>>> On Wed, 9 May 2012 09:59:56 -0400, "Scout"
>>> <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>> You're not a member of a state militia, you moron.
>>>> § 44-1. Composition of militia.
>>>> The militia of the Commonwealth of Virginia shall consist of all able-bodied
>>>> residents of the Commonwealth who are citizens of the United States and all
>>>> other able-bodied persons resident in the Commonwealth who have declared
>>>> their intention to become citizens of the United States, who are at least 16
>>>> years of age and, except as hereinafter provided, not more than 55 years of
>>>> age. The militia shall be divided into four classes: the National Guard,
>>>> which includes the Army National Guard and the Air National Guard; the
>>>> Virginia Defense Force; the naval militia; and the unorganized militia.
>>> The term militia is now considered to be the National Guard. Did
>>> you see that part in the the definition you just posted? You in the
>>> National Guard dumbass? No? I didn't think so.
>> Is English NOT your mother tongue?!?
>> You apparently have comprehension problems. Let me assist with Scout's attempt to educate you--
>> The militia shall be divided into four classes:
>> the National Guard, which includes
>> the Army National Guard and
>> the Air National Guard;
>> the Virginia Defense Force;
>> the naval militia; and
>> the unorganized militia.
> Please define what an "unorganized militia" is. Be specific. Feel
> free to quote examples and sources.
Very similar to the early pre-revolutionary war TN/KY/VA/WV Appalachian folks of Irish/Scottish descent who were fighting the British before the Continental army even existed. As for sources, go read a fucking history book, dufus.
> And please comment on the obvious contradiction with "A well regulated
> militia".
Contradictory? Mmmmm.... perhaps, but in no way mutually exclusive in any Constitutional sense.
So anyone who is claiming to be part of an unorganized
> militia is being unconstitutional?
Not at all. The Constitution does not prohibit, ban, or otherwise impose any negative liberty (as it does on the government) on any unorganized militia. With regard to unorganized militias, the Constitution is rather like Science w/regard to the subject of god's existence - it's absolutely *SILENT*. Therefore, the right for an unorganized militia to exist is, by default, purely a >STATE'S RIGHT< issue.
>>>>>>>>> Make a command of "A well-regulated militia being necessary to
>>>>>>>>> the security of a free state". You can'rt, which is why the
>>>>>>>>> anti gunners are so full of it.
>>>>>>>> That opening phrase is a dependent phrase, not a stand-alone.
>>>>>>> That was my point. Left fringers try to make that phrase into
>>>>>>> some command
>>>>>>> that only militia members could be armed.
>>>>>>Well, actually if it were a command...then wouldn't it require the
>>>>>>US government to arm the militia, no matter how the rights of the
>>>>>>people are
>>>>>>being protected?
>>>>>>So anyone who is a member of a state militia or the US militia
>>>>>>would be required to be issued a firearm and ammo by the US
>>>>>>government.
>>>>>>So if it's a command...where is my government issued gun?
>>>>> You're not a member of a state militia, you moron.
>>>>§ 44-1. Composition of militia.
>>>>The militia of the Commonwealth of Virginia shall consist of all >>>>able-bodied
>>>>residents of the Commonwealth who are citizens of the United States
>>>>and all
>>>>other able-bodied persons resident in the Commonwealth who have
>>>>declared their intention to become citizens of the United States,
>>>>who are at least 16
>>>>years of age and, except as hereinafter provided, not more than 55
>>>>years of
>>>>age. The militia shall be divided into four classes: the National
>>>>Guard, which includes the Army National Guard and the Air National
>>>>Guard; the Virginia Defense Force; the naval militia; and the
>>>>unorganized militia.
>>> The term militia is now considered to be the National Guard.
>>Not according to the law....or the dictionary for that matter.
>>I will simply acknowledge yet ANOTHER topical area in which you know
>>nothing or next to nothing about.
> The 2nd says a "Well organized militia". So I can only conclude that
> you are in violation of the Constititution
The organized part of the militia is well organized. I would assume that his Virginia Defense Force is well organized. Heller also said that membership in a militia had nothing to do with RKBA and McDonald said that the 14A applied that to the states. Seems like you are running out of things to claim.
>>> Did
>>> you see that part in the the definition you just posted? You in the
>>> National Guard dumbass? No? I didn't think so.
>>Yep, the National Guard is part of the militia, but the Militia isn't >>limited to just the National Guard.
> It's not you just because you say.
That is correct. It is not just by Scout saying so...it is by United States Code 10 USC 311 and Virginia statutes.
>>Just all footballs are balls, but not all balls are footballs.
>>Let's just add set theory as another topic area you don't know much
>>about.
> Define just how you are part of a militia simply because you say. And
> now you are demanding the state provides you with weapons simply
> because you claim membership in some invisible militia.
Perhaps, you should look at the definition of the unorganized militia.
Here it is in US law:
" (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia."
Look under 10 USC 311. So, legally, if he is between the ages of 17 and 45 and not a member of either guard units, he is a member of the unorganized militia. If you look up above at the Virginia statute you will see that he is also a member of the Virginia militia and since he is a member of the Virginia Defense Force, he is part of the "well organised" portion which was your original complaint.
> too funny...
Yep, sometimes you are.
> You just keep slipping deeper and deeper into insanity.
and, yep, you do.
--
It's too bad the people who really know how to run this
country are so busy cutting hair and driving taxis!!
>>>> On Wed, 9 May 2012 09:59:56 -0400, "Scout"
>>>> <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>> You're not a member of a state militia, you moron.
>>>>> § 44-1. Composition of militia.
>>>>> The militia of the Commonwealth of Virginia shall consist of all able-bodied
>>>>> residents of the Commonwealth who are citizens of the United States and all
>>>>> other able-bodied persons resident in the Commonwealth who have declared
>>>>> their intention to become citizens of the United States, who are at least 16
>>>>> years of age and, except as hereinafter provided, not more than 55 years of
>>>>> age. The militia shall be divided into four classes: the National Guard,
>>>>> which includes the Army National Guard and the Air National Guard; the
>>>>> Virginia Defense Force; the naval militia; and the unorganized militia.
>>>> The term militia is now considered to be the National Guard. Did
>>>> you see that part in the the definition you just posted? You in the
>>>> National Guard dumbass? No? I didn't think so.
>>> Is English NOT your mother tongue?!?
>>> You apparently have comprehension problems. Let me assist with Scout's attempt to educate you--
>>> The militia shall be divided into four classes:
>>> the National Guard, which includes
>>> the Army National Guard and
>>> the Air National Guard;
>>> the Virginia Defense Force;
>>> the naval militia; and
>>> the unorganized militia.
>> Please define what an "unorganized militia" is. Be specific. Feel
>> free to quote examples and sources.
>Very similar to the early pre-revolutionary war TN/KY/VA/WV >Appalachian folks of Irish/Scottish descent who were fighting the >British before the Continental army even existed. As for sources, go >read a fucking history book, dufus.
I know the history of the revolutionary war, dufus. That was nearly
250 years ago. What examples of unorganized militias are there in
existence today?
>> And please comment on the obvious contradiction with "A well regulated
>> militia".
>Contradictory? Mmmmm.... perhaps, but in no way mutually exclusive in >any Constitutional sense.
> So anyone who is claiming to be part of an unorganized
>> militia is being unconstitutional?
>Not at all. The Constitution does not prohibit, ban, or otherwise >impose any negative liberty (as it does on the government) on any >unorganized militia. With regard to unorganized militias, the >Constitution is rather like Science w/regard to the subject of god's >existence - it's absolutely *SILENT*. Therefore, the right for an >unorganized militia to exist is, by default, purely a >STATE'S RIGHT< >issue.
I'm confused. Just how exactly, do you have an "unorganized militia"?
What would such a group look like? Nobody in charge at all for a
group of guys with guns? Sounds like anarchy to me. So tell me. Just
what exactly is an unorganized militia?
>>> On Wed, 9 May 2012 09:59:56 -0400, "Scout"
>>> <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>> You're not a member of a state militia, you moron.
>>>> § 44-1. Composition of militia.
>>>> The militia of the Commonwealth of Virginia shall consist of all
>>>> able-bodied residents of the Commonwealth who are citizens of the
>>>> United States and all other able-bodied persons resident in the
>>>> Commonwealth who have declared their intention to become citizens
>>>> of the United States, who are at least 16 years of age and, except
>>>> as hereinafter provided, not more than 55 years of age. The militia
>>>> shall be divided into four classes: the National Guard, which
>>>> includes the Army National Guard and the Air National Guard; the >>>> Virginia Defense Force; the naval militia; and the unorganized
>>>> militia.
>>> The term militia is now considered to be the National Guard. Did
>>> you see that part in the the definition you just posted? You in the
>>> National Guard dumbass? No? I didn't think so.
>>Is English NOT your mother tongue?!?
>>You apparently have comprehension problems. Let me assist with Scout's
>>attempt to educate you--
>>The militia shall be divided into four classes:
>> the National Guard, which includes
>> the Army National Guard and
>> the Air National Guard;
>> the Virginia Defense Force;
>> the naval militia; and
>> the unorganized militia.
> Please define what an "unorganized militia" is. Be specific. Feel
> free to quote examples and sources.
> And please comment on the obvious contradiction with "A well regulated
> militia". So anyone who is claiming to be part of an unorganized
> militia is being unconstitutional?
It is in the Virginia statute you have already seen, you just skipped it apparently.
It is also in the US code covering militia that you have already seen, you just skipped it also.
--
It's too bad the people who really know how to run this
country are so busy cutting hair and driving taxis!!
>>> On Wed, 9 May 2012 09:59:56 -0400, "Scout"
>>> <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>> You're not a member of a state militia, you moron.
>>>> § 44-1. Composition of militia.
>>>> The militia of the Commonwealth of Virginia shall consist of all >>>> able-bodied
>>>> residents of the Commonwealth who are citizens of the United States
>>>> and all
>>>> other able-bodied persons resident in the Commonwealth who have
>>>> declared their intention to become citizens of the United States,
>>>> who are at least 16
>>>> years of age and, except as hereinafter provided, not more than 55
>>>> years of
>>>> age. The militia shall be divided into four classes: the National
>>>> Guard, which includes the Army National Guard and the Air National
>>>> Guard; the Virginia Defense Force; the naval militia; and the
>>>> unorganized militia.
>>> The term militia is now considered to be the National Guard. Did
>>> you see that part in the the definition you just posted? You in the
>>> National Guard dumbass? No? I didn't think so.
>>Is English NOT your mother tongue?!?
>>You apparently have comprehension problems. Let me assist with Scout's
>>attempt to educate you--
>>The militia shall be divided into four classes:
>> the National Guard, which includes
>> the Army National Guard and
>> the Air National Guard;
>> the Virginia Defense Force;
>> the naval militia; and
>> the unorganized militia.
> Please define what an "unorganized militia" is. Be specific. Feel
> free to quote examples and sources.
> And please comment on the obvious contradiction with "A well regulated
> militia". So anyone who is claiming to be part of an unorganized
> militia is being unconstitutional?
>>>> Dudu is wrong yet again....
>>What a shock, eh?
> <^^^^^
> Egad!
> DooDoo AND Lookout are "joined at the groin", as they both ask the
> SAME THING, and simply can NOT grasp the concept of the 2nd amendment!
> Perhaps it's the "DOODOO "Loophole", with each other's head stuffed
> into the others ass?
Not really. Lookout was smart enough to stay out of this discussion.
--
It's too bad the people who really know how to run this
country are so busy cutting hair and driving taxis!!
>>> On Wed, 9 May 2012 09:59:56 -0400, "Scout"
>>> <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>> You're not a member of a state militia, you moron.
>>>> § 44-1. Composition of militia.
>>>> The militia of the Commonwealth of Virginia shall consist of all
>>>> able-bodied
>>>> residents of the Commonwealth who are citizens of the United States
>>>> and all
>>>> other able-bodied persons resident in the Commonwealth who have
>>>> declared their intention to become citizens of the United States,
>>>> who are at least 16
>>>> years of age and, except as hereinafter provided, not more than 55
>>>> years of
>>>> age. The militia shall be divided into four classes: the National
>>>> Guard, which includes the Army National Guard and the Air National
>>>> Guard; the Virginia Defense Force; the naval militia; and the
>>>> unorganized militia.
>>> The term militia is now considered to be the National Guard. Did
>>> you see that part in the the definition you just posted? You in the
>>> National Guard dumbass? No? I didn't think so.
>>Is English NOT your mother tongue?!?
>>You apparently have comprehension problems. Let me assist with Scout's
>>attempt to educate you--
>>The militia shall be divided into four classes:
>> the National Guard, which includes
>> the Army National Guard and
>> the Air National Guard;
>> the Virginia Defense Force;
>> the naval militia; and
>> the unorganized militia.
> Please define what an "unorganized militia" is. Be specific. Feel
> free to quote examples and sources.
> And please comment on the obvious contradiction with "A well regulated
> militia". So anyone who is claiming to be part of an unorganized
> militia is being unconstitutional?
>>>> Dudu is wrong yet again....
>>What a shock, eh?
> <^^^^^
> Egad!
> DooDoo AND Lookout are "joined at the groin", as they both ask the
> SAME THING, and simply can NOT grasp the concept of the 2nd amendment!
> Perhaps it's the "DOODOO "Loophole", with each other's head stuffed
> into the others ass?
Not really. Lookout was smart enough to stay out of this discussion.
<^^^^
True, butt, they BOTH say the same things, regardless of the thread.
>>>>>>>>>> Make a command of "A well-regulated militia being necessary to
>>>>>>>>>> the security of a free state". You can'rt, which is why the
>>>>>>>>>> anti gunners are so full of it.
>>>>>>>>> That opening phrase is a dependent phrase, not a stand-alone.
>>>>>>>> That was my point. Left fringers try to make that phrase into
>>>>>>>> some command
>>>>>>>> that only militia members could be armed.
>>>>>>>Well, actually if it were a command...then wouldn't it require the
>>>>>>>US government to arm the militia, no matter how the rights of the
>>>>>>>people are
>>>>>>>being protected?
>>>>>>>So anyone who is a member of a state militia or the US militia
>>>>>>>would be required to be issued a firearm and ammo by the US
>>>>>>>government.
>>>>>>>So if it's a command...where is my government issued gun?
>>>>>> You're not a member of a state militia, you moron.
>>>>>§ 44-1. Composition of militia.
>>>>>The militia of the Commonwealth of Virginia shall consist of all >>>>>able-bodied
>>>>>residents of the Commonwealth who are citizens of the United States
>>>>>and all
>>>>>other able-bodied persons resident in the Commonwealth who have
>>>>>declared their intention to become citizens of the United States,
>>>>>who are at least 16
>>>>>years of age and, except as hereinafter provided, not more than 55
>>>>>years of
>>>>>age. The militia shall be divided into four classes: the National
>>>>>Guard, which includes the Army National Guard and the Air National
>>>>>Guard; the Virginia Defense Force; the naval militia; and the
>>>>>unorganized militia.
>>>> The term militia is now considered to be the National Guard.
>>>Not according to the law....or the dictionary for that matter.
>>>I will simply acknowledge yet ANOTHER topical area in which you know
>>>nothing or next to nothing about.
>> The 2nd says a "Well organized militia". So I can only conclude that
>> you are in violation of the Constititution
>The organized part of the militia is well organized. I would assume that >his Virginia Defense Force is well organized. Heller also said that >membership in a militia had nothing to do with RKBA and McDonald said >that the 14A applied that to the states. Seems like you are running out >of things to claim.
>>>> Did
>>>> you see that part in the the definition you just posted? You in the
>>>> National Guard dumbass? No? I didn't think so.
>>>Yep, the National Guard is part of the militia, but the Militia isn't >>>limited to just the National Guard.
>> It's not you just because you say.
>That is correct. It is not just by Scout saying so...it is by United >States Code 10 USC 311 and Virginia statutes.
>>>Just all footballs are balls, but not all balls are footballs.
>>>Let's just add set theory as another topic area you don't know much
>>>about.
>> Define just how you are part of a militia simply because you say. And
>> now you are demanding the state provides you with weapons simply
>> because you claim membership in some invisible militia.
>Perhaps, you should look at the definition of the unorganized militia.
>Here it is in US law:
>" (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
> the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
> Naval Militia."
>Look under 10 USC 311. So, legally, if he is between the ages of 17 and >45 and not a member of either guard units, he is a member of the >unorganized militia. If you look up above at the Virginia statute you >will see that he is also a member of the Virginia militia and since he is >a member of the Virginia Defense Force, he is part of the "well >organised" portion which was your original complaint.
>> too funny...
>Yep, sometimes you are.
>> You just keep slipping deeper and deeper into insanity.
>and, yep, you do.
I'm pretty sure the state government of Virginia would agree with me
that Scout is the one losing touch with reality. But then, I suppose
Virginia has lots of groups of nutjobs with guns and camo running
around the mountains playing soldier. Unorganized militia means no
leadership. None whatsoever. So what we have is a bunch of gun nuts
running around pretending they are in the army. Wonderful. Thank the
great sky pixie for the United States of America. Sounds like
anarchy to me.
>>>>>>>>> Make a command of "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the
>>>>>>>>> security of a free state". You can'rt, which is why the anti >>>>>>>>> gunners
>>>>>>>>> are so full of it.
>>>>>>>> That opening phrase is a dependent phrase, not a stand-alone.
>>>>>>> That was my point. Left fringers try to make that phrase into some
>>>>>>> command
>>>>>>> that only militia members could be armed.
>>>>>>Well, actually if it were a command...then wouldn't it require the US
>>>>>>government to arm the militia, no matter how the rights of the people
>>>>>>are
>>>>>>being protected?
>>>>>>So anyone who is a member of a state militia or the US militia would >>>>>>be
>>>>>>required to be issued a firearm and ammo by the US government.
>>>>>>So if it's a command...where is my government issued gun?
>>>>> You're not a member of a state militia, you moron.
>>>>§ 44-1. Composition of militia.
>>>>The militia of the Commonwealth of Virginia shall consist of all
>>>>able-bodied
>>>>residents of the Commonwealth who are citizens of the United States and
>>>>all
>>>>other able-bodied persons resident in the Commonwealth who have declared
>>>>their intention to become citizens of the United States, who are at >>>>least
>>>>16
>>>>years of age and, except as hereinafter provided, not more than 55 years
>>>>of
>>>>age. The militia shall be divided into four classes: the National Guard,
>>>>which includes the Army National Guard and the Air National Guard; the
>>>>Virginia Defense Force; the naval militia; and the unorganized militia.
>>> The term militia is now considered to be the National Guard.
>>Not according to the law....or the dictionary for that matter.
>>I will simply acknowledge yet ANOTHER topical area in which you know >>nothing
>>or next to nothing about.
> The 2nd says a "Well organized militia". So I can only conclude that
> you are in violation of the Constititution
Do you know what "well organized" meant at the time of the Constitution, and can you show me how that has anything to do with the right of the people?
>>> Did
>>> you see that part in the the definition you just posted? You in the
>>> National Guard dumbass? No? I didn't think so.
>>Yep, the National Guard is part of the militia, but the Militia isn't
>>limited to just the National Guard.
> It's not you just because you say.
No, the law (already presented) and the dictionary says so.
If you would like another reference I refer you to 10USC311.
>>Just all footballs are balls, but not all balls are footballs.
>>Let's just add set theory as another topic area you don't know much about.
> Define just how you are part of a militia simply because you say.
Virginia State Constitution.
> And
> now you are demanding the state provides you with weapons simply
> because you claim membership in some invisible militia.
If the first part of the 2nd Amendment is a command...then the government would be commanded to arm the militia.
> too funny...
You certainly are.
> You just keep slipping deeper and deeper into insanity.
>>>>>>>>>>> Make a command of "A well-regulated militia being necessary to
>>>>>>>>>>> the security of a free state". You can'rt, which is why the
>>>>>>>>>>> anti gunners are so full of it.
>>>>>>>>>> That opening phrase is a dependent phrase, not a stand-alone.
>>>>>>>>> That was my point. Left fringers try to make that phrase into
>>>>>>>>> some command
>>>>>>>>> that only militia members could be armed.
>>>>>>>>Well, actually if it were a command...then wouldn't it require the
>>>>>>>>US government to arm the militia, no matter how the rights of the
>>>>>>>>people are
>>>>>>>>being protected?
>>>>>>>>So anyone who is a member of a state militia or the US militia
>>>>>>>>would be required to be issued a firearm and ammo by the US
>>>>>>>>government.
>>>>>>>>So if it's a command...where is my government issued gun?
>>>>>>> You're not a member of a state militia, you moron.
>>>>>>§ 44-1. Composition of militia.
>>>>>>The militia of the Commonwealth of Virginia shall consist of all
>>>>>>able-bodied
>>>>>>residents of the Commonwealth who are citizens of the United States
>>>>>>and all
>>>>>>other able-bodied persons resident in the Commonwealth who have
>>>>>>declared their intention to become citizens of the United States,
>>>>>>who are at least 16
>>>>>>years of age and, except as hereinafter provided, not more than 55
>>>>>>years of
>>>>>>age. The militia shall be divided into four classes: the National
>>>>>>Guard, which includes the Army National Guard and the Air National
>>>>>>Guard; the Virginia Defense Force; the naval militia; and the
>>>>>>unorganized militia.
>>>>> The term militia is now considered to be the National Guard.
>>>>Not according to the law....or the dictionary for that matter.
>>>>I will simply acknowledge yet ANOTHER topical area in which you know
>>>>nothing or next to nothing about.
>>> The 2nd says a "Well organized militia". So I can only conclude that
>>> you are in violation of the Constititution
>>The organized part of the militia is well organized. I would assume that
>>his Virginia Defense Force is well organized. Heller also said that
>>membership in a militia had nothing to do with RKBA and McDonald said
>>that the 14A applied that to the states. Seems like you are running out
>>of things to claim.
>>>>> Did
>>>>> you see that part in the the definition you just posted? You in the
>>>>> National Guard dumbass? No? I didn't think so.
>>>>Yep, the National Guard is part of the militia, but the Militia isn't
>>>>limited to just the National Guard.
>>> It's not you just because you say.
>>That is correct. It is not just by Scout saying so...it is by United
>>States Code 10 USC 311 and Virginia statutes.
>>>>Just all footballs are balls, but not all balls are footballs.
>>>>Let's just add set theory as another topic area you don't know much
>>>>about.
>>> Define just how you are part of a militia simply because you say. And
>>> now you are demanding the state provides you with weapons simply
>>> because you claim membership in some invisible militia.
>>Perhaps, you should look at the definition of the unorganized militia.
>>Here it is in US law:
>>" (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
>> the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
>> Naval Militia."
>>Look under 10 USC 311. So, legally, if he is between the ages of 17 and
>>45 and not a member of either guard units, he is a member of the
>>unorganized militia. If you look up above at the Virginia statute you
>>will see that he is also a member of the Virginia militia and since he is
>>a member of the Virginia Defense Force, he is part of the "well
>>organised" portion which was your original complaint.
>>> too funny...
>>Yep, sometimes you are.
>>> You just keep slipping deeper and deeper into insanity.
>>and, yep, you do.
> I'm pretty sure the state government of Virginia would agree with me
> that Scout is the one losing touch with reality.
I'm sure you THINK so, but then you've shown you have little idea of what the reality really is.
> But then, I suppose
> Virginia has lots of groups of nutjobs with guns and camo running
> around the mountains playing soldier.
Like they do in Montana hiding out in their fortress with a mountain of Costco Beef?
> Unorganized militia means no
> leadership.
There is leadership. The Governor of Virginia and/or The President of the United States of America.
Even YOU are likely in the militia of Montana and subject to similar leadership.
> None whatsoever.
Your ignorance.
> So what we have is a bunch of gun nuts
> running around pretending they are in the army. Wonderful. Thank the
> great sky pixie for the United States of America. Sounds like
> anarchy to me.
So who was just talking about "losing touch with reality"?
I would say the above would confirm that you are the one who has lost touch with reality.
>>> On Wed, 9 May 2012 09:59:56 -0400, "Scout"
>>> <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>> You're not a member of a state militia, you moron.
>>>> § 44-1. Composition of militia.
>>>> The militia of the Commonwealth of Virginia shall consist of all >>>> able-bodied
>>>> residents of the Commonwealth who are citizens of the United States and >>>> all
>>>> other able-bodied persons resident in the Commonwealth who have >>>> declared
>>>> their intention to become citizens of the United States, who are at >>>> least 16
>>>> years of age and, except as hereinafter provided, not more than 55 >>>> years of
>>>> age. The militia shall be divided into four classes: the National >>>> Guard,
>>>> which includes the Army National Guard and the Air National Guard; the
>>>> Virginia Defense Force; the naval militia; and the unorganized militia.
>>> The term militia is now considered to be the National Guard. Did
>>> you see that part in the the definition you just posted? You in the
>>> National Guard dumbass? No? I didn't think so.
>>Is English NOT your mother tongue?!?
>>You apparently have comprehension problems. Let me assist with Scout's >>attempt to educate you--
>>The militia shall be divided into four classes:
>> the National Guard, which includes
>> the Army National Guard and
>> the Air National Guard;
>> the Virginia Defense Force;
>> the naval militia; and
>> the unorganized militia.
> Please define what an "unorganized militia" is. Be specific. Feel
> free to quote examples and sources.
Those that are part of the militia but not in any other class.
QED.
Seems even basic logic is beyond your abilities.
> And please comment on the obvious contradiction with "A well regulated
> militia".
Simple, even a militia not organized by the government can be well regulated.
IOW, well regulated isn't automatically dependent upon government involvement.
Besides, the government decides how much organization, training, etc is necessary for a militia to be well regulated, and if they decide that none is needed, then that's well regulated.
> So anyone who is claiming to be part of an unorganized
> militia is being unconstitutional?
Not when their claim is back up by the law....as I've already cited to you.
Heck, Dudu even you are almost certainly a member of the Montana militia whether you know it or not.
Further, as member of the Montana militia you could be called into state or even federal service if/when the 'crash' you predict occurs and thus be forced to leave your fortress and your provisions and go into the city to deal with the mutant zombies.
>>>>> On Wed, 9 May 2012 09:59:56 -0400, "Scout"
>>>>> <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> You're not a member of a state militia, you moron.
>>>>>> § 44-1. Composition of militia.
>>>>>> The militia of the Commonwealth of Virginia shall consist of all >>>>>> able-bodied
>>>>>> residents of the Commonwealth who are citizens of the United States >>>>>> and all
>>>>>> other able-bodied persons resident in the Commonwealth who have >>>>>> declared
>>>>>> their intention to become citizens of the United States, who are at >>>>>> least 16
>>>>>> years of age and, except as hereinafter provided, not more than 55 >>>>>> years of
>>>>>> age. The militia shall be divided into four classes: the National >>>>>> Guard,
>>>>>> which includes the Army National Guard and the Air National Guard; >>>>>> the
>>>>>> Virginia Defense Force; the naval militia; and the unorganized >>>>>> militia.
>>>>> The term militia is now considered to be the National Guard. Did
>>>>> you see that part in the the definition you just posted? You in the
>>>>> National Guard dumbass? No? I didn't think so.
>>>> Is English NOT your mother tongue?!?
>>>> You apparently have comprehension problems. Let me assist with Scout's >>>> attempt to educate you--
>>>> The militia shall be divided into four classes:
>>>> the National Guard, which includes
>>>> the Army National Guard and
>>>> the Air National Guard;
>>>> the Virginia Defense Force;
>>>> the naval militia; and
>>>> the unorganized militia.
>>> Please define what an "unorganized militia" is. Be specific. Feel
>>> free to quote examples and sources.
>>Very similar to the early pre-revolutionary war TN/KY/VA/WV
>>Appalachian folks of Irish/Scottish descent who were fighting the
>>British before the Continental army even existed. As for sources, go
>>read a fucking history book, dufus.
> I know the history of the revolutionary war, dufus. That was nearly
> 250 years ago. What examples of unorganized militias are there in
> existence today?
44-1 in the Virginia Code of Law
10USC311 in the Federal Code of law.
10-1-103 Montana Code of Law.
Look around, the unorganized militia is all around you.....
Or in your case you probably need only look in a Mirror.
(2) The militia forces shall consist of all able-bodied citizens of the state except those exempted by law.
Article VI, Section 13, Constitution of Montana.
I think it's safe to say we can add knowledge of the militia to the topical areas that Dudu is ignorant of.
>>>> On Wed, 9 May 2012 09:59:56 -0400, "Scout"
>>>> <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>> You're not a member of a state militia, you moron.
>>>>> § 44-1. Composition of militia.
>>>>> The militia of the Commonwealth of Virginia shall consist of all
>>>>> able-bodied residents of the Commonwealth who are citizens of the
>>>>> United States and all other able-bodied persons resident in the
>>>>> Commonwealth who have declared their intention to become citizens
>>>>> of the United States, who are at least 16 years of age and, except
>>>>> as hereinafter provided, not more than 55 years of age. The militia
>>>>> shall be divided into four classes: the National Guard, which
>>>>> includes the Army National Guard and the Air National Guard; the
>>>>> Virginia Defense Force; the naval militia; and the unorganized
>>>>> militia.
>>>> The term militia is now considered to be the National Guard. Did
>>>> you see that part in the the definition you just posted? You in the
>>>> National Guard dumbass? No? I didn't think so.
>>>Is English NOT your mother tongue?!?
>>>You apparently have comprehension problems. Let me assist with Scout's
>>>attempt to educate you--
>>>The militia shall be divided into four classes:
>>> the National Guard, which includes
>>> the Army National Guard and
>>> the Air National Guard;
>>> the Virginia Defense Force;
>>> the naval militia; and
>>> the unorganized militia.
>> Please define what an "unorganized militia" is. Be specific. Feel
>> free to quote examples and sources.
>> And please comment on the obvious contradiction with "A well regulated
>> militia". So anyone who is claiming to be part of an unorganized
>> militia is being unconstitutional?
> It is in the Virginia statute you have already seen, you just skipped it
> apparently.
> It is also in the US code covering militia that you have already seen,
> you just skipped it also.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 06 May 2012 15:23:12 -0500, RD Sandman
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>UnclosetedFruit <lilhor...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>news:162bbed6-d568-4238-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>af7d-dbde2e183...@l15g2000vbv.googlegroups.com:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course, we can't expect the average gun-nut to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comprehend anything above the complexity of how to employ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> toilet paper. And even then we doubt that capacity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Most, we truly believe, are fingers-on wipers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And you like to lick those fingers, don't you, boy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But if millions and millions of U.S. citizens possess
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guns -- i.e., especially pistols -- it follows that 313
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> million people are literally and figuratively deprived of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the freedom and liberty supposedly guaranteed by our
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Constitution.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Hmmmm, per the census, our population is 309 million. From
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>that subtract about 80 million gunowners and you have 229
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>million. You are not only ignorant, your math sucks.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because if the person next to you in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the store or church or restaurant packs a gun, YOU are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> under a THREAT.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>From whom? The police? The military?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Whether you posses a gun or not, your freedom is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> automatically reduced, especially under insane
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "stand-your-ground" guidelines.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Which is only in some states, not all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, the Second Amendment, which many anal vents and other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NRA slaves believe to be the key to keeping us free from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the predations of an authoritarian
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ("communist/Marxist/socialist") government, in reality,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fosters the opposite result. Your armed neighbor is your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> master. You FEAR your gun-packing fellow citizen.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I don't fear anyone........however, you, apparently, do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If that's freedom as it was envisioned by our founding
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fathers, you deserve it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Thank you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That this WILL change and that's why a 2nd Obama
>>>>>>>>>>>>> administration scares the shit out of you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>Nope. My carrying of a gun or the number I own won't change.
>>>>>>>>>>> Yup..sure will.
>>>>>>>>>>What makes you think that?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I look forward to the news break that tells me one of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> conservatives on the Supreme Court has died. I'm going to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> sit here and watch you idiots melt down.
>>>>>>>>>>>>Over what? You expect a reversal of Heller and McDonald?
>>>>>>>>>>> A "re-interpretation" is more like it.
>>>>>>>>>>It will be difficult to do. And even if they do, it simply
>>>>>>>>>>means that we go back to pre-Heller days where I had my carry
>>>>>>>>>>and all the guns I wanted.
>>>>>>>>> And wrong again.
>>>>>>>>>>>>Hell, conservative have expected a reversal of Roe v Wade for
>>>>>>>>>>>>years but it hasn't happened.
>>>>>>>>>>> Because that makes no legal sense.
>>>>>>>>>>Sorry, but there is a lot more in the Constitution about RKBA
>>>>>>>>>>than there is about abortion.
>>>>>>>>> There is nothing about abortion.
>>>>>>>>> The only line about guns includes the line "A well regulated
>>>>>>>>> militia being necessary to the security of a free state".
>>>>>>>> And the line, "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms
>>>>>>>> shall not be infringed." Not the right of the government, not
>>>>>>>> the right of the militia, the right of the people.
>>>>>>>> Personally, I feel that Heller and McDonald are the right
>>>>>>>> opinions. I also believe the Roe v Wade was the right decision
>>>>>>>> but not how they got there.
>>>>>>> Make a command of "A well-regulated militia being necessary to
>>>>>>> the security of a free state". You can'rt, which is why the anti
>>>>>>> gunners are so full of it.
>>>>>> That opening phrase is a dependent phrase, not a stand-alone.
>>>>> That was my point. Left fringers try to make that phrase into some
>>>>> command that only militia members could be armed.
>>>> Well, actually if it were a command...then wouldn't it require the
>>>> US government to arm the militia, no matter how the rights of the
>>>> people are being protected?
>>>> So anyone who is a member of a state militia or the US militia would
>>>> be required to be issued a firearm and ammo by the US government.
>>> US militia.......yes. State militia......virtually all of them would
>>> be relying on a pool of armed citizens to draw from.
>> They would be....once the federal government issues a gun to each and
>> every one of them.
> Which I am certain will happen the next time there are four blue moons in
> one month.
>>>> So if it's a command...where is my government issued gun?
>>> Correct. The militia mentioned in Article I(8) is armed via Clause
>>> 16 not necessarily the Second Amendment.
>> True, but if the first part of the 2nd is a command to arm the
>> militia, then it would change the directive for arming from "provide
>> for"(cl16) to "shall" (2nd).
> Yep, but AFAIAC, the 2A addresses only the state militia not the national
> one.
>>> IMHO, the Second Amendment applies
>>> to the state militias and is there to prevent the central government
>>> from disarming the citizenry pool from which those state militias are
>>> drawn.
>> I would put that slightly differently in that I would state it as.
Your answer was here RD, but it seems to have vanished.
Let me add back in what seems to have disappeared for some unexplained reason.
(no, you didn't snip it, just seems to have been lost between writing and posting)
IMHO, the Second Amendment applies to the people and is there primarily to prevent the central government...
>> IMHO, the Second Amendment applies
>> to the people of the state and is there primarily to prevent.....
>> Because the 2nd applies to much more than simply the state militias.
> Such as?
The people? As in the right of the people?
Even without the part that was missing, I would have thought you would have caught that the 2nd time around.
> Arming the national militia is addressed in ArtI(8)(16). No
> need for the 2A to address it also.
Well.....if the 1st part is a COMMAND to the federal government to arm the militia, then there would be a reason to address it there since it would change the "provide for" to "shall"
>>>> On Wed, 9 May 2012 09:33:10 -0400, "Scout"
>>>> <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Make a command of "A well-regulated militia being necessary to
>>>>>>>> the security of a free state". You can'rt, which is why the anti
>>>>>>>> gunners are so full of it.
>>>>>>> That opening phrase is a dependent phrase, not a stand-alone.
>>>>>> That was my point. Left fringers try to make that phrase into some
>>>>>> command that only militia members could be armed.
>>>>>Well, actually if it were a command...then wouldn't it require the
>>>>>US government to arm the militia, no matter how the rights of the
>>>>>people are being protected?
>>>>>So anyone who is a member of a state militia or the US militia would
>>>>>be required to be issued a firearm and ammo by the US government.
>>>>>So if it's a command...where is my government issued gun?
>>>> You're not a member of a state militia, you moron.
>>> Have you reviewed the militia laws of Virginia? Have you even
>>> reviewed the militia laws in your state?
>> "The militia forces shall consist of all able-bodied citizens of the
>> state except those exempted by law."
>> Montana State Constitution.
> Ahhhh, then he is either a member of the Montana militia or he is not
> able bodied. ;)
Ah, but he claims to be a martial artist well able to engage in hand to hand combat...
And since I can't seem to find any exclusions in Montana State law......
>>> In my state, I am considered too old to
>>> be in the militia but Heller and McDonald took care of that little
>>> concern for me.
> Here is Arizona's:
> 1. Composition of militia
> Section 1. The militia of the state of Arizona shall consist of all
> capable citizens of the state between the ages of eighteen and forty-five
> years, and of those between said ages who shall have declared their
> intention to become citizens of the United States, residing therein,
> subject to such exemptions as now exist, or as may hereafter be created,
> by the laws of the United States or of this state.
> --
> It's too bad the people who really know how to run this
> country are so busy cutting hair and driving taxis!!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 06 May 2012 15:23:12 -0500, RD Sandman
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>UnclosetedFruit <lilhor...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>news:162bbed6-d568-4238-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>af7d-dbde2e183...@l15g2000vbv.googlegroups.com:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course, we can't expect the average gun-nut to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comprehend anything above the complexity of how to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> employ toilet paper. And even then we doubt that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> capacity. Most, we truly believe, are fingers-on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wipers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And you like to lick those fingers, don't you, boy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But if millions and millions of U.S. citizens possess
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guns -- i.e., especially pistols -- it follows that 313
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> million people are literally and figuratively deprived
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the freedom and liberty supposedly guaranteed by our
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Constitution.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Hmmmm, per the census, our population is 309 million. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>From that subtract about 80 million gunowners and you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>have 229 million. You are not only ignorant, your math
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>sucks.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because if the person next to you in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the store or church or restaurant packs a gun, YOU are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> under a THREAT.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>From whom? The police? The military?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Whether you posses a gun or not, your freedom is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> automatically reduced, especially under insane
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "stand-your-ground" guidelines.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Which is only in some states, not all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, the Second Amendment, which many anal vents and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other NRA slaves believe to be the key to keeping us
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> free from the predations of an authoritarian
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ("communist/Marxist/socialist") government, in reality,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fosters the opposite result. Your armed neighbor is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your master. You FEAR your gun-packing fellow citizen.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I don't fear anyone........however, you, apparently, do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If that's freedom as it was envisioned by our founding
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fathers, you deserve it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Thank you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That this WILL change and that's why a 2nd Obama
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> administration scares the shit out of you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Nope. My carrying of a gun or the number I own won't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>change.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yup..sure will.
>>>>>>>>>>>What makes you think that?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I look forward to the news break that tells me one of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conservatives on the Supreme Court has died. I'm going to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sit here and watch you idiots melt down.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Over what? You expect a reversal of Heller and McDonald?
>>>>>>>>>>>> A "re-interpretation" is more like it.
>>>>>>>>>>>It will be difficult to do. And even if they do, it simply
>>>>>>>>>>>means that we go back to pre-Heller days where I had my carry
>>>>>>>>>>>and all the guns I wanted.
>>>>>>>>>> And wrong again.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Hell, conservative have expected a reversal of Roe v Wade
>>>>>>>>>>>>>for years but it hasn't happened.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Because that makes no legal sense.
>>>>>>>>>>>Sorry, but there is a lot more in the Constitution about RKBA
>>>>>>>>>>>than there is about abortion.
>>>>>>>>>> There is nothing about abortion.
>>>>>>>>>> The only line about guns includes the line "A well regulated
>>>>>>>>>> militia being necessary to the security of a free state".
>>>>>>>>> And the line, "...the right of the people to keep and bear
>>>>>>>>> arms shall not be infringed." Not the right of the
>>>>>>>>> government, not the right of the militia, the right of the
>>>>>>>>> people.
>>>>>>>>> Personally, I feel that Heller and McDonald are the right
>>>>>>>>> opinions. I also believe the Roe v Wade was the right decision
>>>>>>>>> but not how they got there.
>>>>>>>> Make a command of "A well-regulated militia being necessary to
>>>>>>>> the security of a free state". You can'rt, which is why the
>>>>>>>> anti gunners are so full of it.
>>>>>>> That opening phrase is a dependent phrase, not a stand-alone.
>>>>>> That was my point. Left fringers try to make that phrase into
>>>>>> some command that only militia members could be armed.
>>>>> Well, actually if it were a command...then wouldn't it require the
>>>>> US government to arm the militia, no matter how the rights of the
>>>>> people are being protected?
>>>>> So anyone who is a member of a state militia or the US militia
>>>>> would be required to be issued a firearm and ammo by the US
>>>>> government.
>>>> US militia.......yes. State militia......virtually all of them
>>>> would be relying on a pool of armed citizens to draw from.
>>> They would be....once the federal government issues a gun to each
>>> and every one of them.
>> Which I am certain will happen the next time there are four blue
>> moons in one month.
>>>>> So if it's a command...where is my government issued gun?
>>>> Correct. The militia mentioned in Article I(8) is armed via Clause
>>>> 16 not necessarily the Second Amendment.
>>> True, but if the first part of the 2nd is a command to arm the
>>> militia, then it would change the directive for arming from "provide
>>> for"(cl16) to "shall" (2nd).
>> Yep, but AFAIAC, the 2A addresses only the state militia not the
>> national one.
>>>> IMHO, the Second Amendment applies
>>>> to the state militias and is there to prevent the central
>>>> government from disarming the citizenry pool from which those state
>>>> militias are drawn.
>>> I would put that slightly differently in that I would state it as.
> Your answer was here RD, but it seems to have vanished.
> Let me add back in what seems to have disappeared for some unexplained
> reason.
> (no, you didn't snip it, just seems to have been lost between writing
> and posting)
> IMHO, the Second Amendment applies to the people and is there
> primarily to > prevent the central government...
>>> IMHO, the Second Amendment applies
>>> to the people of the state and is there primarily to prevent.....
>>> Because the 2nd applies to much more than simply the state militias.
>> Such as?
> The people? As in the right of the people?
> Even without the part that was missing, I would have thought you would
> have caught that the 2nd time around.
>> Arming the national militia is addressed in ArtI(8)(16). No
>> need for the 2A to address it also.
> Well.....if the 1st part is a COMMAND to the federal government to arm
> the militia, then there would be a reason to address it there since it
> would change the "provide for" to "shall"
I agree.
--
It's too bad the people who really know how to run this
country are so busy cutting hair and driving taxis!!
>>>>>>>>>>> Make a command of "A well-regulated militia being necessary
>>>>>>>>>>> to the security of a free state". You can'rt, which is why
>>>>>>>>>>> the anti gunners are so full of it.
>>>>>>>>>> That opening phrase is a dependent phrase, not a stand-alone.
>>>>>>>>> That was my point. Left fringers try to make that phrase into
>>>>>>>>> some command
>>>>>>>>> that only militia members could be armed.
>>>>>>>>Well, actually if it were a command...then wouldn't it require
>>>>>>>>the US government to arm the militia, no matter how the rights
>>>>>>>>of the people are
>>>>>>>>being protected?
>>>>>>>>So anyone who is a member of a state militia or the US militia
>>>>>>>>would be required to be issued a firearm and ammo by the US
>>>>>>>>government.
>>>>>>>>So if it's a command...where is my government issued gun?
>>>>>>> You're not a member of a state militia, you moron.
>>>>>>§ 44-1. Composition of militia.
>>>>>>The militia of the Commonwealth of Virginia shall consist of all >>>>>>able-bodied
>>>>>>residents of the Commonwealth who are citizens of the United
>>>>>>States and all
>>>>>>other able-bodied persons resident in the Commonwealth who have
>>>>>>declared their intention to become citizens of the United States,
>>>>>>who are at least 16
>>>>>>years of age and, except as hereinafter provided, not more than 55
>>>>>>years of
>>>>>>age. The militia shall be divided into four classes: the National
>>>>>>Guard, which includes the Army National Guard and the Air National
>>>>>>Guard; the Virginia Defense Force; the naval militia; and the
>>>>>>unorganized militia.
>>>>> The term militia is now considered to be the National Guard.
>>>>Not according to the law....or the dictionary for that matter.
>>>>I will simply acknowledge yet ANOTHER topical area in which you know
>>>>nothing or next to nothing about.
>>> The 2nd says a "Well organized militia". So I can only conclude
>>> that you are in violation of the Constititution
>>The organized part of the militia is well organized. I would assume
>>that his Virginia Defense Force is well organized. Heller also said
>>that membership in a militia had nothing to do with RKBA and McDonald
>>said that the 14A applied that to the states. Seems like you are
>>running out of things to claim.
>>>>> Did
>>>>> you see that part in the the definition you just posted? You in
>>>>> the National Guard dumbass? No? I didn't think so.
>>>>Yep, the National Guard is part of the militia, but the Militia
>>>>isn't limited to just the National Guard.
>>> It's not you just because you say.
>>That is correct. It is not just by Scout saying so...it is by United >>States Code 10 USC 311 and Virginia statutes.
>>>>Just all footballs are balls, but not all balls are footballs.
>>>>Let's just add set theory as another topic area you don't know much
>>>>about.
>>> Define just how you are part of a militia simply because you say. >>> And now you are demanding the state provides you with weapons simply
>>> because you claim membership in some invisible militia.
>>Perhaps, you should look at the definition of the unorganized militia.
>> Here it is in US law:
>>" (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
>> the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
>> Naval Militia."
>>Look under 10 USC 311. So, legally, if he is between the ages of 17
>>and 45 and not a member of either guard units, he is a member of the >>unorganized militia. If you look up above at the Virginia statute you
>>will see that he is also a member of the Virginia militia and since he
>>is a member of the Virginia Defense Force, he is part of the "well >>organised" portion which was your original complaint.
>>> too funny...
>>Yep, sometimes you are.
>>> You just keep slipping deeper and deeper into insanity.
>>and, yep, you do.
> I'm pretty sure the state government of Virginia would agree with me
> that Scout is the one losing touch with reality. But then, I suppose
> Virginia has lots of groups of nutjobs with guns and camo running
> around the mountains playing soldier.
I would assume that just like Montana it has some folks doing that. It also has folks that are members of the Virginian Defense Force.
Unorganized militia means no
> leadership.
Actually it means no "organized" leadership.
None whatsoever. So what we have is a bunch of gun nuts
> running around pretending they are in the army.
Nope. Scout has not pretended or claimed that he was in the army. He has said that he is a member of the Virginia Defense Force. If you have other evidence he is not, then you should present it.
Wonderful. Thank the
> great sky pixie for the United States of America. Sounds like
> anarchy to me.
And a road crew sounds like a socialist regime to you, so what can I say? [shrug]
--
It's too bad the people who really know how to run this
country are so busy cutting hair and driving taxis!!
> "RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message > news:XnsA04E79E4BFC0Ehopewell@216.196.121.131...
>> d...@dudu.org wrote in news:lpclq79m93fk1bqsbc3336m628quomehao@
4ax.com:
>>> On Wed, 9 May 2012 10:59:58 -0700, "max headroom"
>>> <maxheadr...@localnet.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 9 May 2012 09:59:56 -0400, "Scout"
>>>>> <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> You're not a member of a state militia, you moron.
>>>>>> § 44-1. Composition of militia.
>>>>>> The militia of the Commonwealth of Virginia shall consist of all
>>>>>> able-bodied residents of the Commonwealth who are citizens of the
>>>>>> United States and all other able-bodied persons resident in the
>>>>>> Commonwealth who have declared their intention to become citizens
>>>>>> of the United States, who are at least 16 years of age and, except
>>>>>> as hereinafter provided, not more than 55 years of age. The militia
>>>>>> shall be divided into four classes: the National Guard, which
>>>>>> includes the Army National Guard and the Air National Guard; the
>>>>>> Virginia Defense Force; the naval militia; and the unorganized
>>>>>> militia.
>>>>> The term militia is now considered to be the National Guard. Did
>>>>> you see that part in the the definition you just posted? You in the
>>>>> National Guard dumbass? No? I didn't think so.
>>>>Is English NOT your mother tongue?!?
>>>>You apparently have comprehension problems. Let me assist with Scout's
>>>>attempt to educate you--
>>>>The militia shall be divided into four classes:
>>>> the National Guard, which includes
>>>> the Army National Guard and
>>>> the Air National Guard;
>>>> the Virginia Defense Force;
>>>> the naval militia; and
>>>> the unorganized militia.
>>> Please define what an "unorganized militia" is. Be specific. Feel
>>> free to quote examples and sources.
>>> And please comment on the obvious contradiction with "A well regulated
>>> militia". So anyone who is claiming to be part of an unorganized
>>> militia is being unconstitutional?
>> It is in the Virginia statute you have already seen, you just skipped it
>> apparently.
>> It is also in the US code covering militia that you have already seen,
>> you just skipped it also.
> 10-1-103 Montana State Code.
> Bet he skips that one too.
I hope he skips the Arizona code, he doesn't belong here.
--
It's too bad the people who really know how to run this
country are so busy cutting hair and driving taxis!!
> There is leadership. The Governor of Virginia and/or The President of
> the United States of America.
> Even YOU are likely in the militia of Montana and subject to similar
> leadership.
> <^^^^^
> Coff HACK BARF WEEEEEEEESE!
> DooDoo? A leader?
> All that freak could do is lead children into the claymores !
Calm down........Scout said "subject to" not that Dudu would be a leader.
;)
--
<^^^^
Be still my heart!
I just cleaned , fixed, and changed the oils of my yard machines, so I might have misunderstood. :)
However, my push mower pops wheelies now, and my lawn tractor beats the neighbors '72 Pinto in the 50 yard dash!
> They are not born with the right. They are given that right IN THIS
> COUNTRY when born.
> That is not the same in all countries.
> So I'm right again.
So you think you are smarter than and more expert than Thomas Jefferson on the issue of INHERENT rights?
Now that is funny.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
You are a pathetic douchebag. No wonder President Douchebag is your hero.
-- I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
What I like about this attitude is it works equally well for Iran and the Democrat National Covention.
>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 06 May 2012 15:23:12 -0500, RD Sandman
>>>>>>>>>> <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>UnclosetedFruit <lilhor...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>news:162bbed6-d568-4238-
>>>>>>>>>>>af7d-dbde2e183...@l15g2000vbv.googlegroups.com:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course, we can't expect the average gun-nut to comprehend
>>>>>>>>>>>> anything above the complexity of how to employ toilet paper.
>>>>>>>>>>>> And even then we doubt that capacity. Most, we truly > believe,
>>>>>>>>>>>> are fingers-on wipers.
>>>>>>>>>>>And you like to lick those fingers, don't you, boy.
>>>>>>>>>>>> But if millions and millions of U.S. citizens possess guns --
>>>>>>>>>>>> i.e., especially pistols -- it follows that 313 million > people
>>>>>>>>>>>> are literally and figuratively deprived of the freedom and
>>>>>>>>>>>> liberty supposedly guaranteed by our Constitution.
>>>>>>>>>>>Hmmmm, per the census, our population is 309 million. From > that
>>>>>>>>>>>subtract about 80 million gunowners and you have 229 million. >>>>>>>>>>>You are not only ignorant, your math sucks.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Because if the person next to you in
>>>>>>>>>>>> the store or church or restaurant packs a gun, YOU are under > a
>>>>>>>>>>>> THREAT.
>>>>>>>>>>>From whom? The police? The military?
>>>>>>>>>>> Whether you posses a gun or not, your freedom is
>>>>>>>>>>>> automatically reduced, especially under insane
>>>>>>>>>>>> "stand-your-ground" guidelines.
>>>>>>>>>>>Which is only in some states, not all.
>>>>>>>>>>>> So, the Second Amendment, which many anal vents and other NRA
>>>>>>>>>>>> slaves believe to be the key to keeping us free from the
>>>>>>>>>>>> predations of an authoritarian > ("communist/Marxist/socialist")
>>>>>>>>>>>> government, in reality, fosters the opposite result. Your
>>>>>>>>>>>> armed neighbor is your master. You FEAR your gun-packing
>>>>>>>>>>>> fellow citizen.
>>>>>>>>>>>I don't fear anyone........however, you, apparently, do.
>>>>>>>>>>>> If that's freedom as it was envisioned by our founding
>>>>>>>>>>>> fathers, you deserve it.
>>>>>>>>>>>Thank you.
>>>>>>>>>> That this WILL change and that's why a 2nd Obama administration
>>>>>>>>>> scares the shit out of you.
>>>>>>>>>Nope. My carrying of a gun or the number I own won't change.
>>>>>>>> Yup..sure will.
>>>>>>>What makes you think that?
>>>>>>>>>> I look forward to the news break that tells me one of the
>>>>>>>>>> conservatives on the Supreme Court has died. I'm going to sit
>>>>>>>>>> here and watch you idiots melt down.
>>>>>>>>>Over what? You expect a reversal of Heller and McDonald?
>>>>>>>> A "re-interpretation" is more like it.
>>>>>>>It will be difficult to do. And even if they do, it simply means
>>>>>>>that we go back to pre-Heller days where I had my carry and all the
>>>>>>>guns I wanted.
>>>>>> And wrong again.
>>>>>>>>>Hell, conservative have expected a reversal of Roe v Wade for
>>>>>>>>>years but it hasn't happened.
>>>>>>>> Because that makes no legal sense.
>>>>>>>Sorry, but there is a lot more in the Constitution about RKBA than
>>>>>>>there is about abortion.
>>>>>> There is nothing about abortion.
>>>>>> The only line about guns includes the line "A well regulated > militia
>>>>>> being necessary to the security of a free state".
>>>>> And the line, "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms > shall
>>>>> not be infringed." Not the right of the government, not the right > of
>>>>> the militia, the right of the people.
>>>>> Personally, I feel that Heller and McDonald are the right opinions. >>>>> I also believe the Roe v Wade was the right decision but not how > they
>>>>> got there.
>>>> Make a command of "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the
>>>> security of a free state". You can'rt, which is why the anti gunners
>>>> are so full of it.
>>>That opening phrase is a dependent phrase, not a stand-alone.
>> Interesting interpretation.
>> But wrong
> Obviously, the Supreme Court doesn't think so. Here is what they had to > say about your theory in District of Columbia v Heller (2008):
> " Held:
> 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a > firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for > traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. > 2–53.
> (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but > does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative > clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it > connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
> (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation > of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically > capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists > feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to > disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a > select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to > abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that > the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28."
> That decision was later affirmed and added to in McDonald v City of > Chicago (2010) which stated that the decision in Heller also applied to > the states via the 14th Amendment.
It is clear that Lookout only beleives what he beleives, without foundation, and has no understanding of history.
-- I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
What I like about this attitude is it works equally well for Iran and the Democrat National Covention.
>On 5/8/2012 6:06 PM, Lookout wrote:
>> On Tue, 08 May 2012 09:29:46 -0700, Peter Franks<n...@none.com>
>> wrote:
>>> On 5/7/2012 9:44 PM, Lookout wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 07 May 2012 18:27:34 -0700, Peter Franks<n...@none.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On 5/7/2012 6:01 PM, Lookout wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 07 May 2012 16:33:58 -0700, Peter Franks<n...@none.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/7/2012 3:16 PM, Lookout wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 07 May 2012 14:23:20 -0700, Peter Franks<n...@none.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/7/2012 10:09 AM, Lookout wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 06 May 2012 21:47:10 -0700, Peter Franks<n...@none.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/6/2012 5:29 PM, Lookout wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 06 May 2012 16:52:20 -0700, Peter Franks<n...@none.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/6/2012 12:46 PM, Lookout wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 06 May 2012 10:17:28 -0700, Peter Franks<n...@none.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/6/2012 8:47 AM, Lookout wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 06 May 2012 08:35:37 -0700, Peter Franks<n...@none.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/5/2012 10:03 PM, Lookout wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 05 May 2012 16:54:29 -0700, Peter Franks<n...@none.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/5/2012 12:57 PM, Kris Krispy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Speaking of Second Amendment "rights," 6,009 people were killed in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> U.S. in 2011 by "personal" handguns, versus 68 in the United Kingdom,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where there is no 2nd Amendment or reasonable facsimile thereof.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, that is one way to look at it if you are a totalitarian.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> However, if you cherish freedom, consider that 62,218,761 people in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UK have had their rights stolen by government,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope. Wrong again.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How so?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They can't have rights stolen they never had.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So where do rights come from?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's not the point. You can't have something stolen you never had.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the point. If they never had the right, then where can you get
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the right from? Specifically, where do rights come from?
>>>>>>>>>>>> HAHAHA
>>>>>>>>>>>> Keep dreaming. I chose to stay on topic.
>>>>>>>>>>> You choose not to answer! You've realized the idiocy of your position
>>>>>>>>>>> and are now cowering behind excuses!!! Recess is over, back into kindy?
>>>>>>>>>> Explain how you can have something stolen you never had in the first
>>>>>>>>>> place.
>>>>>>>>> You are the one claiming they never had it, so you need to backfill your
>>>>>>>>> position. If rights are transient, how are they acquired?
>>>>>>>> Prove they had it then.
>>>>>>> Humans are born with the right to defend and protect themselves.
>>>>>> The government decides how you can defend yourself.
>>>>> Perhaps how, but not if.
>>>> It's not a right.
>>>> Try again
>>>>>>> Humans are born with the right to acquire property.
>>>>>> Try being a woman and buying property in any number of Middle Eastern
>>>>>> countries.
>>>>> Another example of a stolen right.
>>>> Nope. Never was a right.
>>>>>>> Humans are born with the right to seek happiness.
>>>>>> Stupid statement
>>>>> Just because you don't seek happiness doesn't mean it is stupid for
>>>>> everyone else. Just keep your misery to yourself, if you please.
>>>> I do seek happiness. But it's got nothing to do with "rights".
>> Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or
>> entitlement;
>Pure crap. And quite easy to prove.
>Right to life.
>Is that a legal, social, or ethical principle? Hardly. The right >exists INDEPENDENT of any principle. The right isn't the principle, it >is the ability and we describe it as a right.
>> that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about
>> what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal
>> system, social convention, or ethical theory.[1]
>So, without that convention, you have no right to life?
>OK, so this convention decrees that man has the natural right to fly. >All of a sudden you flap your arms and are airborne?
>> Rights are of
>> essential importance in such disciplines as law and ethics, especially
>> theories of justice and deontology.
>>> Where do rights come from?
>> Man
>No. Rights come from nature. Man describes them.
How can "NATURE" give you rights? Do the trees all get together for an
Ent Moot and decide?
What the fuck is wrong with you? You'd be laughed out of ANY high
school or college class if you said that.
