense at all, just like the claptrap in all the other Bill Whittle videos jivin' jim trots out to further dumb-down all his already dumbed-down (and ignorant) right-wingnuts in this forum. The charlatan Bill Whittle is obviously a liar. Apparently, Bill has no trouble at all fooling the likes of gullible, simple-minded, jivin' jim and his easily duped sheeple in this forum's right-wingnut peanut gallery, however, a critical reader has no difficulty at all spotting the fallacies in Bullshittin' Bill's spurious spiel.

"A militia is a group of people who bring their own weapons."
   
Yeah, just street gangs, the Frank and Jesse James Gang, the Mafia, the so-called Oath Keepers, and--oh yeah!--the Bundy "patriots." (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/richedit/smileys/YahooIM/24.gif) 

in re reply #22, where I said no one had commented on the lie Bill Whittle told at the very beginning of his video.

Ooops, my bad!

It is right there in the first minute where he specifies what he claims the meaning of militia is, then pauses for dramatic effect.
__davik62, reply #13.

Sorry 'bout that, buddy.

Finally someone noticed me!  :)

Beginning to think I was invisible...  :P

TY for the notice.

Needless to say, that's not the definition of a militia.
 
I take it you were there in 1776 to actually know that civilian Militias meant controlled by the government?    Well here's a little news flash for you zippy. If its controlled by the government then its an ARMY !!   Idiot. 

Why don't you do us all a favor and water that brain every now and then so it can grow like the other sane people.

jivin' jim: I take it you were there in 1776 to actually know that civilian Militias meant controlled by the government? Well[,] here's a little news flash for you[,]zippy[:] if it's controlled by the government[,] then it's an army, idiot.

Well, here's a brief US history lesson for you, jiving' jim: the charters of all of the British colonies in North America--New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia--gave the colonial governments of each colony exclusive control of their respective colonies. From the very beginning, the Militia in America has been under the strict control of the government, not the people, as you're trying to suggest here.

 When the colonies seceded from the British Empire and declared themselves free and independent states, they joined together to form a loose confederation calling itself the United States of America and created the Continental Army controlled by the Continental Congress--the forerunner of today's US Army controlled by Congress. The colonial militias became state militias--the forerunners of today's National Guard. 

Why don't you do us all a favor and water that brain every now and then so it can grow like the other sane people.

I suggest you know what you're talking about before you try arguing with me, jivin' jim.

The fact the States found benefit in creating a National Guard does not mean Militias are controlled by the government..   Otherwise they would be issued weapons by the State or by the Government. Have you lost your Common Sense to Leftist dogma?

During the 1700's most militia's were under control of local government.  There was no real federal government then.  Trying to compare our country today with the 1700's is stupid, there hardly anything to compare.

 
Then why are you Trying to compare our country today with the 1700's??

 

We actually have several guns in our home. It is no big gig.  It is just a fact of life.  I've never killed anyone, other than in  Viet Nam, and even then, I am not certain that I alone was responsible.

Since I have been back in country since 1967, I still have not fired one of these weapons.

(my Wife) is taking a Gun Safety Class in early May.. And then she will go for a concealed carry permit.  I would suspect that she would have the balls to chalk you if you believe in taking advantage and attacking some of the weaker sex. 

Like it or not, it is a time of understanding our world as it is today.

SO I guess that makes Ken a ONE MAN Militia?

Guess so...  You MUST defend the defenseless Ken.

Enjoy.

I doubt that Kensan is helpless.

hilarious, kenyan believes there is a higher crime and a higher murder rate today than when reagan and papa bush were large and in charge...

i wonder what part of "well regulated militia" coincides with an unorganized, untrained private militia with no ties to any state or federal or even local authorities or supervision?  here is what the Constitution, ever heard of it, much?, says about militias...

The term militia in the United States as defined from the U.S. Constitution, Article II (The Executive branch), Sec. 2, Clause 1: "The President shall be the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States when called into the actual service of the United States."

The fact that early America's citizen militia has been effectively replaced by a professional military in no way diminishes or alters the meaning of the effective words in the 2nd Amendment which are, "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The arming of the militia is not left to the state but to the citizen. Should the state choose to arm its citizen militia, it is free to do so under the United States Constitution (bearing in mind that the Constitution is not a document limiting the citizen, but rather one that establishes and limits the power of government). Should the state fail to arm its citizen militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms becomes the source of the guarantee that the state will not be found defenseless in the presence of a threat to its security.

While the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution acknowledges the existence of state militias and recognizes their necessity for the security of a free state and while it also recognizes that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, the Second Amendment is not the source of the right to form a militia nor to keep and bear arms. Those rights existed in the states prior to the formation of the federal union. In fact, the right to form militias and to keep and bear arms existed from antiquity. The enumeration of those rights in the Constitution only underscores their natural occurrence and importance.

Ultimate power over the militia is not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor to the states, but resides with the people.
Consequently, the power of the militia remains in the hands of the people.

That's right NO Infringement!

Arm your selves to the teeth, cause guberment gonna get you!
Arm your teens, arm your kids, put guns in your cribs!
Make sure EVERYONE has a gun and we will be sooooooo much safer.

you left out the main part of the second amendment, dumbass.  and there is no damn difference between the militia when we became a country and now, you goddamn liar.  it never was a civilian run authority, stupid ass.  IT WAS ALWAYS A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, NOT 4 CLOWNS WHO LIKE TO SHOOT GUNS GATHERING AT SOME BANJO CONTEST. 

the only reason individuals have a constitutional, uninfringable right to own and bear ARMS (all weapons of war, period. all of them.  from guns to rocket launchers to ground to air missiles to fighter jets), is IF they are a part of a  WELL-REGULATED MILITIA.  idiot.  that does not mean anybody is prohibited from having a gun by the constitution.  people have a right to own knives, baseball bats, guns, fireworks, machetes, all sorts of weapons and lethal devices without the Constitution saying so.  have somebody who can read explain these words to you...

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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."

anytime jerkwater posts more than two sentences in a row, and most of the words are spelled correctly, you know he is lying again and posting somebody else's dumbass opinion as his own.  how dishonest do you have to be to post AN OPINION as if it was your opinion, without naming whose opinion it really was, because you want to take credit for it, even though you have the english skills of a second grader?

Copy of Gun Control by Ismail Mian on Prezi
https://prezi.com/wir1_kxvdcok/copy-of-gun-control/
Prezi
•The fact that early America's citizen militia has been effectively replaced by a professional military in no way diminishes or alters the meaning of the effective words in the 2nd Amendment which are, "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The arming of the militia is not left to the state but to the citizen. Should the state choose to arm its citizen militia, it is free to do so under the United States Constitution (bearing in mind that the Constitution is not a document limiting the citizen, but rather one that establishes and limits the power of government). Should the state fail to arm its citizen militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms becomes the source of the guarantee that the state will not be found defenseless in the presence of a threat to its security. ..

I just love it... The Loser can whip out a chart quicker than a cat can blink its eye.  No matter what the cause is.

Jim's whittle head is filled to the top with whittle billies whittle's whittle propaganda, a free thinker he ain't.

no, he doesn't!!  jerkwater rarely produces any charts and none of them he might produce are based on facts.  i do use a lot of fact based charts, especially when i am trying to communicate with barely literate teabaggers like you who has a problem with english and a lot of times with charts.  slow your roll, dickhead!! don't bite off more than you can chew.  go take some College Level Remedial Coloring Book class, then try to understand something a little harder, like a chart. 

You're full of shit, scott toilet paper, and a lying bitch.

scott toilet paper!!  goddamn, you are hilariously simple minded!!  no fair stealing insults from your second grade special ed classmates!!

You're full of shit, scott toilet paper, and a lying bitch.
                                                                                                                                       

As well may I add... a fat fag on top of it.

"A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms...To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always posses arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them...The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle."

Melancton Smith, Additional Letters From The Federal Farmer, 1788.

Oh fat fag!!!!  aka Scott Free.  "hilarious, kenyan believes there is a higher crime and a higher murder rate today than when reagan and papa bush were large and in charge...

Please show the board where I ever said that or STFU. 

yeah, chuckles, everybody knows Melancton Smith, Federal Farmer, was the architect of the Constitution.  Not.  a cherry picked quote from some dufus no one ever heard of from the late 1700's.  good catch, chuckles.  who gives a shit what that particular federal farmer thought a militia was for?  it is amazing to me that for some reason, conservatives do not seem to be able to have some sort of timeline in their head of when things happened in this country.  like this farmer saying in order to preserve liberty, the government must not be involved in militias, and that the only way to stop the big bad government from becoming oppressive is not by voting other folks into office, but to own muskets. single shot muskets.  that is their solution.  if everybody had a musket, then the government will not come take your muskets. and why would anybody think a bunch of farmers with muskets could be a deterrent to the federal government military?  because at that time, the musket was the biggest, baddest weapon around that could be carried and used by one person.  they could not even imagine a revolver, much less a damn assault weapon with a 30 round clip that could spew 30 rounds in about 12 seconds, be reloaded in a couple more, and then spew 30 more.  they could not imagine a federal military with a million or so full time soldiers, with thousands of incredibly powerful tanks and armored assault vehicles.  who could not even imagine a jet or a missile, or nuclear bombs, or nuclear powered submarines, or B-52s and Stealth fighters and bombers, and cruise missiles and drone missiles and the complete fairy tale that any band of people in any militia could withstand this super powerful army no matter how many muskets they might own, or assault weapons, if they could imagine that.  you boys are living in a delusion, wrapped in an enigma, surrounded by a fantasy, and smothered in paranoia. here is what we really do go by in this country when it comes to militias:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

Melancton Smith trumps any of your dumbarse opinions on what the militia is, doofus.   He was talking about the Constitution in those letters and was a important figure in the ratification debates.  I guess government schools didn't want to teach you about him.  You would rather use contemporary, anti-gun nut notions rather than the words of a person involved in the adoption on the Constitution and call that cherry picking, then you're a dumbarse.  Of course, we already know that you're a useless dumbarse anyway.

fuck that farmer and the pig he rode in on, boy.  he is a nothing. like ron and rand paul. losers.  and you keep confusing the reality of an almost all rural, far flung, horse driven society in this country in the late 1700's to being anywhere close to the reality of today.  why are you so stuck on stupid and on what might have been somewhat true back in 1790?

Go stick your head up back up Obama's arse.  It must have slipped out.

Yeah, when Obama took a crap.

Chuck and duke. All you're opinions and ideas seem to be based on bullshit and misleading information.

Scott's brethren drone, vit, chimes in.  Melancton Smith's words are not my opinion.

So jimbo what organized militias are you talking about?   Specifically I mean.  I have seen any of the militia nuts who recognize federal powers.  The Oregon militia nuts were acting in direct oposition to federal authorities

Smiths words are just his opinion Chuck. Why would his words be any different than yours or mine?

For one thing, his words are coincident with the time at which the Constitution was framed.   Not this warped age of anti-gun nuts.

anti gun nuts?  most people are for stricter regulation of guns, they aren't anti gun.

America's citizen militia in no way diminishes or alters the meaning of the effective words in the 2nd Amendment which are, "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The arming of the militia is not left to the state but to the citizen. Should the state choose to arm its citizen militia, it is free to do so under the United States Constitution (bearing in mind that the Constitution is not a document limiting the citizen, but rather one that establishes and limits the power of government). Should the state fail to arm its citizen militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms becomes the source of the guarantee that the state will not be found defenseless in the presence of a threat to its security.

While the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution acknowledges the existence of state militias and recognizes their necessity for the security of a free state and while it also recognizes that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, the Second Amendment is not the source of the right to form a militia nor to keep and bear arms. Those rights existed in the states prior to the formation of the federal union. In fact, the right to form militias and to keep and bear arms existed from antiquity. The enumeration of those rights in the Constitution only underscores their natural occurrence and importance.

Ultimate power over the militia is not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor to the states, but resides with the people.
Consequently, the power of the militia remains in the hands of the people.

so, like in Oregon, when the people are overwhelmingly against what the militia is doing and the militia doesn't respond to the federal government who exactly is in charge of them?

no answer sweaty?  that's not surprising

no, dumbass, no!  in the olden days, the state militias, under control of the president, were expected to lay in a certain amount of ammo and guns by law if they were part of the well regulated militia and had the right to own and bear these arms of war.   but, like slavery, which was also condoned by the Constitution, the idea of private citizens in a well regulated militia being expected to pay for their own gear faded into the hazy memories of days gone by, as the state funded militias or state national guard units and the huge federal military standing army took over. i hate to burst your snot bubble, jerkwater, but we are about 150 years past that bullshit you still believe is going on today.

and the militia doesn't respond to the federal government who exactly is in charge of them?

Ultimate power over the militia is not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor to the states, but resides with the people.
Consequently, the power of the militia remains in the hands of the people.

The U.S. Constitution recognizes that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  Those rights existed in the states prior to the formation of the federal union. In fact, the right to form militias and to keep and bear arms existed from antiquity. The enumeration of those rights in the Constitution only underscores their natural occurrence and importance.

The whole idea of the citizen militia revolved around the larger idea that there should be no standing government militia -- a larger idea that was recklessly discarded many years ago.  Now we have the military industrial complex.  It's been a downhill slide of warmongering ever since.  The Framers were wise, too many decedents foolish.

So now we foolishly have a standing government militia, the anti-guns nuts want to turn that on its head and say we don't need a citizen militia, or that the militia is not the people.

 jim: The fact the States found benefit in creating a National Guard does not mean Militias are controlled by the government.. [sic]


The states didn't create the National Guard, jivin' jim. Congress created the National Guard; and, furthermore, the National Guard of the United States (the modern-day militia) is under the dual control of the federal government and state governments.


Otherwise they would be issued weapons by the State or by the Government.


As clearly stated in Article 1, Section 8, of the US Constitution, the federal government arms the National Guard, jivin' jim.


"The Congress shall have power to [...] provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, ....


Have you lost your [c]ommon ense to [l]eftist dogma?


No, jivin' jim, but you've proven again that you really don't know what the hell you're babbling about when you try to argue a point in this forum. Evidently, you still think you can substitute your  "common sense" for  factual evidence. A word of advice, jivin' jim: don't believe everything you think is true. Have I lost my common sense? No, but you've made a fool of yourself again; and, of course, you've  lost another argument, jivin' jim, just like you always do.


LOL

"A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms...To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always posses arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them...The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle."

Melancton Smith, Additional Letters From The Federal Farmer, 1788[sic]

chuck_curtis, reply #46

Congratulations, chuck_curtis! At least you got one thing right. Usually when you misinformed hoplophiles cite the quote you incorrectly attribute it to Richard Henry Lee.

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves ... and include all men capable of bearing arms." -- Richard Henry Lee, Senator, First Congress (1788)

But that's irrelevant, as Lee didn't say it anyway, but, rather Melancton Smith.

So now explain why you believe your citing it here is relevant. At issue here is Bill Whittle's ridiculous claim that a militia is "a group of people who bring their own weapons." Smith's quote is an argument against a "select militia," something that Smith and other anti-federalists equated with a standing army. Smith's quote does not support Whittle's idiotic definition of the Militia.

And, furthermore, explain how Smith's statement applies to the Second Amendment. The quote always pops up in Second Amendment debates, but how can Smith (or Lee) be commenting on the Second Amendment in 1788. Madison didn't draft the Second Amendment until 1789 and the stated didn't ratify it until 1791.


So, I'll as again, chuck_curtis: What relevance does Smith's quote have here?
   

"A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms...To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always posses arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them


 And the Democrats are gleefully turning in their guns.

They are now targets,, nothing more.

(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRR9T3fLg1EajsGTxeOpsg5TEY0moq_ndiFjsGqpNbDySow8rfa)

And the Democrats are gleefully turning in their guns. They are now targets,, nothing more.

And DaBOZO is still nothing more than a shit-for-brains, right-wingnut ass clown who always provides comic relief for our forum's discussants. Way to go, DaBOZO! Keep those laughs coming!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Not only does the Constitution allow the formation of a Federal Army, it specifically recognizes state militias, and confirms that the citizen and his personal armaments are the foundation of the citizen militia. The arming of the militia is not left to the state but to the citizen. Should the state choose to arm its citizen militia, it is free to do so under the United States Constitution (bearing in mind that the Constitution is not a document limiting the citizen, but rather one that establishes and limits the power of government). Should the state fail to arm its citizen militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms becomes the source of the guarantee that the state will not be found defenseless in the presence of a threat to its security.

Whereas the National Guard is solely the creation of statutory law, the militia derives its existence from the inherent inalienable rights of man which existed before the Constitution and whose importance are such that they merited specific recognition in that document. While the National Guard came into existence as a result of legislative activity, the militia existed before there was a nation or a constitutional form of government. The militia consisting of people owning and bearing personal weapons is the very authority out of which the United States Constitution grew.

By now it should be clear that the militia predates state and federal constitutions. Its right to exist among the citizenry cannot be subjected to legal challenge. The only effective challenge to citizen militias would be political engineering. One may envision an effort to amend both the state and federal constitution specifically abolishing the right for citizens to form militia units. Should such a venture be dared, the natural need of the citizens militia would increase, actually drawing more free people to it. By now also, one should draw the conclusion that the militia is inherent to all social, interactive people concerned about the well-being of fellow citizens. This conclusion is that which is so clearly stated in the Bill of Rights.


Militia: The body of citizens in a state, enrolled for discipline as a military force, but not engaged in actual service except in emergencies, as distinguished from regular troops or a standing army. In order to conform to this definition, and to remain able to oppose a rebellious and disobedient government, the citizen militia must not be connected in any way with that government.

Norman E. Olson

There goes hawkiepoop with his ad hominems.

Smith was one of the anti-federalist writers of the combined collection known as the Anti-federalist papers, the entire purpose of which was to debate the Constitution.   Smith and other writers of the papers had a key influence on the development of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, without which the Constitution could never have been ratified.

More quotes (including Smith's) relevant to the topic can be found here, enjoy:  https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution (https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution)

Lots there the anti-gun nuts won't like (or will choose to call relevant).  No point in me copying and pasting what everyone should have learned, but didn't.  Too bad, too, because it is our American heritage.

According to widdle Whittle's interpretation he will allow ANYONE and EVERYONE to get a gun!

Literal interpretation of 2nd Amendment means NO regulations on who gets a gun!

Everyone gets a Gun!
EVERYONE Gets a GUN! 
EVERYONE GETS A GUN!

Pappy gets a gun,
Momma gets a gun,
Sonny gets a gun,
Baby gets a gun,
Morons and idiots get guns,
Criminals get guns,
Dogs get guns,
I guess ducks and deer get guns too!  ;)

Davik's interpretation of the Constitution is only government has guns and only government has rights all others are surfs!

Militia: The body of citizens in a state, enrolled for discipline as a military force, but not engaged in actual service except in emergencies, as distinguished from regular troops or a standing army. In order to conform to this definition, and to remain able to oppose a rebellious and disobedient government, the citizen militia must not be connected in any way with that government.

Norman E. Olson

sweetwater5s9,

Your logical fallacy: Appeal to Authority or argumentum verecundium (also known as: argument from authority, appeal to false authority, argument from false authority, ipse dixit, testimonials).

Definition: Using an authority as evidence in your argument when the authority is not really an authority on the facts relevant to the argument.

Norman E. Olsen's babbling about a "citizen militia" is proof that he's another wacko right-wingnut, just like Cliven Bundy.


Norman Olson (born 1946) is an American (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) militia movement (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_movement) activist. His babbling about a "citizen militia" is proof of his ignorance of the real militia that has existed throughout the history of the United States. From the colonial era to the present, at no time in US history have private citizens been afforded the right to form their own military units outside government control, especially for the absurd purpose of fighting the government. No political system--free or tyrannous--gives the governed the right to take up arms against its government. Norman E. Olsen is obviously a crackpot and you are obviously a fool if you agree with him. 

Yet, it is the people whose right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment!

Why don't you understand that?

(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQJRgZ8gdZl3hHIFBnxaDcZfX86d3Siz-YKjrBV_vu2rCTtcv7v)

Davik's interpretation of the Constitution is only government has guns and only government has rights all others are surfs!

Yep. That's what you are, D2DUMBER. You're a ass-clown surfer.

LOL

Defeated by reason and facts, 1965hawks resorts to mindlessly puerile invective!

Pity!

D2D: It is the people whose right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment! Why don't you understand that?

You're still confused, D2D. The term the people, as used in the Second Amendment, refers to the people as active members of state-controlled militias, to bear arms means "to serve as a soldier," and arms means "military weapons" used for the common defense, not to private citizens(civilians) and their privately owned firearms used for subsistence, sport, competition and self-defense. Why don't you understand that? Why didn't the late Justice Scalia, supposedly the expert on the original meaning of the Constitution, understand that?   

The term the people, as used in the Second Amendment, refers to the people as active members of state-controlled militias,

That's Not what the U.S. Supreme court says. But you Islamic's don't follow very close do you,,, You just want us disarmed so we are easy target for you and your terrorist Islamic friends.

1965hawks it is the people who regulate the militia via their right to keep and bear arms!

Your interpretation would make the Second Amendment the only part of the Bill of Rights that doesn't apply to the people!

D2D: Defeated by reason and facts, 1965hawks resorts to mindlessly puerile invective!

D2Debunked, you wouldn't know a fact if one crawled out your rotten vajayjay and bit you and, needless to say, your ability to reason has been proven to be nonexistent along time ago. Truth is, when you get your ass handed to you--and that's every time you have the audacity to debate me--all you can do is post the same dumb shit: Blah blah blah blah, 1965hawks blah blah blh blah blah!

Take a seat and shut the fuck up, ass clown. all you're doing now is making a fool of yourself, just like you always do when your stupidity and ignorance is exposed in this forum. 

hawkiepoop is a dope.  What do you expect from a foreigner that doesn't understand American laws, customs and culture.

D2D: 1965hawks it is the people who regulate the militia via their right to keep and bear arms! [sic]

No, D2Dickhead! The US Constitution gives Congress the exclusive right to regulate the Militia, not private citizens like Cliven Bundy and Norman E. Olsen. In our political system, only the federal government, working together with a state government, can create and regulate a militia. The Constitution does not give anti-government crackpots like  Bundy and Olsen power to create and regulate so-called citizen militias--private, para-military groups outside the control of governmental authority.

Your interpretation would make the Second Amendment the only part of the Bill of Rights that doesn't apply to the people! [sic]

You're still confused, D2Doofas. All the Bill of Rights amendments apply to the people, however, the Second Amendment does not apply to all the people. It applies only to a small portion of the people: it applies only to active members of a state's official amendment. Obviously, the Second Amendment was never intended to apply to civilians--civilians don't bear arms; the  Second Amendment was never intended to apply to the privately owned firearms of the civilian population. The states ratified the Second Amendment with the understanding that it prohibited the federal government from interfering with a state's right to arm it's legitimate militia without due cause. Fear-mongering anti-federalists had convinced many people that Congress might one day pass laws that would disarm all state militias and then the states would be at the mercy of the more powerful federal government created by the Constitution. However, the clever wording of the Second Amendment prevents that from happening. It makes rendering military service in a state's federally recognised militia a "right of the people." Therefore, any arbitrary disarmament of a state's legitimate militia would infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

That is not what the Second Amendment says!

The right to keep and bear arms rests with the people and the people use that right to regulate the militia!

Under your interpretation  the right to keep and bear arms rests with government!

Can you name a government that has denied itself arms?

Hawks,  You have me confused,  As well several others who think logically.  All of our states retain the right to design and hold  "well regulated militia.  You may know them as the state national guard. 

In many cases this Guard has served several tours in the  middle east.

More than likely the national guard unit have served numerous tours in this combat zone.  Many are serving their 2nd,3rd,. 4th or 5th numbered _____tours in this combat zone,.  Cut them a break...

KensanIV: Hawks,  You have me confused,  As well several others who think logically.  All of our states retain the right to design and hold  "well regulated militia.  You may know them as the state national guard. [sic]

KensanIV, don't try to blame me for your confusion; blame your ignorance. And stop pretending that you and your supporters an this forum are logical thinkers. The absurd arguments and preposterous claims you and your ignorant and misinformed pals make here is proof beyond reasonable doubt of your unsound reasoning and flawed logic. 

In many cases this Guard has served several tours in the  middle east. More than likely the national guard unit have served numerous tours in this combat zone.  Many are serving their 2nd,3rd,. 4th or 5th numbered _____tours in this combat zone,.  Cut them a break...[sic]

No, KensanIV. What you should do is give us a break and stop posting nonsensical and irrelevant bullshit like you posted above.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people t o keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


--Amendment II, US Constitution

D2D: That is not what the Second Amendment says! The right to keep and bear arms rests with the people and the people use that right to regulate the militia! [sic]

No, D2Dummy. That's not what he Second Amendment says

Under your interpretation  the right to keep and bear arms rests with government! [sic]

Wrong again, D2D! That's your interpretation of the Second Amendment, not mine.

Can you name a government that has denied itself arms?

Why demand that I defend a claim I didn't make? When have I argued that a government has denied itself arms?

1965hawks: The term the people, as used in the Second Amendment, refers to the people as active members of state-controlled militias.

DaBoz: That's Not[sic] what the U.S. Supreme court [sic] says. But you Islamic's [sic] don't follow very close do you,,,[sic] You blah blah blah blah....



DaBOZO, your Islamophobic rant has no relevance here, you functional illiterate, right-wingnut, ass clown. Instead of babbling about "Islamic's"  (LOL) you should had supported your argument by telling us what the Supreme "court" (LOL) said. The Islamophobc  malarkey you posted didn't do that. Did it, ass clown?

   

chuck_curtis: [Melancton] Smith was one of the anti-federalist writers of the combined collection known as the Anti-federalist [Papers], the entire purpose of which was to debate the [propsed] Constitution.   Smith and other writers of the papers had a key influence on the development of the Constitution and the Bill oof [sic] Rights, without which the Constitution could never have been ratified.

chuck_curtis,

What you wrote above is factual but irrelevant.  The original  issue here is Bill Whittle's ridiculous claim that a militia is a "group of people who bring their own weapons." Your babbling about the anti-federalist Melancton Smith is an irrelevant distraction away from the original issue--a red herring. And it goes without saying that Smith's writings don't support Whittle's idiotic definition of a militia. Isn't that right, chuck_curtis?

 

hawkiepoop and his "red herring" arguments.   (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/rolleyes.gif)

Actually, what's irrelevant is Hawk's modern-day opinion of what a militia is, and isn't.   The people who debated the Constitution tell us what the militia is.  According to them, it is the whole of the people armed, not a select group.  They tell us that a standing army (not the militia) in peace time is unwanted and dangerous.  They tell us of the right to self-defense and rebellion.  That is what their quotes inform us.

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution (https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution)

your idea of the militia sounds more like anarchy chuck.  everyman has a gun and is the law unto himself.

As opposed to your idea of totalitarianism where government dictates all, Wvit!

so you jump from one extreme to the other d2.  and I've never said I agree with totalitarianism. 

d2, you don't seem to be able to have an honest real discussion on any topic.

Do you agree with what Obama and Democrats are doing?

If so you are pro-totalitarian!

Pushing for the imprisonment and/or bankrupting of political opponents is what totalitarians do!

Obama has been doing that in spades!

chuck_curtis,

Did the framers say the definition of a militia is a group of people "who bring their weapons?" That was Whittle's goofy claim. Remember? And did they endorse Cliven Bundy and Norman E. Olsen's absurd notion of a "citizens militia" a private and anonymous military group outside the control of governmental authority, an armed group with the stated purpose of fighting the government, based on the  pretense that it has become tyrannous? And can you provide evidence to support the preposterous claim that our political system provides a right of citizens to take up arms against the established  government--a right of armed insurrection? And, by the way, the argument wasn't that a standing army is dangerous; it was the idea of a standing army not under civilian control that was considered dangerous.   

Wrong, the fear was a standing army under government control!

Civilian's control other civilians via the Second Amendment!

You cannot impose your will on another who is equally armed!

Hawkiepooh, YOU are the one who is a master at posting nonsensical and irrelevant bullshit.  And of course you can always play the "Red Herring Card" or the "Race Card" anytime you choose.

Take a look in that liberal mirror sometime.  Try to see yourself.

D2D: Wrong, the fear was a standing army under government control[.]

No, D2D. As is always the case, you really don't understand the issue you try to argue. The framers were well aware of the fact that absolute rulers--rulers not controlled by the people they rule--often used standing armies to either keep their countries in constant warfare or used them to as instruments of oppression. Therefore, the Constitution makes the President,an elected civilian answerable to the governed--commander-in-chief of all military and naval forces of the United States.

Civilian's control other civilians via the Second Amendment[.]

Evidently, you still don't realise just how incredibly stupid you sound when you make that ridiculous argument.

You cannot impose your will on another who is equally armed[.]

And D2Doofas cannot expect anybody to take her seriously as long as she keeps posting ludicrous rigmarole like she did above.

Me hawk!  Me know and you no know!

(http://comps.canstockphoto.com/can-stock-photo_csp16524898.jpg)

so you jump from one extreme to the other d2.

Yes, from your extreme (anarchy).  If you don't want to talk about extremes, don't bring them up.

It is abundantly clear 1965hawks has no knowledge of American history!

America was founded by people who feared standing armies and the confiscation of civilian arms!

Not wanting an American King George Americans chose to keep arms and their control with civilians
not in the control of government which they knew all too well would be abused!

1965hawks says you can impose your will on another who is equally armed!

Bizarre!

I don't see any significance in questioning who owns the arms the people bring when Whittle speaks of the militia, a group of people "who bring their weapons?"   The framers apparently didn't either, as they don't specify.

D2D: It is abundantly clear 1965hawks has no knowledge of American history [.]

What's abundantly clear in this forum is the fact that D2Disinformed and her right-wingnut pals are experts on American mythology but, apparently, have no real knowledge of US history--a fact I point out every time I debunk their fallacious arguments 

America was founded by people who feared standing armies and the confiscation of civilian arms [.]

You're arguing your opinion (and American mythology) as fact again.  What folks back then really feared were standing armies that were controlled by absolute rulers. The Constitution names the President of the United States as commander-in-chief of all this nation's military and naval forces. But it also prevents the president from becoming an absolute ruler. And, of course, the fear of privately owned firearms being confiscated by governmental officials is a recent issue, the result of NRA disinformation and fear mongering. 

Not wanting an American King George[,] Americans chose to keep arms and their control with civilians[,]
not in the control of government [,]which they knew all too well would be abused.

D2D, who do you think controls (regulates) the private ownership of firearms in this country, the general population or the government?

Under the Constitution the government has no say other than to deny convicted felons access to firearms!

Why do you think government needs to have its rights to keep and bear arms protected?

Wrong, Americans feared standing armies under anyone's control!

Standing armies even then were known for coups against the people!

chuck_curtis,

It comes as no surprise to me that you can't spot the obvious defect in Whittle's fallacious argument.

You wrote: I don't see any significance in questioning who owns the arms the people bring when Whittle speaks of the militia, a group of people "who bring their weapons?" [sic]  The framers apparently didn't either, as they don't specify.

What's immediately apparent to the critical reader is Whittle's bogus definition of a militia. "A group of people who bring their weapons" is obviously not the definition of a militia. So, not surprisingly, you carefully avoided trying to defend Whittle's fallacious definition. Instead you provided your own fallacious assertion--a red herring--that refocused attention away from Bill Whittle and made the absurd insinuation that would have the reader believe the framers of the Constitution Bill of Rights didn't really know the definition of a militia, so--according to your fallacious argument--they didn't specify whether or not a militia  is a "group of people who bring their weapons." If truth be told, chuckles, your argument is even more ridiculous than Whittle's. 

The arming of the militia is not left to the state but to the citizen. Should the state choose to arm its citizen militia, it is free to do so under the United States Constitution (bearing in mind that the Constitution is not a document limiting the citizen, but rather one that establishes and limits the power of government). Should the state fail to arm its citizen militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms becomes the source of the guarantee that the state will not be found defenseless in the presence of a threat to its security.

By now it should be clear that the militia predates state and federal constitutions. Its right to exist among the citizenry cannot be subjected to legal challenge. The only effective challenge to citizen militias would be political engineering. One may envision an effort to amend both the state and federal constitution specifically abolishing the right for citizens to form militia units. Should such a venture be dared, the natural need of the citizens militia would increase, actually drawing more free people to it. By now also, one should draw the conclusion that the militia is inherent to all social, interactive people concerned about the well-being of fellow citizens. This conclusion is that which is so clearly stated in the Bill of Rights.

That the militia as expressed by the framers is the whole body of the people armed and not a select group has already been addressed and established, thus the only possible remaining question of about Whittle's statement is who owns the arms, which is not significant.

Good thing for the Bill of Rights and the 2nd.   The founders saw the idiots coming long ago...

sweetwater5s9: Should the state fail to arm its citizen militia, blah blah blah....

sweetwater5s9,

Your assertion has no basis in fact: states neither maintain nor arm "citizen militias."

 Should the state choose to arm its citizen militia, it is free to do so under the United States Constitution.

In addition to its Nation Guard components (under dual control of the state government and the federal government), some states main a State Defense Force (SDF).Is a State Defense Force a militia? Yes it is. But an SDF is not a "citizens militia." It's under the strict control of governmental authority, just like the state's National Guard, however, unlike the  National Guard, State Defense Forces are not liable to be called into federal service. States usually arm their SDFs, but some states require the members of State Defense Forces to arm themselves. 

chuck_curtis: That the militia as expressed by the framers is the whole body of the people armed and....

No, chuck_curtis, the framers did not construe the militia to be the whole body of the people armed." And the call for a select militia--the militia preferred by Washington, Hamilton, and other Federalist, by the way-- did not arise until the ratification debates.

[T]he only possible remaining question of about Whittle's statement is who owns the arms, which is not significant.

You're still trying to alter the facts to suit your argument, chuckles. If Whittle didn't believe who owned the arms of the militia is significant, he would not had made it a point to use his ridiculous definition to define a militia as a "group of people who bring their weapons."

No, chuck_curtis, the framers did not construe the militia to be the whole body of the people armed." And the call for a select militia--the militia preferred by Washington, Hamilton, and other Federalist, by the way-- did not arise until the ratification debates


The quotes that I linked to conflict with your opinion/assessment.  Of particular note, since you brought him up, see those of Hamilton's in the link I posted.

1965hawks keep making up his own facts to justify his totalitarian desires!

Bizarre!

The only effective challenge to citizen militias would be political engineering. One may envision an effort to amend both the state and federal constitution specifically abolishing the right for citizens to form militia units. Should such a venture be dared, the natural need of the citizens militia would increase, actually drawing more free people to it.

sweetwater5s9: The only effective challenge to citizen militias would be blah blah blah blah....

There's no such thing as a "citizens militia,: sweetwater5s9.

"A militia /mᵻˈlɪʃə/ generally is an army or other fighting unit that is composed of non-professional fighters, citizens of a nation or subjects of a state or government who can be called upon to enter a combat situation, as opposed to a professional force of regular, full-time military personnel, or historically, ..."

Sure there is.  Maybe there isn't in your country.

There's no such thing as a "citizens militia


The "unorganized" or reserve militia is a legal and lawful part of the armed forces of this nation. It is a military organization recognized by the Second Amendment of the Constitution; Title 10 Section 311 USC; The Dick Act of 1903; The National Defense Act of 1916; and affirmed by numerous court decisions. There is no ambiguity, the "unorganized" citizens militia is not the National Guard or the state "select" militia under the governor, or part of the "organized" armed forces of the federal government. It is literally the entire body of the armed citizenry.

Although the "unorganized" militia can be called up for lawful (Constitutional) purposes, it is not under the direct control of any state or political jurisdiction. It represents the authority and power of the people over the government and stands as the last defense of the citizens of this country against any domestic tyrants.

The purpose of the militia as defined by the Constitution is to:

1. Enforce the laws of the Union (The Constitution)
2. Suppress insurrections
3. Repel invasions


These provisions affirm the right of the people to defend themselves and their republican form of government from all enemies, both foreign and domestic.

With the exception of certain public officials, all able-bodied men and women over the age of 18 and not currently serving in the regular armed forces, and any former member of the regular armed forces, are by law already members of the "unorganized" militia. Law requiring militia participation are no longer enforced. With very few restrictions, membership in the militia must be open to all citizens regardless of race, sex, religion or political affiliation. Units not open to public membership and/or which are organized for any purpose other than the support of Constitutional principals may be considered private armies and are not to be confused with the Constitutional "unorganized" militia.

A well-known internet meme (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_meme) cites the Dick Act as an argument against proposed gun control (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_control) laws and regulations.


However, the meme is inaccurate and cannot be relied on as an argument against the regulation of firearms. To cite one example, the meme claims the Dick Act "cannot be repealed." In fact parts of the Dick Act were effectively repealed when it was modified by the Militia Act of 1908, the National Defense Act of 1916 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Act_of_1916), the National Defense Act of 1920 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Act_of_1920), and the National Defense Act Amendments of 1933.

National Defense Act of 1920



Advocated by John McAuley Palmer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McAuley_Palmer_(general)) and other proponents of the National Guard, the legislation established the Army of the United States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_of_the_United_States) as an organization of three components:


a) the Regular Army (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regular_Army_(United_States)),


b) theNational Guard (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_(United_States)), and


c) the Organized Reserve (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_Reserve).


The Organized Reserve included the Officers’ Reserve Corps, Enlisted Reserve Corps and Reserve Officers Training Corps (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_Officers_Training_Corps).






No citizen militia listed sweaty.

The "unorganized" or reserve militia is a legal and lawful part of the armed forces of this nation. It is a military organization recognized by the Second Amendment of the Constitution; Title 10 Section 311 USC; The National Defense Act of 1916; and affirmed by numerous court decisions. There is no ambiguity, the "unorganized" citizens militia is not the National Guard or the state "select" militia under the governor, or part of the "organized" armed forces of the federal government. It is literally the entire body of the armed citizenry.

We had just fought a war for independence from a tyrannical government.  Only an idiot believes the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right of agents of the government to keep and bear arms.

No sweaty, the 1916 Act didn't say anything about an unorganized militia.  It did talk about the National Guard though.

"A militia /mᵻˈlɪʃə/ generally is an army or other fighting unit that is composed of non-professional fighters, citizens of a nation or subjects of a state or government who can be called upon to enter a combat situation, as opposed to a professional force of regular, full-time military personnel, or historically, ..."

doo-doohead_john'

Did you notice? There's no mention at all of a militia being a "citizens militia" that is outside the control of governmental authority. On the contrary, the definition you provided specifically says that a militia is "composed of...citizens of a nation or subjects of a state or government."

And, by the way, dj, the definition you provided is incomplete: it ends "full-time military personnel, or historically ..." [sic]

Full-time military personnel, or historically what?

That's  reminiscent of Bill Whittle's ridiculous definition. According to Whittle, a militia is a "group of people who bring their weapons...."

"Bring their weapons?"  What the hell does that mean, DUMB_john? That's like defining a basketball team as a group of people who bring their basketballs, or defining a gymnastics team as a group of people who bring their what...bodies?

(I presume you also noticed that, in the definition you provided, there's nothing said about a militia "bringing" weapons. Is there, dukeyhead_john.) 

Shortly after the founding of the National Rifle Association in 1871, the New York militias also adopted General George Wingate’s Manual for Rifle Practice to help promote marksmanship which was sorely lacking during the Civil War. 

The Militia Act of 1903, also known as the Dick Act incorporated several elements from the earlier Calling Forth acts as well. First, the Act divided the militia into the organized militia (the National Guard of the state) and the reserve militia (everyone else).


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 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/32/313), 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.






(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 14 (http://uscode.house.gov/statviewer.htm?volume=70A&page=14); Pub. L. 85–861, § 1(7) (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collection.action?collectionCode=PLAW),
Sept. 2, 1958
, 72 Stat. 1439 (http://uscode.house.gov/statviewer.htm?volume=72&page=1439); Pub. L. 103–160, div. A, title V, § 524(a) (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/L?d103:./list/bd/d103pl.lst:160(Public_Laws)),
Nov. 30, 1993
, 107 Stat. 1656 (http://uscode.house.gov/statviewer.htm?volume=107&page=1656).)

sweetwater5s9:The "unorganized" or reserve militia is a legal and lawful part of the armed forces of this nation.

But the Unorganized Militia is not the so-called citizens militia that you paranoid, anti-government, conspiracists are babbling about here.

It is a military organization recognized by the Second Amendment of the Constitution.

You're talking out your ass again, sweetwater5s9. The term Unorganized Militia did not enter the American lexicon until several years after ratification of the Second Amendment.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

sweaty's just posting stupid stuff that has no real meaning anymore in our society.

Give it up Hawks.  Now you're obviously getting desperate.  It's okay to learn new things and evolve your position, ya know.   It's more dignified, than fumbling with a bad one.

Obviously, hawkiepoop was too anxious to thump his chest in supposed triumph to read where it said "nonprofessional fighters."

His misinterpretation of American history is appalling.

sweetwater5s9: the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Translation: The unorganized militia consist of those persons who are eligible to be members of the National Guard and Naval Militia (the organized militia), not actual members. And by the way,sweetwater5s9, notice that the unorganized militia is not called the "citizens militia." In fact, there's no mention at all of a "citizens militia" in any of the US Militia laws you've provided as evidence. Isn't that right, sweetwater5s9? And by now you you should've realised exactly why.

Although the "unorganized" militia can be called up for lawful (Constitutional) purposes, it is not under the direct control of any state or political jurisdiction. It represents the authority and power of the people over the government and stands as the last defense of the citizens of this country against any domestic tyrants.


With the exception of certain public officials, all able-bodied men and women over the age of 18 and not currently serving in the regular armed forces, and any former member of the regular armed forces, are by law already members of the "unorganized" militia. Law requiring militia participation are no longer enforced. With very few restrictions, membership in the militia must be open to all citizens regardless of race, sex, religion or political affiliation. Units not open to public membership and/or which are organized for any purpose other than the support of Constitutional principals may be considered private armies and are not to be confused with the Constitutional "unorganized" militia.

in re: Reply #134

Be patient, chuckles. Your ass whupping will come in due time. It will start with you trying to defend the misquotes, half-quotes, and out-of context quotes in the hyperlink you provided in reply #96. You know, the "quotes" (LOL) you were babbling about in reply#118.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

in re: Reply #132 and Reply #139

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

Hey, sweetie! Where's the "citizens militia" mentioned in 10 US Code 311?

sweetwater5s9: Although the unorganized militia can be called up for lawful (Constitutional) purposes, it is not under the direct control of any state or political jurisdiction.

That's because the unorganized militia is not really a militia in the true sense of the word. 

It represents the authority and power of the people over the government and stands as the last defense of the citizens of this country against any domestic tyrants.

No, sweetwater5s9, the unorganized militia represents the reserve pool of persons who are eligible to become actual members of the organized militia--the National Guard and Naval Militia).


With the exception of certain public officials, all able-bodied men and women over the age of 18 and not currently serving in the regular armed forces, and any former member of the regular armed forces, are by law already members of the unorganized militia.

But no US militia law makes those persons members of a "citizens militia," especially if that "militia" is an anonymous militia whose stated purpose is to oppose the government itself. It would be rather illogical for the US government--or any government, for that matter--to sanction a military organisation that it had no control over, an anonymous military organisation that existed outside the control of governmental regulation and authority.


Law requiring militia participation are no longer enforced.

That's because militia service in the United States is no longer compulsory, sweetwater5s9.

With very few restrictions, membership in the militia must be open to all citizens regardless of race, sex, religion or political affiliation.

Units not open to public membership and/or which are organized for any purpose other than the support of Constitutional principals may be considered private armies and are not to be confused with the Constitutional unorganized militia.

BAM!That shoots down your "citizens militia", sweetwater5s9. (Yeah. Pun intended.)

HAHA

1965hawks says you are not legitimate unless the State approves!

How sad to see one so subservient to the bureaucracy!

1965hawks, are you capable of independent thought?

Most the anti-gun nuts have stopped trying to reinvent/deny/find irrelevant the Framers own words and moved on to the "times are different" today mantra.    That doesn't fly very well either, but it at least it has some interesting angles.

Yes, liberals see the Constitution as just a piece of paper as Obama has so ably demonstrated!

List of Constitutional militias in each state.

Note that these pages are for constitutional militias only, those dedicated to the preservation, protection, and defense of the Constitutions for the United States and of their state, open to all citizens, regardless of race, color, gender, or views on nonconstitutional issues.

http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_us.htm

sweetwater5s9:List of Constitutional militias in each state. Note that these pages are for constitutional militias only, those dedicated to the preservation, protection, and defense of the Constitutions for the United States and of their state, open to all citizens, regardless of race, color, gender, or views on nonconstitutional issues.


sweetwater5s9,


You provided a list of paramilitary groups that comprise what is generally referred to today as the militia movement. Those groups are not real militias; they have have merely assumed the title of militia, but, in actuality, have absolutely nothing in common with the "well-regulated militia" mentioned in the Second Amendment. Their calling themselves "constitutional militias" does not change that obvious fact.   


Units not open to public membership and/or which are organized for any purpose other than the support of Constitutional principals may be considered private armies and are not to be confused with the Constitutional unorganized militia.

BAM! That shoots down your "citizens militia", sweetwater5s9--pun intended.

You can sit down and shut the fuck up, hawkiepoop.

You're not only pretty damned stupid, you're a bore.

(http://www.gifs.net/Animation11/Animals/Primates_and_Monkeys/cartoon_gorilla.gif)

duke doesn't like you spoiling his wingnut ideas. 

Wvit thinks saying NO, NO, NO, is spoiling conservative ideas!

No more than a 2 year old spoils his parent's ideas by shouting NO, NO, NO!

wvit, you agree with hawkiepop's bullshit?

Damn, I had you pegged as dumb but not that dumb.

When all you do is read thinkprogress, it's all you want to know.   The drones have no idea that the Framers had thousands of years of history as a basis for the Constitution and the philosophy behind it.  There has been nothing fundamentally new under the sun that has happened since then to warrant any rethinking, to render their ideas obsolete.  What has been will be again, unfortunately.  Progress is the old, repackaged.  We have the standing army the Framers feared and the militia, they don't even recognize what it is.

chuck_curtis: [T]he Framers had thousands of years of history as a basis for the Constitution and the philosophy behind it.

And drawing on that knowledge and wisdom, which mankind had amassed over the millennia, particularly the views and ideas of history's great thinkers (contemporaries and those of antiquity), the Framers, after much debate and compromise, hammered out the Constitution, a document that has remained the Law of the Land since March 4, 1789, the day Congress established as the date to begin operating a new government under the new constitution ratified on June 21, 1788.

The US Constitution, with its 27 amendments, has been amended only 17 times since the first 10--which make up the Bill of Rights--were ratified in 1791. In effect continuously--and basically unchanged--for over two centuries, the US Constitution is truly a living document.

There has been nothing fundamentally new under the sun that has happened since then to warrant any rethinking, to render their ideas obsolete.

chuck_curtis, your assertion has an obvious flaw: if nothing had happened to warrant any rethinking of what had been  included in the original version of the Constitution, then there would had been no need to amend it in the first place.

We have the standing army the Framers feared.

Evidently, you still cling stubbornly to the illogical belief that the Framers fearedstanding armies. But, in actuality, unlike you, chuckie, they understood that a standing army is necessary for national defense. If the Framers truly feared a standing army, then including one in their constitution flies in the face of logic. Doesn't it, chuckles?

 

"Provide for the common defense" means what to you, hawkiepoop?

"The right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms" means what to you, hawliepoop?

I know you are a foreigner trying to show that you are superior to Americans in knowledge of American law, but you're sounding so ridiculous and pathetic, you're coming off as irrelevant.

dipshit_john,

 Ripping snippets of sentence fragments from the Preamble and the Second Amendment, and citing them out of context, as you've done here, is meaningless. And your pretending that I'm a foreigner--a laughable attempt to hide your stupidity and your  ignorance of o the issue at hand--only succeeds in underscoring your inability to undermine my position and to defend yours. I suggest you go back to posting silly cartoon characters., dopey_john. It's obvious here that your DUMB ass is hopelessly out of your league when you try to fuck with me, something your idiot ass should had realised a long time ago, you shit-for-brains, right-wingnut loser. 

ME HAWKSHIT!  ME SMART!  YOU NO SMART!

Shove it, foreigner.

(http://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.M32e8be6256408b67f7cce61fcda570c7o2&w=78&h=78&c=7&pid=1.1)

"Me DUMB_john. Me just got me ass handed to me again by 1965hawks. Now time for me to take a seat and shut the fuck up. Right,1965hawks?"

Yep. That's right, DUMB_john, you shit-for-brains loser.


LOL

shit-for-brains loser


Expert in the field HUH?? You quality here,, we did not just fall off the turnip truck this morning and find ourselves here, you GOD DAMNED HATE MONGER.You know them better than we do,, you Projecting turd.

List of Constitutional militias in each state.


http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_us.htm (http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_us.htm)

Poor hawkiepoop, trying so hard to be relevant.

sweetwater5s9,

You haven't provided a list of constitutional militias. In actuality, what you have provided is a list of paramilitary groups composed primarily of ultraconservatives that are collectively known as the militia movement. Those quasi-military groups have merely assumed the title of "militia" to give their phony patriotism an appearance of credibility. But, in reality, despite what Norman E. Olsen and other right-wingnuts have duped you into believing, those self-described "citizens militias" are neither the "militia of the several states" mentioned in the Constitution nor the "well-regulated militia" mentioned in the Second Amendment.   

You are in no position to define anything away, hawkiepoop.  No one died and made you emperor.

stricter gun control and stricter control of gun ownership are a good idea for our country.  It's plain to anyone who really bothers to pay any attention that our current regulations are not working.

Poor DUMB_john, trying so hard to be intelligent and--really to no one's surprise--failing miserably.

HAHAHAHA

List of Constitutional militias in each state.


http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_us.htm (http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_us.htm)

you seem stuck on that list of nuts sweaty.   Is the Bundy militia on that list?

Are you and hawkshit?

Actually I am stuck on history and the Constitution when it comes to our citizen militia, wvit.    You can always try to have our citizen militia outlawed through a Constitutional amendment.   Good luck...  (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/107w9oy.gif)

Hillary Clinton has made gun control into a central part of her political agenda. She sees this issue as a way to get to the left of Bernie Sanders during her fight for the Democratic nomination. History and the polls show this attack on American freedom could cost her in November. The last candidate to make gun control a central plank in a presidential campaign was Al Gore. His experience is worth remembering. In February of 2000—10 months before Gore lost his home state of Tennessee—CNN wrote: “When it comes to iconic campaign images, it is hard to beat the moment, a month after the tragedy at Columbine High, when Al Gore strode into the Republican Senate, commandeered the ivory gavel and broke

https://www.yahoo.com/

sweetwater5s9: Actually I am stuck on history and the Constitution when it comes to our citizen militia, wvit.

But your problem, sweetwater5s9, is the fact that you have yet to prove the existence of a constitutional citizens militia. Truth is, all you've done is submitted historical and constitutional inaccuracies  and posted lists of paramilitary groups in the militia movement that have self-defined themselves as "constitutional militias" but are, in actuality, nothing of the kind.

You can always try to have our citizen militia outlawed through a Constitutional amendment.   Good luck... [sic]

And you can always continue to try to provide evidence to prove the existence of your "constitutional citizens militias." Good luck with that.

LOL 

Try the U.S. Constitution, hawk.   Then you will know why you have been debunked repeatedly.   You lost before you began.   LOL.

sweaty just blabbers on, she doesn't let anything that's posted dissuaded her from her idiocy.

hawkiepoop has a habit of losing.  Consider all the practice he has at it.

losing how?  you're one who should be used to losing duke, but you're just to stupid to see it.

1965hawks responds like a two year old saying NO, NO, NO,  with no proof go back up his denial!

Wvit, is much the same way!

Seems to be a common malady in liberals!

To: sweetwater5s9, duke_john, D2D, and anybody else

Why not prove me a loser and point out exactly in the Constitution of the United States of America where it explicitly gives power to private citizens (civilians) to raise and maintain their own military organisations outside the control of governmental authority. Do that and you will settle the issue once and for all of whether or not there actually does exist a constitutionally defined "peoples militia."

wvit and hawkiepoop, two losers hiding in their mommy's basement.

Already proved you wrong, 1965hawks, over and over, again!

Sadly, you respond as an obstinate two year old does saying NO, NO, NO, without posting a word of actual refutation!

(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/24/03/43/2403432e4b2b6e9d0c75cd4c87074fcc.jpg) (https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjG66Ggk63MAhXIOyYKHYq6DY8QjRwIBw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fpics-about-space.com%2Fsnow-white-dopey-dwarf%3Fp%3D1&bvm=bv.120551593,d.eWE&psig=AFQjCNEiWpFu0jbihJ1hgLXvUWzi14qsqw&ust=1461789181849173)

wvit and hawkiepoop, two losers hiding in their mommy's basement.

Uh, dopey_john. You're supposed to be pointing out in the Constitution where it says there's a "citizens militia." Remember?

1965hawks proves me correct, again!

Why, hawkiepoop?  Because you demanded it?  Buzz off, foreigner.

duke can't point it out because it isn't there so he settles on insults.

1965hawks says the Second Amendment is the only part of the "Bill of Rights" that doesn't apply to the people!

"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."

It doesn't say the right of the Militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed!

It doesn't say the right of the State to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed!

but our courts have found that the government has the ability to regulate gun ownership.  owning a gun isn't an absolute right, the government can legally set conditions on it.

D2D: Already proved you wrong, 1965hawks, over and over, again!

You're confused again, D2, lying little moron. All you've actually done is show the forum how incredibly stupid you really are...over and over and over and over again, just like you do here every day.

HAHAHAHA

Point out the word "abortion" in the Constitution, wetxxxx. Your side says there is an unconditional right to it.

1965hawks says the Second Amendment is the only part of the "Bill of Rights" that doesn't apply to the people!

"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."

It doesn't say the right of the Militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed!

It doesn't say the right of the State to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed!

nobody said there was an unconditional right to an abortion.  the courts have set limits on it.

you have the right to have a gun d2, but not an unconditional right.  there are plenty of conditions set on your gun rights.

 
If a physician says the health of the mother is in danger, even if it isn't true, there are no limits.

Wvit says the words "shall not be infringed" have no meaning!

I didn't say that.

You can always try to have our citizen militia outlawed through a Constitutional amendment.   Good luck...  (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/107w9oy.gif)

The USSC ruled that the language and history of the Second Amendment showed that it protects a private right of individuals to have arms for their own defense, not a right of the states to maintain a government militia.   The Court concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment protects against state infringement the same individual right that is protected from federal infringement by the Second Amendment.

The legal doctrines have become quite complex, and there is room for disagreement about many of the Court’s specific decisions. Taken as a whole, however, this body of case law shows what the Court can do when it appreciates the value of an individual right enshrined in the Constitution.

To understand the true meaning of the Second Amendment, it is important to understand the men who wrote and ratified it, and the issues they faced in creating the Constitution. During the debate over the ratification of the Constitution, there was significant concern that a strong federal government would trample on the individual rights of citizens--as had happened under British rule. To protect the basic rights of Americans--rights which each person possesses and that are guaranteed, but not granted, by any government--the framers added the first ten amendments to the Constitution as a package. Those amendments have come to be known as the Bill of Rights. They represent the fundamental freedoms that are at the heart of our society, including freedom of speech, freedom of religion and the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

The Constitution, and particularly the Bill of Rights, was created to specifically describe the powers of government and the rights of individuals government was not allowed to infringe.

 


Yes, you did!

It is unreasonable to suppose that a right belongs only to a select group of people.  Such discrimination flies directly in the face of the Constitution.  There is no precedent to support it.

gun regulation has always been constitutional sweaty and chuck.

Not according to the Second Amendment!

that's your opinion d2.  I'll stick with the avowed experts, the Supreme Court.

What about the words "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

I understand them fine.

What constitutes an "infringement"?

Tell us why the restrictions you demand do not constitute infringement.

how can your rights be infringed?  your rights are regularly infringed.  the Supreme Court gets to decide if a law or regulation has a complelling purpose and whether it is narrowly written so that it achieves it's goals in the least restrictive means possible.  If they agree that this law or regulation does that the USC will uphold the infringement on your right.

Wow!

Wvit just proved he doesn't know what the words "shall not be infringed" means!

no, you've proved you don't have a clue on how your rights work or how the USC looks at things.

Really, what other part of the Bill of Rights says it "shall not be infringed"?

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”



no law abridging the freedom of speech?  that sounds pretty clear doesn't it.  and yet speech that would produce imminent harm, a likelihood to produce illegal action, or is spoken with the intent to cause imminent illegal action is prohibited by Supreme Court decision. 

No where does it say "shall not be infringed"!

your arguing against facts d2.  you need to review some supreme court decisions before trying to argue your opinions.  the Constitution put the Supreme Court up as the supreme arbiter of the interpretation of the Constitution and they've always found that your right to have a gun is up for regulation.

I asked you what "infringe" means to the Supreme Court but you haven't answered that yet. 

no law abridging the freedom of speech?  that sounds pretty clear doesn't it.  and yet speech that would produce imminent harm, a likelihood to produce illegal action, or is spoken with the intent to cause imminent illegal action is prohibited by Supreme Court decision. 

It doesn't mean you can put tape over anyone's mouth however, or require anyone to have a license to speak.

Again, Wvit just proves he doesn't know what the words "shall not be infringed" mean!

Or what the meaning of "right" is.

D2D: 1965hawks says the Second Amendment is the only part of the "Bill of Rights" that doesn't apply to the people!

Stop lying, D2D! Here's what I've continually said:

The Second Amendment neither defines an individual right of firearm ownership nor does it define a so-called citizens militia. And furthermore I have continually reminded you that It is grammatically incorrect to begin sentences with numerals and to end declaratory sentences with exclamation points. But since you stubbornly continue to do those things which are incorrect, it comes as no surprise to me that you would stubbornly continue your incorrect version of the 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."

No, D2D. The Secon d Amendment is neither a definition of an individual right to own firearms nor is it a definition of a "citizens militia."

It doesn't say the right of the Militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed!

Of course it doesn't say that. Unlike you and other misinformed NRA stooges, Madison knew that states keep arms (maitain militias) and the people (as active members a militia) bear arms (serve as soldiers).

It doesn't say the right of the State to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed!

Of course it doesn't say that, D2D. That's because, unlike you, Madison understood that states don't bear arms.

1965hawks says the Second Amendment is the only part of the "Bill of Rights" that doesn't apply to the people!

"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."

It doesn't say the right of the Militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed!

It doesn't say the right of the State to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed!

Look at hawkie doing the old two-step. Not bad for a foreigner.

D2D: According to1965hawks, the Second Amendment is the only part of the "Bill of Rights" that doesn't apply to the people.

Stop lying, D2D! Stop "refuting" claims I never made. I said the Second Amendment protects the a state-controlled militia from arbitrary abuse by federal officials, e.g., Congress passing a law that would disarm state-controlled militias. a law that disarmed a state-controlled militia would violate  a state's right to maintain (keep up) a well-regulated militia and also violate the peoples' right to serve as soldiers (bear arms) a federally- recognized (state-controlled militia), rights that are explicitly guaranteed in the Second Amendment. 




D2D: The Second Amendment says, "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." It doesn't say the right of the Militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed and it doesn't say the right of the State to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

D2D, your logical fallacy: repeated assertion.

All you're doing here is simply repeating the same assertion--over and over again--without ever providing any actual proof to support the spurious claim that the Second Amendment defines an individual and absolute (unlimited) right of firearm ownership and use. And, further more, you have yet to provide any evidence to support the absurd claim that the Second Amendment defines a right of the people to raise and maintain their own militias ("citizen militias") that exist outside the control of governmental authority.

 

You can always try to have our citizen militia outlawed through a Constitutional amendment.   Good luck...  (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/107w9oy.gif)

The USSC ruled that the language and history of the Second Amendment showed that it protects a private right of individuals to have arms for their own defense, domestic and foreign, not a right of the states to maintain a government militia.   The Court concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment protects against state infringement the same individual right that is protected from federal infringement by the Second Amendment.

The only legal process you anti-gun and anti-citizen militia nuts have is a Constitutional amendment.   Get on it.  Good luck.

The USSC ruled that the language and history of the Second Amendment showed that it protects a private right of individuals to have arms for their own defense, domestic and foreign, not a right of the states to maintain a government militia.

What precedent did Scalia cite to base his opinion, sweetwater5s9?


   The Court concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment protects against state infringement the same individual right that is protected from federal infringement by the Second Amendment.

How could Scalia come to that conclusion when the had not been incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment? Who are you citing? Obviously, he or she pulled that crapola out their ass, just like Scalia ruled from the bench in District of Columbia v. Heller.

1965hawks says the Second Amendment is the only part of the "Bill of Rights" that doesn't apply to the people!

"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."

It doesn't say the right of the Militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed!

It doesn't say the right of the State to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed!

You are the only claiming government has the right to commit unlimited infringements upon the People's Second Amendment rights!

You have yet to refute me or the Second Amendment!

Because there is no such right of the people to keep and bear arms in his country, hawkie is jealous.

DUMB_john, when are you going to name the unidentified country you keep babbling about and attempting associate with me? And when you do that, then you can explain why your DUMB ass believes your identifying that mythical locale will somehow provide evidence that refutes the arguments and assertions I make in this forum and post on this message board? And if you don't respond to this post, I could care less. Have you noticed? I don't waste my time responding to your simple-minded prattle. You can continue to sit there babbling to yourself, as far as I'm concerned.

 

Perhaps if you stuck to the subject instead of constantly engaging in mindlessly puerile invective you might get somewhere!

 You're confused again, D2D. Your problem is the fact that your D2DUMB ass doesn't know what the fuck you're talking about and then your shit-for-brains ass has the audacity to take umbrage at the fact that I never have any difficulty providing evidence that points out the logical fallacies and fallacies of argument and debate on which you always base your arguments. Stop trying  to blame me for your inability to defend the fallacious arguments you make and the untenable positions you take. That's your problem, not mine. Now sit down and shut the fuck up...loser.

1965hawks posts all that to say absolutely nothing!

Telephone calls to your country are inexpensive these days, hawkiepoop.  Instead of chest thumping your alleged superiority here while proffering specious arguments to support your nonsense, do the ET routine, phone home and annoy them.

You idiots are both clueless and hopeless and not worth the time wasted trying to reason withor enlighten you. And, besides, haven't you noticed? Our forum's so-called moderator has pulled the plug on this discussion and relegated it to the back burner, to languish there and fade away from memory. But that doesn't surprise me at all; jivin' jim always does that when realises his right-wing knuckleheads  are getting their collective arses kicked and handed to them. So better luck next time, losers. And, finally, for the benefit of the simple-minded DUMB_john, who continually implies that I'm a "foreigner"...

Adios pendejos, besa mi culo y que tenga buen dia.

HAHA

Do me a favour, hawkiepoop, and shut the fuck up.  (Note I used the word as you have spelled it.)

1965hawks says the Second Amendment is the only part of the "Bill of Rights" that doesn't apply to the people!

"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."

It doesn't say the right of the Militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed!

It doesn't say the right of the State to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed!