Guns, Guns Guns

The E wrote:

pokermind wrote:My personal belief is the Second Amenment give all people not precluded by mental defect or previous criminal activity the right to keep and bear arms, and since congress has not passed a new organized militia law that part of the amendment dealing with a well organized militia is essentially null and void meaning thus that all citizens have the right.

Feel free to disagree, Poker

By the same token, if the militia part is null and void, you can argue that the "right to bear arms" part is null and void too. As Tenshinai says, you can't just take the law as written and ignore the inconvenient parts.

The militia part is not null and void. It is simply not used as thoroughly as it once was. Regardless, if all else fails the Constitution provides for the ability to call up a militia composed of all able bodied adults to defend the nation. To maintain that ability, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Having that ability does not mean that ability must be used. Yet, if our citizens no longer have that ability, it cannot be used should it be needed in the future.

What those outside the US often forget is that the sovereignty of the US resides in our citizens, not our government. It is the will of the sovereign citizens that legitimizes the actions of our agents in government. The US government acts on borrowed authority. Taking back that authority should we the people believe that authority has been abused is not overthrowing anything. It is re-establishing the proper authority as defined by our Constitution.

That's what makes our protesters so passionate. The left's protest against our foreign wars for example is not simply the act of petulant children trying to persuade the rightful authorities to change their policy. It is the rightful holders of authority demanding that their agents stop abusing that authority. I might not agree with many of their positions, but their right to dispute how their authority is being used or abused is more than just a function of freedom of speech. It is the appropriate and ultimate oversight we the people have on our government in the United States.

The E wrote:...snip...

In your post, you speak of long term consequences. All well and good. But your side has been hinting at those for how long now? Years? Decades? At what point would you be compelled to take up arms against the government?

You had posted that I(wish I could figure bolding with this phone) wanted to overthrow the government.

You had previously posted no government could be overthrow.

When will use of fire arms get used in this fashion? You are using stereotypes WAY too freely. I believe they are needed as a check on the government. But am out advocating overthrowing the government, NO. Though there are other reason's I support the right to own firearms.

Your statement using stereotypes then fails. Nothing else needs to be said.

Well other than do not expect the news or the internet to reflect the majority. Its all about the most sensational. Like everything else.

T2M

thinkstoomuch wrote:Except one was a constitutional right and the other was a law.

No, Pokermind used the absence of the LAW as basis to consider the MILITIA part of the CONSTITUTION as invalid, which is definitely picking and choosing, which is effectively illegal by default.

thinkstoomuch wrote:As far as governments not being overthrow by the common people. Is Vietnam still a french proxy? Does the Soviet Union still control Afghanistan? Sure the tories in New England thought the same thing in 1775. Heck for that matter how did Isis get its start?

And you WANT USA to go the route of Afghanistan or ISIS region? Because that´s the usual route if you have boys with guns in charge, sooner or later it´s not US or THEY, but ME in charge, a whole lot of ME trying to stay on top.

Vietnam is neither a French nor USA proxy anymore, but common people with guns was not what "did it". The "communist" Vietnamese were veterans from resisting the Japanese occupation, and the independence rebellion didn´t become a real threat to France until the USSR started supplying heavy weapons, sure, USA was supplying the colonial regime, but that just meant both sides had all the big guns...

In Afghanistan, USA and Saudi Arabia supplied weapons while USSR was there, today the Saudi´s and leftovers from earlier are the main sources.

thinkstoomuch wrote:Note I spent 20 years in my nation's military supporting my nation and its interests. (Edit) Basically putting my life on the line like those killed on the USS Stark. Going where and when that government told me.

You?

And the relevancy of that is? Zero.

What value does that add to your arguments, none what so ever.

For a discussion regarding law(and to a smaller degree linguistics, which just happens to be something i´ve worked with), how much you served in the military or something is completely worthless.

As an add on to the previous post. For years gun lovers have been saying, "they hate what the government has been doing here in the US."

In that time how many attacks on the goverment have been carried out? I can think of two. One of which used a big IED.

Again pointing to sensationalists in action. One of those didn't even use a firearm.

When will it happen when a sufficient majority get motivated to do so. Nope don't expect it to end well if it does occur. In the meantime anything(within reason, another subjective?) try to keep politicians at least somewhat honest in a country of 300,000,000.

Which is another reason for the signature line.

T2M

Actually I agree with the earned notion and opinion that anybody who has spent a number of years serving the greater public safety and good has most certainly earned the right to make educated opinions about the 2nd amendment.

I would even to further and just suggest that such honor duty and service should be a requirement for citizenship. And the right to vote. That with paying taxes and not leaching off the system. It must be that way. Nothing else will last.

We here in the good old USA have had it too good for too long. My opinion only. Nothing seems to be earned anymore. It is given away freely in exchange for votes for some hack politician. In a way we are responsible for this happening.

HB

pokermind wrote:My personal belief is the Second Amenment give all people not precluded by mental defect or previous criminal activity the right to keep and bear arms, and since congress has not passed a new organized militia law that part of the amendment dealing with a well organized militia is essentially null and void meaning thus that all citizens have the right.

Feel free to disagree, Poker

I can believe that i have the right to make and own nuclear weapons, law enforcement doesn´t care about my opinion.

Above, you´re basically trying to make your own law, and then claim it to rely on something real, while there is no actual connection.

pokermind wrote:Basically I foresee this argument as having no solution as either side can make cogent arguments, that will have no effect on the strongly held beliefs of people on the other side.

Well not exactly. I couldn´t care less if USA allows people to own firearms, i´m personally of the opinion that as long as it is done in a way that enforces enough responsibility on the owners, just fine by me.

But i get pissed off when "you´re" trying to do it based on a law saying something completely different.
If you want the law to say what you want it to say, then get a law written accordingly!

Don´t try to squeeze that poor constitution into a pretzel to say something it doesn´t.

Either you care about what the constitution says, or you do not. And it doesn´t say what the gun-nuts and gun-liberals claims.

pokermind wrote:At the time the Bill of Rights was written their was a militia law that specified all able bodied white male citizens between the ages of seventeen and sixty-five were to own a musket and show up to a militia drill once a month. However there is currently no national Militia law in force so congress dropped the ball again, and the courts have to muddle through the intent of the framers thus the muddle, controversy and arguments on both sides.

However, the constitution does not actually care about that militia law, whether -welltrained militias- exist or not to provide meaning to the amendment is completely irrelevant.

It´s like having a law saying you can only own a car if you own part of a road, and then have the government own all roads that qualify. The meaning of the law doesn´t change because of the latter making the law effectively invalid.

pokermind wrote: That the National guard by law replaces the militias can be argued, as can the ultimate thought all citizens are members of the militia.

I don´t recall if there´s any real definitions about militias anywhere in the US laws, but with the national guard units being capable of being used abroad, nowhere near their home area, for extended times, that pretty much kills the idea of them being militia anyway.

HB of CJ wrote:Actually I agree with the earned notion and opinion that anybody who has spent a number of years serving the greater public safety and good has most certainly earned the right to make educated opinions about the 2nd amendment.

I would even to further and just suggest that such honor duty and service should be a requirement for citizenship. And the right to vote. That with paying taxes and not leaching off the system. It must be that way. Nothing else will last.

We here in the good old USA have had it too good for too long. My opinion only. Nothing seems to be earned anymore. It is given away freely in exchange for votes for some hack politician. In a way we are responsible for this happening.

HB

You´re so naive that it´s scary. Read history, and find out just how far out you are.

Tenshinai wrote:
And the relevancy of that is? Zero.

What value does that add to your arguments, none what so ever.

For a discussion regarding law(and to a smaller degree linguistics, which just happens to be something i´ve worked with), how much you served in the military or something is completely worthless.

Perhaps someday you will read in context. You work for a news media company? Seems that way.

Shall we all quote out of context. That quote came when The E said I wanted to overthrow the government (edit) that I hated. Volunteering at to spend 20 years with my life on the line to support my government and its constitution (including the right to bear arms) isn't relevent. Now that's a novel concept.

RIF reading is fundamental.

By the way notice you ignore Vietnam. If the evidence don't fit ignore it. Or that it is an all or nothing proposition. There is no deterrence value because you say so. "It's good to be sure." Wish I was a lot more sure myself. No I don't as that normally means I am in for a world of hurt.

Whatever,
T2M

The US national guard used to be State Guard commanded and controlled by the elected Governor of that State. Then the US Constitution was violated and the Federal Government federalized all the state guards and made them subject to federal military needs. However, if memory serves, the states still must help pay for them. Hell of a racket. HB

PeterZ wrote:

The E wrote:
By the same token, if the militia part is null and void, you can argue that the "right to bear arms" part is null and void too. As Tenshinai says, you can't just take the law as written and ignore the inconvenient parts.

The militia part is not null and void. It is simply not used as thoroughly as it once was.

If the militia part is not null and void then neither is the "well regulated" part.

And yet *every damn time* anyone so much as breathes a whisper about gun regulations the NRA and its crowd scream bloody murder about their "constitutional right to bear arms" being infringed while quoting the second half of the 2nd and pretending the first half doesn't exist.