2nd Amendment for Dummies
Ernie Alston
>
> >> DW>The National Guard is not the Militia. I am surprised you did not know
> >> >this.
> >>
> >> The National Guard is the Militia of the United States.
> >
> >Sorry, Ernie, but you are wrong. Here's the straight skinny from the USC:
> >
>
> Sorry Max,
> Its right there in your own quote.
From: Max Tindell
>
> >10 USC Sec. 311
> >...
> > (b) The classes of the militia are -
> >
> > (1) the organized militia, which consists of the *National Guard*
> and the Naval Militia; ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>What about the rest of the story:
Rather irrelevent since the first part affirms the National Guard
as the organized Militia of the United States.
Insure Domestic Tranquility.
Ernie.
David E. Young
--
David E. Young
editor - THE ORIGIN OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT: A Documentary History of the
Bill of Rights in Commentaries on Liberty, Free Government, and an Armed
Populace 1787-1792.
dey...@up.net
Ernie Alston <71302...@compuserve.com> wrote in article
<71dqg0$k...@drn.newsguy.com>...
DY: Whoops. Ernie stated that the Army National Guard was "the Militia of
the United States." Ernie did NOT state that the Army National Guard was
the organized militia of the United States. If he had, someone in TPG
might have agreed with him. The founders would not have considered paid
government soldiers, full time or part time, as militia, however. Army
National Guard members are paid government soldiers, are they not?
Patrick O'Connolly
class is working overtime on lies and disinformation.
Year-2000 is coming, the political class expected to have the US disarmed
for Year2000 this has been the goal of the United Nations since its adoption
in the 1940's, world wide disarmament,
Expect to see some BIG-TIME manuafacured crisis in the next year as a
pre-text for GUN CONFISCATION,
If you haven't buried some of your weapon supply already, don't defer.
Expect to see house-to-houser searches, these days the cops have devices
that can find guns anywere in the house, simple hiding in walls or under
floors will not work anymore,
Once their gone, their gone, if you want your children, and their children
to have self defense tools for the future take action. Once the American
people are disarmed expect to see agressors from all over the world to
ascend on the US,
Sincerely,
Dean Payne
> 71302.3415@compuserve, Ernie Alston wrote:
> >
> > >> DW>The National Guard is not the Militia. I am surprised you did not know
> > >> >this.
> > >>
> > >> The National Guard is the Militia of the United States.
> > >
> > >Sorry, Ernie, but you are wrong. Here's the straight skinny from the USC:
> >
> > Sorry Max,
> > Its right there in your own quote.
> From: Max Tindell
> >
> > >10 USC Sec. 311
> > >...
> > > (b) The classes of the militia are -
> > >
> > > (1) the organized militia, which consists of the *National Guard*
> > and the Naval Militia; ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> >What about the rest of the story:
>
> Rather irrelevent since the first part affirms the National Guard
> as the organized Militia of the United States.
Rather irrelevant, as the Second Amendment does not limit itself
to the "organized" portion of the militia.
Dean Payne
> Dean Payne <de...@halcyon.com> wrote:
> > Ernie Alston wrote:
> > > > >10 USC Sec. 311
> > > > >...
> > > > > (b) The classes of the militia are -
> > > > >
> > > > > (1) the organized militia, which consists of the *National Guard*
> > > > and the Naval Militia; ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > >
> > > >What about the rest of the story:
> > >
> > > Rather irrelevent since the first part affirms the National Guard
> > > as the organized Militia of the United States.
> >
> > Rather irrelevant, as the Second Amendment does not limit itself
> > to the "organized" portion of the militia.
>
> Actually it only speaks of the WELL REGULATED militia. One of the definitions
> of WELL REGULATED is ORGANIZED.
>
> Better luck next time.
Had Congress meant "the well regulated milita" and "the unregulated milita",
they wouldn't have confused the issue by switching terminology to "the
organized milita" and "the unorganized milita."
And even if they had, the Court didn't follow suit in 1939.
Better luck next time.
thana...@my-dejanews.com
> > >
> > > >> DW>The National Guard is not the Militia. I am surprised you did not
know
> > > >> >this.
> > > >>
> > > >> The National Guard is the Militia of the United States.
> > > >
> > > >Sorry, Ernie, but you are wrong. Here's the straight skinny from the
USC:
> > >
> > > Sorry Max,
> > > Its right there in your own quote.
> > From: Max Tindell
> > >
> > > >...
> > > > (b) The classes of the militia are -
> > > >
> > > > (1) the organized militia, which consists of the *National Guard*
> > > and the Naval Militia; ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> > >What about the rest of the story:
> >
> > Rather irrelevent since the first part affirms the National Guard
> > as the organized Militia of the United States.
>
> Rather irrelevant, as the Second Amendment does not limit itself
> to the "organized" portion of the militia.
Actually it only speaks of the WELL REGULATED militia. One of the definitions
of WELL REGULATED is ORGANIZED.
Better luck next time.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Scout
thana...@my-dejanews.com wrote in article
<725eh1$2lg$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
Please provide the source for your definition.
David E. Young
--
David E. Young
editor - THE ORIGIN OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT: A Documentary History of the
Bill of Rights in Commentaries on Liberty, Free Government, and an Armed
Populace 1787-1792.
dey...@up.net
thana...@my-dejanews.com wrote in article
DY: The Second Amendment speaks of "A well regulated militia" and that
concept is dependent upon the people having arms and knowing how to use
them. That is why the people's right to keep and bear arms is protected:
"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."
Ernie Alston
EA> Thus Congress came up with two National Guards, and a dual enlistment
> system.
>
> 1) State National Guard, the State Militia.
>
> 2) Federal National Guard (NG of the US) reserve component of the US Army
> reserves.
>
> When the National Guard serves outside the State overseas, the President
> removes the unit from the State National Guard, and transfers it to the
> National Guard of the United States.
>
> *Two* National Guards, one cannot leave the country, the other can, persons
> must enroll in both Guards.
=====================================================================
ME>Just a bit of Congressional Hair Splitting, Ernie. That and nothing
>More.
Translation: "Ernie was right, I just don't want to admit it".
As cited by the Supreme Court the reason the Dual Enlistment system
was created was precisely because the Fed'l Gov't expressed concern
they could not send the State National Guard outside of the United States.
"When the Army made plans to invoke that authority by using National
Guard units south of the Mexican border, Attorney General Wickersham
expressed the opinion that the Militia Clauses precluded such use outside
the Nation's borders.13 In response to that opinion and to the widening
conflict in Europe, in 1916 Congress decided to "federalize" the National
Guard."
PERPICH v. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, 496 U.S. 334 (1990)
Dual Enlistment, and Federalization is the Government's way of getting
around the fact that the State National Guard (because it is the State Militia)
cannot be sent outside the United States.
ME>A man can not serve two masters or operate effectively under two
>sets of rules.
Perhaps so, that is why both National Guards operate under the same rules,
and are regulated by the same Federal Government.
It only has one master at a time. Either the Governor of the State, or the
President of the United States.
ME>They may have two roles to play, but they are under the
>control of the U.S. Government at all times.
Under the regulation of the Fed'l Gov't at all times, but the State
"Governs" it unless the Federal Government calls that part of
Guard into Federal service.
ME>Their primary mission is AWAYS the Federal Mission.
There's no Federal Mission unless they are in Federal service
see the Constitution.
Article I
"for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the
United States"
Insure Domestic Tranquility.
Ernie.
Ernie Alston
says...
>> > Rather irrelevent since the first part affirms the National Guard
>> > as the organized Militia of the United States.
>>
>> Rather irrelevant, as the Second Amendment does not limit itself
>> to the "organized" portion of the militia.
>
>Actually it only speaks of the WELL REGULATED militia. One of the definitions
>of WELL REGULATED is ORGANIZED.
>
>Better luck next time.
Good point.
Insure Domestic Tranquility.
Ernie.
Ernie Alston
>In article <36407efd....@news.flash.net>, csmk...@flash.net says...
>
>SK>Additionally, the Texas National Guard, aka 49th Armored Division, and
>>its subordinate units long have had a "training" mission in Honduras.
>>Also, 420 persons from the 49ths HQ will be going to Bosnia in the very
>>near future. Source, Army Times.
>
EA> That is because they were *Federalized*, transferred from the State
> National Guard to the Federal one for Federal service.
>
SK>The personnel sent to Honduras were NOT federalized. The 420 going to
>Bosnia were federalized.
They were Federalized in both cases.
Perpich v Dept of Defense deals directly with a State's opposition
to *Federalization* of its National Guard for *training* in Honduras.
"the Army National Guard provides 46 percent of the combat units
and 28 percent of the support forces of the Total Army."18 Apparently
gubernatorial consents to *TRAINING* missions were routinely obtained until
1985, when the Governor of California refused to consent to a training
mission for 450 members of the California National Guard in *HONDURAS*, and
the Governor of Maine shortly thereafter refused to consent to a similar
mission. Those incidents led to the enactment of the Montgomery Amendment and
this litigation ensued."
Perpich v. Dept. of Defense, 496 U.S. 334 (1990)
SK> In the first case was a TRAINING mission not requiring federalization.
If a training mission did not require Federalization they why did
the Governors of California, and Maine veto such training missions
in 1985 ?
Because they held the authority to veto Federalization of the Guard
for any reason at the time. The Montgomery Amendment reduced that
veto authority by denying the States such authority if the reason
is they don't like the location or purpose of the mission.
All Federal training Missions require Federalization, State training Missions
do not. Both of the above were "Federal" Missions.
See the Constitution..
"reserving to the States respectively... the authority of training the Militia
according to the discipline presecribed by Congress"
The State National Guard is the State Militia , thus the Federal Government
cannot send the State Militia on a training mission. Training of the Militia is
exclusively a State power. The Federal Government cannot train the Militia.
The NG is Federalized so that the actual training is done as the "Army"
which the Federal Government does have authority to train.
SK>The second case people are being sent into harm's way and must be >
federalized.
Faulty logic , harms way can be within the State itself (insurrections,etc).
The logical argument isn't working for you here.
SK>There is an annual joint training exercise of regular Army, Navy, AF
>plus foreign national troops, (German, English and some French) plus
>non-federalized National Guard and Reserve components. The exercise is
>REFORGER REturn of FORces to GERmany.... This exercise takes place in
>Germany---not the NTC in Souther Cal, but OCONUS.
>
>Ernie, to put it bluntly, you just don't know what you are talking
>about.
Well apparently I do, and the evidence affirms so.
We see Mr Kersh denies that the NG must be Federalized to go on Federal
training missions.
This contradicts the US Code, the Supreme Court, and US Constitution itself.
* The US Code States in Title 10 the National Guard of the State is the
organized Militia of that State.
* The Constitution in Article I sect 8 affirms the authority for training
the State Militia (ie State NG) belongs to the States, not the Federal
Government.
* The Supreme Court affirmed that via Federal Law a Federal training
mission occurs after the NG has been Federalized, and this cannot
occur without the Governors approval (excepting the Montgomery Amendment
provisions).
The Supreme Court, the Federal laws, and the Constitution all affirm the
State National Guard cannot leave the country for training unless
"Federalized".
Mr Kersh also insists people sent in harms way must be federalized,
this of course contradicts the State authority to use the NG
to protect against invasion, suppress insurrections, and execute its
laws.
Insure Domestic Tranquility.
Ernie.
Ernie Alston
>> Thus is also includes any internal commerce that significantly
>> affects National commerce.
GL)Hi Ernie,
Hello Greg,
enjoying this discussion, your making some very interesting
and compelling points, thanks.
EA> Perhaps some of those things and others (lack of uniform firearms
> regulations among the States) are true.
>GL)Why would a lack of "uniform firearm regulations among the States"
>cause any kind of National "gun" problem?
Neigboring State having loose, or no gun regulations, defeat gun regulations
of the other States. All the States would need the same or similar regulations
for them to have any substantial effect. Uniformity is the key to dealing
with National issues or problems.
>GL)Lets go with your scenario. We have a company that has a
>manufacturing process that either, the process its self or the
>byproduct of the process not being properly disposed of or handled,
>and is polluting a river, and that pollution is crossing state lines
>and harming an industry in another state, we have to go on the
>assumption that the local state government is not doing, or is not
>going to do anything to stop the pollution, or to prevent it from
>crossing state lines, so the Federal government needs to step in to
>arbitrate the dispute. what they should then do, is see if the problem
>is company specific or an industry wide problem. If it is a company
>specific problem (poor maintenance, improper disposal of waste...ect)
>then they could simple direct the company to fix the deficiencies or
>suffer fines, and possible criminal prosecution (for the destruction
>of the other states property (the river/fishing industry)) If they
>determine it is an industry wide problem (the manufacture of a product
>produces toxic waste, or labor hours, safety... ect) then they could
>set down industry wide standards.
>
>GL)(I went along way to agree with you didn't I?)
I guess so, but what you describe is already the case. How is it
different from the sweeping national regulations you apparently
oppose ?
Isn't that what we have now, the Federal Government sets uniform
regulations applicable in all the States. Thus all companies in the same
industry follow them, those that don't are subject to fines and penalties.
What is your distinction here ?
>GL)Although, I think most disputes between States could be handled at
>a State level, and that would reduce Federal government interference.
Its seems that was not the case in the 18th century, thus Congress was
given the National Commerce power. Such disputes it was feared would
lead to war among the States. I think there would be many disputes
between the States today clogging up the Courts if not for this power.
>GL)Also what would be an acceptable level of regulation over my right
>to self-defense?
Like I said before, the right is not regulated, the firearms as objects of
commerce are.
GL)And what would be and acceptable level of regulation over *our*
>right as a people that have come together to live in a civil society,
>and yet still retain the necessary power to be able to enforce *our*
>right to remove the people that *we* *allow* to run our government?
If your asking what I believe would be an acceptable level of
firearms regulations... If Congress were considering uniform regulations
and I had the ear of a member of the Committee drafting the Bill I
would suggest the following.
All regulations uniform among the States (ie National regulations).
License requirement, and mandatory background check for
arms purchase. Limited ability to re-sell or transfer. Meaning the
owner is legally responsible for the weapon until it is transferred
to another responsible person (ie the transferee goes through the same
checks,etc).
Mandatory training (especially for self-defense) which includes
learning about the relevant laws of the State, and Union. What
actions with the arm are legal. Proper storage, maintenance,etc.
(limited to type, not required if training for the same type or class
of arm is already posessed).
Every 30 days the owner be required to affirm they are in secure
posession of the arm (a simple look at it would suffice). Else
within 15 days after report the loss of the weapon. (to assist in
limiting access to legally purchased arms to criminals). If
a crime is commited with the weapon after this period and
they fail to report its loss, the owner could be subject to
criminal and civil penalties. (we could make exceptions for
those away from home longer periods than that)
Perhaps annual or bi-annual re-fresher training wouldn't hurt
The type of training I would be thinking of would be something
like in a simulator where possible scenarios could be thrown
at the person, and they would learn how to act in a crisis.
(I can't say how much this would cost perhaps $250 a session
(1 hour) which is about what is costs to rent an older
full motion Flight Simulator) But I'd suspect such a simulator
would be cheaper than a Flight Simulator)
Going to Court, and saying I didn't know or I panicked
or I was temporarily insane would be largely un-acceptable
as the the above would affirm the person was sain, responsible,
trained, and aware of the law.
I would not be opposed to allowing the manufacture, and distribution
of so-called assault weapons or other types banned by the State and
Federal Government. But I have no problem with them being banned
either.
EA> Who would impose this injuction, the Federal Government ?
> It can only make rules of Commerce, it can't make laws
> specifically designed to limit the actions of one business.
> The act would have to apply to every business meeting the
> criteria specified.
>GL)Isn't that what they are doing to Microsoft right now? (our at
>least trying to)
The Government has requesting the 'Court' impose the injunction,
the Federal Government requests it based on whatever evidence
they have obtained regarding companies practices.
As you can see this is a very lengthy process.
>GL)Agreed, (but we can't just ignore what commerce powers the
>government may want) we need to think about the future, and if we
>continue to allow the State and Federal governments to pass laws and
>regulations that prohibit/inhibit our rights of defense as individuals
>and as a society. Then we and furure generation are truly slaves.
It seems to me we don't just ignore the commerce powers of government.
They are challenged in the Courts all the time.
Didn't the successfull challenge to parts of the CDA benefit persons
on this NG ?
> The problem is that property and Commerce are often intermingled.
> The Government would have no authority in just about any commercial
> matter if property rights were absolute.
>GL)You just about answered your own statement, when you said "any
>commercial matter" so, yes there can be some regulation in commercial
>matters (isn't that kinda what commerce is) but in things/property
>personal, the government would have very.. very.. little power.
How so ? Commerce is 'intercourse', that includes trade, transportation,
communication, and things related to it.
Most personal items usually don't become personal until they
are acquired by the person via an act of commerce. Its these acts
that is subject to regulation.
EA> In early laws prohibiting foreign imports seem to affirm
> Congress can make rules in all areas of National and Foreign
> Commerce.
>GL)I honestly don't know about the foreign import laws, but one thing
>that comes to mind is the prohibition of bringing ivory into the US.
>If I as an individual went to another country, that sold ivory in an
>open market, then I should NOT be prevented from bringing it home. I
>may be scum in some eyes but I should not be made a criminal.
But you do seem to agree a defective or dangerous product
should BE prevented from being brought home.
The power of such prohibition appears general, not limited
to any particular type of commerce. But would apply to
all types of National or foreign commerce.
You seem to be more opposed to certain acts, rather than the
general power itself though.
> Does not Congress posess the Commerce authority to say this
> arm is defective thus it cannot manufactured or sold anymore ?
>GJ)Sure, but that would be handled as a safety issue, (kinda like a
>recall) and there would not be any reason to ban all other weapons
>(even if the manufacturer produced another weapon with new designs to
>be safer but with the same *look* and the same name) I can't think of
>any gun owners that would not be in favor of fixing a flawed design in
>a weapon.
It seems to me those that supported Federal arms prohition (iw
AW bans,etc) seemed to cite 'public safety' as the reason.
So then your disagreement would be as to the "opinion" it
actually was a safety issue, rather than the authority to impose the
prohibition if your agreed it was a safety issue.
If the public believed such regulation was for safetly (and
this generally seems to have been the case) isn't such
regulation then valid ?
>GL)On the issue of "protect the public from harm" the best things that
>can be done is to bring back some interest in firearms, remove the
>boogie man factor that surrounds firearms now, get more safety courses
>going, open more ranges for practice, and then you must address the
>criminal and negligent people with sever punishment/deterrent.
That would appear to be a job for the firearms proponents certainly
not the Federal Government. The 'boogie man' factor seems to be
perpetuated by the press more than anyone else.
But clearly support for firearms is much greater in rural
than in urban areas. The country is increasingly becoming
more urban and sub-urban it would seem an uphill battle.
EA>denying such regulation or prohibtion
> of even of one arm, basically denies regulation for just about
> any act of Commerce.
>GL)No, not as long as commercial and personal property are kept
> separated.
They are already separate, the point is personal property becomes
such in many cases only after an act of commerce.
It is not personal property until after the act of commerce is
completed, and the owner has purchased the object. At this time
Federal regulatory authority does not apply.
Which is why the Federal Government can force a manufacturer
to install seat bealts in a car, but once you posess the same
car it cannot forbid you as the owner from removing the same
belts.
The former is commercial, the latter is personal.
GL)No it doesn’t, and we must define what an "arm" is.
EA> Where will you place a limit ?, assault weapons, Bazooka's (you
> knew this was coming right ?),
>
>GL)yes :-)
>
>ICBM's, Nuclear weapons ?.
>GL)I think that most people (the firearm owners like myself that are
>pissed off) would agree that "crew" operated weapons would not be
>appropriate for personal ownership (just the up keep would be a bitch)
Of course the more technology is applied to weapons the less "crew"
operated they become.
EA> Does the 2nd protect "arms" or the "right" to bear arms ?
>GL)It protects our (mine and yours) right to defend ourselves and our
>society.
An as free people we have as much a right to be armed, as not
to be armed, correct ?
Thus do not those who choose not to be armed if they are the
greater number have a right to impose regulations on those
that choose to be armed ? (as long as the Constitution is
not violated)
People in cities like New York seem to prefer allowing only
a few select people to be armed. That appears to be their
choice and right as a community to infringe on this right
of the people.
So perhaps it is a right only if the people choose it be. The
Fed'l Government is prohibited from interfering with it
either way.
EA> What makes a Howitzer or anything larger different or special?
>GL)Crew manned weapon.
What if technology enabled a single person to operate the same weapon ?
Insure Domestic Tranquility.
Ernie.
Ernie Alston
>
> Well if there was only one National Guard I might have been wrong.
>
>Well, Ernie, you are wrong.........
>
>U.S.C. TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
>...
>
>§ 311. Militia: composition and classes
>...
> (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.
>
>U.S.C. TITLE 32 - NATIONAL GUARD
>...
>§ 101. Definitions
>...
> (3) "National Guard" means the Army National Guard and the Air
> National Guard.
> (4) "Army National Guard" means that part of the organized militia
> of the several States and Territories....
Interesting how Mr Kersh's pasting of section 101 stops at
defintion # 4, but does not include Definition #5.
As we see Definition #5 affirms that I was correct, its unfortunate
Mr Kersh did not see it.
" (5) "Army National Guard of the United States" means the reserve component of
the Army all of whose members are members of the Army"
>§ 10104. Army Reserve: composition
>
>The Army Reserve includes all Reserves of the Army who are not members
>of the Army National Guard of the United States.
Well I can see how a reading of this section in light of missing
definition #5 of section 101 in Title 32 could lead you to the wrong
conclusion.
However section 10104 refers to full time components of the National
Guard of the United States, not the National Guards of the States.
The National Guards of the States when not Federalized are not the
Army reserves, section 10104 affirms this.
See section 10107 below.
"§ 10107. Army National Guard of the United States: status when not in
Federal service.
"When not on active duty, members of the Army National Guard of the United
States shall be administered, armed, equipped, and trained in their"
status as members of the Army National Guard.
The Army National Guard is the State Militia and not the Army reserves.
When Federalized its units and personnel are transferred to the National
Guard of the United States (see 101 def # 5 above) and are no longer
part of the State Militia (State NG) during this period of Federal service.
Note the distinction in section 101 between the 'two' National Guards.
Army National Guard (State Militia)
Army National Guard of the United States (Army reserves)
Insure Domestic Tranquility.
Ernie.
Ernie Alston
>
EA> There are *TWO* National Guards.
>
>No, Ernie. there is only ONE National Guard. Your apparent confusion is
>when the Guard is under the sponsoring states control as a
>non-federalized unit and when the same unit has been federalized in time
>of national emergency.
As pointed out to you in another post section 101 of Title 32
(def's # 4 & 5) clearly defined 'two' National Guards.
Army National Guard (State Militia)
Army National Guard of the United States (Army reserves)
The Supreme Court in Perpich vs Dept of Defense in 1990, as
well as the District Court in 1988 both also affirmed
the existence of 'two' National Guards.
The Federal Government in its own arguments before both Courts
also stated there are 'two' separate, and distinct National Guards.
SK>You appear to be further confused by thinking
>the non-federlized NG is the "militia." Again, wrong. It is merely a
>portion of the ORGANIZED militia. There is also the unorganized
>militia.
I never claimed the National Guard was the entire Militia, or denied
that there are other parts of the Militia. In fact in this thread
I posted Title 10, and affirmed the National Guard is part of the
'organized' Militia of the United States.
When I say it in the context that its 'status' is that of the State
Militia (as opposed to the status of army reserves). The same way the
Supreme Court in Perpich v Dept of Defense used the term.
So this hair-splitting point of yours is moot.
EA> 1) The State National Guard , the State Militia.
>
>
SK>The "State National Guard" is a contradiction of terms....
No it is not. Arizona is a State, it has a National Guard
called the Arizona National Guard.
The Arizona National Guard is the State National Guard of Arizona.
There's only one National Guard in each State, that is the State National
Guard.
Sorry no contradiction there, just more useless hair-splitting
on your part.
SK> Shows just how confused Ernie is or possibly how he hopes to confuse
>others.... >Some states do have a "State Guard" but it is not to be
>confused with the National Guard. Texas is an example of this. There
>is a Texas State Guard. It is also subject to call up during emergencies,
> but rarely happens.
The State National Guard, is the National Guard of that state.
In this case it would be the Texas National Guard.
The Texas State 'Guard' is a defense force Texas is authorized
by Congress in Title 32 section 109(c) to have "in addition"
to its National Guard.
SK>Texas also has a National Guard- the 49th Armored Division and its
>subordinate units. Not to be confused with the Army Reserve (Ernie, are
>you paying attention?) There are 420 members of the 49th HQ section
>being "federalized" for duty in Bosnia - most likely a tour of 179 days.
>This limits benefits due the solders and stops the Army from a PCS.
This mistaken view of course comes from Mr Kersh' reading
of section 101 defintions 1-4, and failure to read definition #5
which states...
(5) "Army National Guard of the United States" means the reserve component of
the Army all of whose members are members of the Army"
The National Guard when Federalized is transferred to the National Guard
of the United States which is part of the US Army reserves.
SK>The National Guard and Reserves are t very distinct units with even more
>distinct missions. The Guard are line units. The Army NG will be light
>Infantry, Armor, AAA, etc. The Reserves will be support units, MASH,
>Civil Affairs, Psyops, TC, Intel, etc.
The National Guard of the United States is part of the US Army reserves
see definition #5 in section 101 of Title 32. You missed it the first time.
Perhaps you are referring to reserve units that are not National Guard.
This does not change the fact that the National Guard when Federalized
is part of the US Army reserves (see Title 32 101 def's 4 & 5).
EA> The *State* National Guard cannot be sent outside of the
> United States.
>
>
SK>If Ernie means the non-federalized National Guard, he is still wrong.
>Both the Army Reserve and the non-federalized National Guard can be sent
>on training missions outside the United States.
Non federalized National Guard is the State Militia under the authority
of the Governor of a State. State's do not have the authority to send their
Militia outside the United States.
NG units which are wholly Federal (and already part of the army reserves
(see Title 32 101 def #5)) , are not Federalized because they are already
Federal troops.
Federalization of the NG is the transfer of its 'status' as the State
Militia to its status as the army reserves. (ie transfer from the State
National Guard to the Federal National Guard).
SK>quickly find a member of a Air national Guard unit and ask if they fly
>missions OCONUS. You will find that overseas training flights are the norm,
>>not the exception.
Yes..So..Federalization is the norm as well.
Ask the State Governor's office, and you'll find the Governor
routinely grants permission to Federalize the State National Guard.
As some Governors just recently did to allow NG units into Central America
to provide relief missions.
Perpich vs Dept of Defense also noted this granted Gubernatorial permission
for Federalization was the norm.
Federalization is not an unsual act, Governor's routinely grant permission
for Federalization of the National Guard for training missions inside and
outside the United States.
SK> Call your local NG Bureau or Reserve Regional Support
>Command. Ask them to explain were and what the joint force training
>mission REFORGER consists of in the way of multi-nation troops plus
>non-fedrlaized NG and Reserve units.
It possible you are referring to components of the National Guard
of the United States who are wholly Federal. Meaning they are always
in Federal service (and do not dually enlist) unlike other NG components
which are only in temporary Federal service, when not in Federal Service
are part of the State Militia.
But of Course you deny there are 'two' National Guards.
Since Federalization of the NG means to transfer units of one NG to the
other NG, your claim of non-federalization of these units may not
necessarily be valid.
And as has been shown you in Title 32 (Def # 5) the NG when Federalized
is indeed the US Army reserves.
SK>Ernie, I suggest you take a basic reading comprehension course. Mike
>said, "The National Guard is NOT the Militia," This is correct; it is a
>part of the organized militia.
You got your contexts mixed up.
Mike said it in the context of denying that any part of the National
Guard was the Militia organized or un-organized. He insisted it
was only part of the Army Reserves.
You of course disagree with Mike and state it is not part of the Army
reserves, but only part of the organized State Militia.
Split hairs and call it part the 'organized' Militia if you will, I don't
disagree with that.
The State Militia may have several components depending on how the State
defines it, but that always includes the National Guard of that State
when not Federalized per Federal law.
Insure Domestic Tranquility.
Ernie.
Ernie Alston
SH> >Tell that to Gov. Perpich.
>
EA> Gov Perpich was well aware of this which is why he challenged
> Federalization of the Guard.
SH>Yep, and what was the final result?
* The veto authority of the Governer is Congressional prerogative
not Constitutional mandate.
* The Governor cannot veto Federalization because he doesn't like
the Mission or its location, but he can for other reasons.
* There are two separate and distinct National Guard's, Federalization
discharges the units from the State Militia, and activates them in the
Army reserves till the completion of Federal service where then the
reverse occurs.
SH>He was told he did not have the power to prevent the federalization and
>exportation of the State National Guard. Oh, I agree they may have changed
>names, but the men were the same, and the result was the same. Those in the
>State National Guard turned their hats around and went overseas.
The sent the Army overseas not the State National Guard. This
gets around the Constitutional limitation on sending State Militia
units outside the country.
SH> As a result leaving the State with NO National Guard.
Well the Perpich Court did not agree with that. The Federal Government
usually only federalized a small part of the Minnesota Guard, so the claim of
the State having no National Guard was rejected.
Insure Domestic Tranquility.
Ernie.
Ernie Alston
EA> The term "well regulated" existed prior to any such proposals,
> the Bill of Rights did not change the meaning of the term.
S>You mean like the historical useage like a "well regulated" clock, or a
>"well regulated" shotgun, or a "well regulated" electorate?
Exactly.
S>So tell us, oh wise one, what exactly was the meaning of "well regulated"
>prior to the 2nd?
Relating to as Hamilton put it "degree of perfection".
WRT to a clock it would mean precise as in running well with precise
"regular" intervals.
WRT to a Militia would mean well exercised, well drilled, well practice,
etc,etc.
EA> The purpose was to ensure the States had a defense resource
> affirmed by the clause "to the security of a free State".
>Excuse me, but in this clause the term State does not refer to a political
>boundary, but rather a status or condition, specifically the condition of
>being free, as opposed to an enslaved or oppressed state.
No it doesn't, that would be an inconsistent usage of "State" as
it is used in the rest of the Constitution.
'State' everywhere else in the Constitution refers respectively to each
of the Several States (ie Commonwealths).
The usage in the 2nd Amendment is no different than its usage elsewhere in
the Constitution.
'A Free State' refers to the right of a Commonwealth to govern itself.
A free State, not a colony of a crown or the Union, but a Free
Commonwealth who by its own choice joined the Union, and retained
the right to govern itself.
S>However, let's say this is true. Are not the armed citizens of a State a
>defense resource?
Yes, which is why the 2nd Amendment prohibits the Federal Government
from infringing upon that resources right to keep and bear arms.
EA> The phrases "composed of the body of the people" and "trained to arms"
> though proposed, do *NOT* exist in the 2nd Amendment of the
> Constitution.
S>Right, since such terms were redundent. However, what you also fail to note
>is that in BOTH cases the right is specifically recognized as that of the
>people, NOT the militia, and a reason is presented why protecting this
>right is a Good Thing (tm).
See my other posts in this thread to Mr Young I already stated several
times the right has no relation to the Militia.
Mr Young asserts a relationship between the Militia and the right
to keep and bear arms. I assert as far as the 2nd Amendment is
concerned the prohibition itself on the Government has no relation
to the Militia.
EA> Thus any such claim that the Militia is to be of such a composition
> is not supported in the 2nd Amendment or anywhere else in the
> Constitution.
S>Perhaps, but it remains that the composititon of the militia is irrelevent,
>since the protected right is that of the people.
I agree, now if we could only convince Mr Young.
EA> The term "well-regulated" was defined in Federalist #29 by framer
> well qualified to know precisely what it means.
>
>Sorry, but what is stated in #29 is NOT a definition, if you look closely
>you see that a MEANS to obtain the status of well regulated is given, NOT a
>definition.
Perhaps so, but clearly within the 'means' must also be the Defintion.
As without the means there is no well regulated Militia, he thus has
defined what requirements are needed for a force to become
a well regulated Militia.
Thus Hamilton has also indirectly and clearly defined what a
well regulated Militia is.
S>Further, since you stated that the meaning of well regulated did not alter,
>if you wish to put forth the arguement that Hamilton's definition of "well
>regulated" meant well trained then you have to explain to us exactly how
>one goes about training a clock or a shotgun. Needless to say inanimate
>objects generally aren't trainable in any sense.
The context of the discussion was clearly regarding the 'Militia', thus
well-regulated was used in the same concept, not in general.
S>Then let's expand the discussion a bit. You state #29 defines the
>definition of well regulated. Since you quote Hamilton as a source, then
>you must also accept his definition of a militia as defined in #28.
> "The militia is a voluntary force not associated
> with, or under the control of, the state except
> when called out; a permanent or long standing
> force would be entirely different in makeup
> and call."
>
> Alexander Hamilton Federalist Paper #28
Interesting, I could not find this passage in Federalist # 28
or in any other Federalist paper.
You sure its there ?
>So let's assume for a moment that you are correct and Hamilton defines well
>regulated in #29. So what does that get us?
>
> "A well trained voluntary force not associated
> with, or under the control of, the state except
> when called out."
>
You sure this is from Fed #29 ? I could not find this or any phrases like
it anywhere in the Federalist papers .
S>That's hardly what you've been claiming a well regulated militia is.
>So are you going to deny your own source for definitions now?
Your quote doesn't appear to be from Federalist #29.
See below.
"A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that
requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that
will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of
the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under
arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and
evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of
perfection which would entitle them to the character of a *well-
regulated militia*, would be a real grievance to the people, and a
serious public inconvenience and loss."
Federalist # 29.
Note the key phrases.
- "military movements"
- "time and practice"
- "military exercises and evolutions"
- "degree of perfection"
Notice how the term "degree of perfection" relates to the definition
of a 'well regulated clock' ?
> The sources Mr Young cites merely affirm that the combination
> of *both* a well regulated Militia *and* a composition
> of the body of the people is the best, and most
> natural defense of a Free State or Country.
>
>Ok, so tell us, if the idea is to provide the BEST defense then wouldn't it
>follow that the first step is to insure that the body of the people have
>the MEANS to become trained and/or effective?
No because as Hamilton noted in Federalist # the economic, and social expense
at trying to get the entire body of the people to achieve the "degree of
perfection" needed for them to obtain the character of a well regulated Militia
would be far too costly, and futile to even try.
> Well Regulated Militia relates to Military capability, and
> efficiency, not composition.
>In part, true, but what the militia clearly is not is any force under or
>associated with the government except when called out.
How does your statement above deal with the obvious contradiction
in Article I of the Constitution.
The Congress shall...
"provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia.."
Insure Domestic Tranquility.
Ernie.
Ernie Alston
> But unlike you, and the others who responded incorrectly I'm
> aware there are *TWO* National Guards.
>
> 1) State National Guard (State Militia)
>
> 2) National Guard of the United States (Federal) (US Army reserves).
>
>
>These are (two separate forces), with two separate laws administering >
>___________________ (Not True)
Sorry its true, see U.S.C Title 10 for the one force, and Title 32
for the other force.
The Supreme Court in Perpich v Dept of Defense as already shown
you affirms this.
> Again, I say the same thing, Ernie. Congressional Hair Splitting. The
>people are the same no matter who they happen to be working for at any
>given time. It's the SAME People in the SAME unit using the SAME
>equipment. It's a very nice LEGAL way for the President and the
>Congress to take control over the objection of the State.
That's the point its as you said its a *LEGAL* way (ie Constitutional).
It would be IL-LEGAL for the State Militia to be sent outside the
United State so instead the Army is sent. They acheived this by making
the same personell join the Army at the same time as the Militia.
The Supreme Court prior to dual enlistment affirmed the entire Militia
or parts of it could be enrolled in the regular Army. That is what
Federaliaztion does.
ME> This is EXACTLY what the Founders and Framers were afraid would
>happen. It's also one of the reasons that the 2nd Amendment is so damn
>important.
The framers wanted the State to have a Militia, but it be uniformly
regulated by the Federal Government. That is what we have now.
ME> No matter what happens, the RIGHT of the PEOPLE to keep and
>bear Arms is still a fallback position if Congress or the President
>abuse their powers.
I agree that's the prohibition in the 2nd Amendment.
ME> The Militia talked about in the 2nd Amendment is not a part of any
>Federal or State Force. It's the PEOPLE themselves. Since Article 1,
>Section 8, is not under discussion in this thread, let's stick to the
>2nd Amendment. It was, after all, written well after the original
>Constitution and for an entirely different purpose.
The Militia is a State force it has always been a State force this
includes well before the Constitution.
Okay lets stick to the 2nd Amendment
It says clearly "necessary to the security of a free *STATE*"
Insure Domestic Tranquility.
Ernie.
Ernie Alston
RT>For someone who is generally likeable you have a tendency sometimes to
>be an imperious little twit.
Translation: "Rather than admit Ernie was right, I will continue to resort to
childish name calling."
RT> Perpich v. Dept. of Defense, 496 U.S. 334 (1990)
>
>Which says basically just what we have been saying...that a state
>*national* guard unit called up for training purposes,
So......then you "are" ackowledging a *State* *National* Guard.
Look at your previous Statement again (in the same post I might add).
EA> 1) The State National Guard , the State Militia.
RT > No, that is called the State Guard. Do you notice the absence of the
> word "national"?
Hmmm I say "State National Guard", Mr Thompson denies the existence of
such a thing.
Lets continue.
EA> The *State* National Guard cannot be sent outside of the
> United States.
RT>Take the word "national" out of your statement and I will agree with
>you.
Hmmm again note the second denial from Mr Thompson.
Yet in the very same post Mr Thompson tries to claim he (or rather we)
said the "a state national guard unit called up for training purposes".
(notice the word "national" is there)
Mr Thompson your trying so hard to back pedal out of this that your
contradictiing yourself along the way.
Give up already.
Insure Domestic Tranquility.
Ernie.
Ernie Alston
>
EA> That is because they were *Federalized*, transferred from the State
> National Guard to the Federal one for Federal service.
>
> "The State National Guard cannot be sent outside of the United States".
>
> Look up "Federalize" and "Dual Enlistment".
ME> Ernie: I had a nice long chat with the Operations Officer of the
>Washington State National Air Guard. He says you are wrong. 100
>percent of their orders come from the Federal Government. The State
>has no authority over their operations. They do NOT wear two hats;
>State and Federal. They are part of the Federal Forces 24 hours a day,
>seven days a week; on or off duty. They can be used by the State at the
>discretion of the Federal Government. It doesn't work the other way around.
>They carry FEDERAL ID cards issued by the Department of
>Defense. They don't carry State Guard ID's
Well then he is also wrong.
The Federal Government uses the National Guard at the discretion
of the State (see the explanation of this in Perpich v Dept of Defense).
If this person you referred to joined the Army or Air National Guard of his
State then he would have made two oath's (two Hats).
See below..
>§ 304. Enlistment oath
>
>Each person enlisting in the National Guard shall sign an enlistment contract
>>and subscribe to the following oath: "I do hereby acknowledge to have
>voluntarily enlisted this _ _ day of _ _ _ _, 19_, in the _ _ _ _ _ _ National
>>Guard of the State of _ _ _ _ _ _ for a period of _ _ year(s) under the
>conditions prescribed by law, unless sooner discharged by proper authority.
>
>"I, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and
>>defend the Constitution of the United States and of the State of _ _ _ _ _ _
>against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and
>>allegiance to them; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the
>United States and the Governor of _ _ _ _ _ _ and the orders of the officers
>>appointed over me, according to law and regulations. So help me
>God." The oath may be taken before any officer of the National Guard of the
>>State or Territory, or of Puerto Rico, or the District of Columbia, as
>the case may be, or before any other person authorized by the law of the
>>jurisdiction concerned to administer oaths of enlistment in the National
>Guard.
Note the mention of *BOTH* the President of the United States and
the Governor of the State.
He may very well carry Federal ID's, but he is in service to the
State unless, and until Federalized if he took the dual oath's
above, and is a member of the National Guard of his State.
ME> Now, you may feel free to do all the hair splitting you care to. It
>bothers me not at all. I know how it works and that, is that! Please
>try one thing though. Pick up the telephone and call the Guard Unit in
>your State. Talk to the commanding officer and find out for yourself.
>Those people are very easy to get along with and they really enjoy
>discussing their mission. There's a lot of PRIDE in those outfits.
I don't need to talk to Guard units in my state.
I only have to look where the evidence clearly shows you to be
wrong.
The Federal Laws (Title 10, and Title 32),and the Supreme Court,
and District Courts of the United States (Perpich vs Dept of Defense).
* The Federal Laws in Title 10, and Title 32 define, and administer
"two" separate and distinct National Guards.
* The Federal Government it its own arguments before the District
and Supreme Courts asserted that "it" created "two" separate and
distinct National Guards.
* The US District Court after examining the laws for themselves
concluded the National Guard is *two* separate and distinct
Military organizations.
* The US Supreme Court after examining the same laws for themselves
came to the same conclusion the National Guard is *two* separate
and distinct Military organizations.
* The Governor of Minnesota (Rudy Perpich) in the same case affirmed
that he had the National Guard under "his" authority unless and
until they were Federalized, and that "he" held Veto authority over
Federal callouts. It was the modification of "his" veto authority
that the Governor challenged.
Now for whatever reasons you have, you have avoided this
clear, compelling, and overwheling evidence like the plague.
The operations officer disagree's with the Federal laws,
his own Government, the United States Supreme Court, and
the former Governor of the State of Minnesota.
That either makes you both wrong, or you are not providing him
with the above evidence for him to examine himself.
Perhaps the operations officer should make a call to the
Governors office or to the office of the Secretary of the Army.
He will find that the Secretary of the Army requests the Governors
permission to call out the National Guard, not the other way around.
Perhaps you should show your source(s) Title's 10 and 32,
of the US Code and Supreme Court decision Perpich vs
the Dept of defense, then see what they say.
In fact better yet, show them this very post.
Because I am sure that upon examination of this evidence
they will change their opinion.
Insure Domestic Tranquility.
Ernie.
James F. Mayer
"the right of the well regulated militia and only the well regulated
militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", does it?
James F. Mayer
Alston) writes:
>
(sniip()
>
>There's no Federal Mission unless they are in Federal service
>see the Constitution.
>
>Article I
>
>"for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of
the
> United States"
>
\
They are ALL paid by the feds and thus are THEIR employees at all
times. When has the National Guard, in recent times, been paid
directly out of STATE funds?
James F. Mayer
in "state" of being free?
Theodore M. Seeber
> > Okay lets stick to the 2nd Amendment
> >
> > It says clearly "necessary to the security of a free *STATE*"
> >
> Were they talking about a plot of real estate or the condition as
> in "state" of being free?
I'd say the first is obvious. What is *NOT* obvious is whether we're
talking about a plot of real estate or a subplot of real estate, ie, the
federal or "State" level. Both are implied.
But it certainally is NOT talking about a condition as in "state" of being
free, that usage of the word state was not in use until the 1960s with
"states" of consciousness.
Ted
mailto:seebe...@bigfoot.com
http://www.teleport.com/~seebert
Click here for your official 1998 IDIC how to be an anarchist spoof:
http://www.teleport.com/~seebert/howto.html
Eric Pinnell
Frank Ney wrote:
> The doctrine for that is simple: you search, we shoot.
>
> Police and military are outnumbered by gun owners 10 to 1.
Incorrect. Somewhere between 50 and 100 to 1.
> A good portion
> of those gun owners are ex-military, able to form a cadre of leaders.
Better to form organizations BEFORE the crackdown so that you will knowwhat
to do.
> House-to-house isn't going to happen any time soon. Word would spread too
> quickly, and outside the area there would be some that would take
> pre-emptive action.
I suspect the feds will wait 20 or 30 years until their mandatory
registration
has built up a list of who owns what. Then the "Dear Sir, you have an illegal
gun model XYZ number 12345. Please surrender it or we will arrest you" letters
will be sent out..
Eric Pinnell
Frank Ney
"Patrick O'Connolly" <p...@hevanet.com> to write:
>If you haven't buried some of your weapon supply already, don't defer.
>Expect to see house-to-houser searches, these days the cops have devices
>that can find guns anywere in the house, simple hiding in walls or under
>floors will not work anymore,
The doctrine for that is simple: you search, we shoot.
Police and military are outnumbered by gun owners 10 to 1. A good portion
of those gun owners are ex-military, able to form a cadre of leaders.
House-to-house isn't going to happen any time soon. Word would spread too
quickly, and outside the area there would be some that would take
pre-emptive action.
Frank Ney WV/EMT-B N4ZHG LPWV NRA(L) GOA CCRKBA JPFO
Sponsor, BATF Abuse page http://www.access.digex.net/~croaker/batfabus.html
West Virginia Coordinator, Libertarian Second Amendment Caucus
Fan Guest of Honor, Technicon 16 http://www.technicon.org
- --
"Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?"
"Uhh, I think so, Brain, but how are we going to get all of the computers to
fail all at the same time?"
M. Eglestone
>
> 304. Enlistment oath
> Each person enlisting in the National Guard shall sign an enlistment contract
> and subscribe to the following oath: "I do hereby acknowledge to have
> voluntarily enlisted this _ _ day of _ _ _ _, 19_, in the _ _ _ _ _ _ National
> Guard of the State of _ _ _ _ _ _ for a period of _ _ year(s) under the
> conditions prescribed by law, unless sooner discharged by proper authority.
>
> "I, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and
> defend the Constitution of the United States (and) of the State of _ _ _ _ _ _
> against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and
> allegiance to them; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the
> United States (and) the Governor of _ _ _ _ _ _ and the orders of the officers
> appointed over me, according to law and regulations. So help me
> God." The oath may be taken before any officer of the National Guard of the
> State or Territory, or of Puerto Rico, or the District of Columbia, as
> the case may be, or before any other person authorized by the law of the
> jurisdiction concerned to administer oaths of enlistment in the National
> Guard.
>
> Note the mention of *BOTH* the President of the United States and
> the Governor of the State.
>
> He may very well carry Federal ID's, but he is in service to the
> State unless, and until Federalized if he took the dual oath's
============================================================================
Take note of the words (and) in that oath of enlistment. If the
outfit was to be considered two separate forces, the word (OR) would
have been used. There is also a clear line of authority established.
The Constitution of the US is first, the State Second. The President
of the United States first, the Governor of the State second.
All power flows from the top down. The National Guard in any State is
a Federal Force which serves at the discretion of Congress. The
president may, at any time, deny the use of the National Guard to the
State or the Governor of that State. Governor George Wallace found
that out real quickly when he tried to use the Alabama National Guard
in an effort to stop Alabama segregation movements in the 1960's.
Control of the Guard was quickly removed from him and the force was
ordered to stand down. It was NOT Federalized at that time.
Shall we just admit that the Well Regulated Militia spoken of in the
Second Amendment is not now, and never has been, the National Guard as
established by Congress under Article 1, Section 8.
Each State has a UNIT of the National Guard Assigned to it. It
carries the name of the State to which it is assigned. IOW, The
Florida National Guard is a Unit of the National Guard which is
assigned to the State of Florida. The Florida Air Guard is a UNIT of
the Air Guard. Both UNITS train regularly against the assigned tasks
of the Department Of Defense in the National Interest. This takes
place under the "Total Force Concept" which is one of the reasons we
can reduce the size of the Regular Forces and still retain an
effective presents (World Wide) when it becomes necessary.
You present legal documents. I present (to you) the way it works in
the Real World. I spent 1/3rd of my life in that world, Ernie. What is
written in those documents and what is done in Practical Application
are completely different.
You say that they must be Federalized to become a Federal Force. I
say that they are cocked and ready to go into National Service at the
drop of a hat. If Federal Orders are required, I would be willing to
bet that those orders are pre-written and on file with the Commander
of each unit. They can be activated with nothing more than a Phone
Call which will then be "followed up" by an official message. I would
also be willing to bet that each State Unit has a pre-assigned role on
file with Southern Command. Southern Command is the Military Planning
and Mobilization Command Center for all combined Forces under the
"Total Force" concept. They are the CCC unit which runs the entire
show for the U.S. Military.
Mike Eglestone
---------------
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little
Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty or Safety. Nor, are they
likely to end up with either.
M. Eglestone
> Actually it only speaks of the WELL REGULATED militia. One of the
> definitions
> of WELL REGULATED is ORGANIZED.
>
> Better luck next time.
===================================================================
> EA: Good point.
===================================================================
James F. Mayer Replies:
> Not a good point. It doesn't rule out any others. It doesn't say
> "the right of the well regulated militia and only the well regulated
> militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", does it?
=====================================================================
ME: Organized and Well Regulated have very little to do with the
Military. (Large Grin). I spent 26 years of my life in that profession
and at any given time the best one could hope for was semi organized
or fairly well regulated mayhem. The only time you could expect any
degree of perfection would be at inspection time. Day to day
operations seldom followed any book that I have ever read. Any outfit
that tried to "Follow the Book" seldom got the assigned task
accomplished. There are just too many variables involved in the art of
War and Combat.
When one reads the VISIONS of the Founding Fathers for a Militia
Force, keep in mind that they had no real idea of how much of that
would become reality. They dealt in concepts alone. Each one had an
ideal Militia Force in mind but, being realists, they knew that there
was a huge difference between vision and practice.
The RIGHT of the PEOPLE to keep and Bear Arms gave them all sorts of
latitude in the area of practical application. An Armed Citizenship,
trained or not, was a pool of manpower that could be drawn from at any
time in the future. How that force was to be applied was up for much
speculation then, and it's just about the same today. Planning for the
unexpected is a difficult task. The best you can do is plan for those
things that are known, then hope to God that there's enough
flexibility in the system to cover the unknowns as well.
The dream in the 2nd Amendment is that," No matter how divided our
nation might be on any issue, the PEOPLE are willing to put aside
their differences and take up Arms in defense of this country." It was
a valid concept then, it's still a valid concept in today's world.
But, it won't work if the population is not Armed. The will to fight
is worthless if the MEANS to fight are not present. In an emergency
(no matter how far fetched it might seem) there would NOT be enough
time to arm a population of 200 million people no matter how necessary
it was to the survival of this Country. However, 200 million people
with their own Arms is another story all together. THAT, is not only
workable, it's a commanders dream come true.
p...@hevanet.com
The approach has already started, the approach is divide and conquer, and I
don't see you protecting those that have already been conquered its fine
about you talking about fighting it out, but that is bullshit, just like the
last revolution less than 5% were particpants, this revolution will be NO
DIFFERNENT, My. Nye is advocating that you just sit and wait for something
that isn't going to happen, my advice is to be prepared, e.g. bury some of
your weapons for your children,
The Government would want nothing more than the likes of Mr. Nye to create the
situation of over-reaction which would then lead to more confiscation, another
perspective is that if the Government percieves that the confiscation would be
futile because so many weapons are buried then perhaps they would indeed not
bother with house-to-house searches,
Besides the searches will only be at the homes of those with "registered"
arms,
sinerely,
Again less than 5% historically participate in any revolution, so what
difference does it make what your neighbor is doing, my point is don't depend
on your neighbor or Mr. Nye to take care of YOU,
sincerely
Greg
wrote:
>From: gjlocke@SPAM_BITESix.netcom.com (Greg)
>
>
>>> Thus is also includes any internal commerce that significantly
>>> affects National commerce.
>
>GL)Hi Ernie,
>
> Hello Greg,
Hi Ernie,
> enjoying this discussion,
Me too,
>your making some very interesting
> and compelling points, thanks.
Thank you...! A good discussion is when the people involved have to
think to make responses, not just cut n past/point to charts n graphs
(although, those can be handy :-)
>EA> Perhaps some of those things and others (lack of uniform firearms
>> regulations among the States) are true.
>
>>GL)Why would a lack of "uniform firearm regulations among the States"
>>cause any kind of National "gun" problem?
>
>Neigboring State having loose, or no gun regulations, defeat gun regulations
>of the other States. All the States would need the same or similar regulations
>for them to have any substantial effect. Uniformity is the key to dealing
>with National issues or problems.
I still don't see were this would be a national problem, requiring
national regulation. If State A's citizens decided that any shotguns
12guage and larger converted in to a pistol were a hazard and
outlawed, and State B had no prohibition, if State B imported these
weapons into State A then the Federal Government could regulate (by
setting down punishments for any future violations of State A's
firearm laws) the corporations and government officials that
participated in the exporting of the weapons into State A. But they
don't need to pass sweeping legislation that effects all the people in
the state that had no part in breaking another States (State A) laws.
Sure... If an industry's process creates an hazard ie...toxins in the
air or water then the industry can be regulated to minimize/remove the
hazard to neighboring communities, but what we have with "gun control"
is were government is not regulating a hazard produced by the process
of industry, but is regulating the product of industry, and it's not
because the product is defective, or that the product in and of its
self is a hazard, but based on the *people* behind the product. Maybe
we should regulate the people that misuse the product (especially when
THEY are a hazard to the community)
>>GL)Although, I think most disputes between States could be handled at
>>a State level, and that would reduce Federal government interference.
>
>Its seems that was not the case in the 18th century, thus Congress was
>given the National Commerce power. Such disputes it was feared would
>lead to war among the States. I think there would be many disputes
>between the States today clogging up the Courts if not for this power.
I do not think that the men who had a hand in the decision as to what
kind of government the USA would have, and what powers it would have,
ever had it in their minds to remove the citizens ability to fight a
government that became oppressive/tyrannical, with arms if necessary.
Even Alexander Hamilton (who was a bit of a control nut) made a
statement about the citizens right to fight an oppressive government
with arms.
Ref : http://lcweb2.loc.gov/const/fed/fed_28.html
"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents,
there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that
**original right of self-defense** which is paramount to all positive
forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national
rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than
against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state,
if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the
different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists,
having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures
for defense. **The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms**, without
concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and
despair"
**emphasis mine**
>>GL)Also what would be an acceptable level of regulation over my right
>>to self-defense?
>
>Like I said before, the right is not regulated, the firearms as objects of
>commerce are.
I think there needs to be more of a reason for regulation other then
them being "objects of commerce" They are a tool of self defense, and
I think that would put them as part of the natural right of man to
defend himself
>GL)And what would be and acceptable level of regulation over *our*
>>right as a people that have come together to live in a civil society,
>>and yet still retain the necessary power to be able to enforce *our*
>>right to remove the people that *we* *allow* to run our government?
>
>If your asking what I believe would be an acceptable level of
>firearms regulations... If Congress were considering uniform regulations
>and I had the ear of a member of the Committee drafting the Bill I
>would suggest the following.
>
> All regulations uniform among the States (ie National regulations).
I'm not opposed to this....as long as I'm the one making the
regulations
But since I'm not, I think it would be better left up to the
individual States. The Federal government has a tendency to be heavy
handed and cannot appreciate the different states problems. The States
would know what would be best for their citizens and the Feds can just
see to it that one State does not violate another State's laws.
> License requirement, and mandatory background check for
> arms purchase.
What would be the purpose of licensing, all it would be is another
tax. I don't really have a problem with background checks, other then
it's the governments way of saying we don't trust you so we need to
check you out. Hell I don't trust them, are they going to allow me the
resources to run a background investigation on them, anytime they want
to spend my money?
>Limited ability to re-sell or transfer.
If there is going to be any kind of regulation like this it could be
kept to a level of say a vehicle transfer/sale.
>Meaning the
> owner is legally responsible for the weapon until it is transferred
> to another responsible person (ie the transferee goes through the same
> checks,etc).
>
> Mandatory training (especially for self-defense) which includes
> learning about the relevant laws of the State, and Union. What
> actions with the arm are legal. Proper storage, maintenance,etc.
> (limited to type, not required if training for the same type or class
> of arm is already posessed).
Well we could always go back to conscription, that is what the first
Militia Act called for. But I think it would be better to provide
firearm schooling in the public schools and for those who want to
purchase a firearm now, they could attend a firearm safety course
(like hunters safety training) then show a completion card upon
purchase. The schooling of the children would be the best long term
solution for firearm safety.
> Every 30 days the owner be required to affirm they are in secure
> posession of the arm (a simple look at it would suffice). Else
> within 15 days after report the loss of the weapon. (to assist in
> limiting access to legally purchased arms to criminals). If
> a crime is commited with the weapon after this period and
> they fail to report its loss, the owner could be subject to
> criminal and civil penalties. (we could make exceptions for
> those away from home longer periods than that)
I'm sorry, but this is just plain silly. There are more dangerous
substances around the average household, and having a requirement like
the one above just for firearm owners is defiantly showing an
emotional bias against private firearm ownership.
> Perhaps annual or bi-annual re-fresher training wouldn't hurt
>
> The type of training I would be thinking of would be something
> like in a simulator where possible scenarios could be thrown
> at the person, and they would learn how to act in a crisis.
> (I can't say how much this would cost perhaps $250 a session
> (1 hour) which is about what is costs to rent an older
> full motion Flight Simulator) But I'd suspect such a simulator
> would be cheaper than a Flight Simulator)
You know, If we were to just bring back some of the "gun culture"
there would be more ranges to practice at and more shooting groups to
use them, and of course this all goes with introducing firearm safety
in school.
> Going to Court, and saying I didn't know or I panicked
> or I was temporarily insane would be largely un-acceptable
> as the the above would affirm the person was sain, responsible,
> trained, and aware of the law.
Even now they are bullshit excuses. (in my opinion)
> I would not be opposed to allowing the manufacture, and distribution
> of so-called assault weapons or other types banned by the State and
> Federal Government. But I have no problem with them being banned
> either.
I have no problem with porno magazines like Playboy and Penthouse
being manufactured, and distributed. But I have no problem with them
being banned either.
>EA> Who would impose this injuction, the Federal Government ?
>> It can only make rules of Commerce, it can't make laws
>> specifically designed to limit the actions of one business.
>> The act would have to apply to every business meeting the
>> criteria specified.
>
>>GL)Isn't that what they are doing to Microsoft right now? (our at
>>least trying to)
>
> The Government has requesting the 'Court' impose the injunction,
> the Federal Government requests it based on whatever evidence
> they have obtained regarding companies practices.
Isn't that kind of like saying "A department head in the corporation I
work for asked me to investigate and possibly discipline a vendor that
supplies our company" If you have a department head that come to you
and asks you to do this, and it is in your area of responsibility,
what are you going to do, tell him no?
> As you can see this is a very lengthy process.
>
>>GL)Agreed, (but we can't just ignore what commerce powers the
>>government may want) we need to think about the future, and if we
>>continue to allow the State and Federal governments to pass laws and
>>regulations that prohibit/inhibit our rights of defense as individuals
>>and as a society. Then we and furure generation are truly slaves.
>
> It seems to me we don't just ignore the commerce powers of government.
> They are challenged in the Courts all the time.
That could very well be. But I was not trying to say that we weren't
doing this, I was just saying that we need to keep an eye on the
governments dealing in commerce.
> Didn't the successfull challenge to parts of the CDA benefit persons
> on this NG ?
>
>> The problem is that property and Commerce are often intermingled.
>> The Government would have no authority in just about any commercial
>> matter if property rights were absolute.
>
>>GL)You just about answered your own statement, when you said "any
>>commercial matter" so, yes there can be some regulation in commercial
>>matters (isn't that kinda what commerce is) but in things/property
>>personal, the government would have very.. very.. little power.
>
> How so ? Commerce is 'intercourse', that includes trade, transportation,
> communication, and things related to it.
>
> Most personal items usually don't become personal until they
> are acquired by the person via an act of commerce. Its these acts
> that is subject to regulation.
But most of the new "gun control" legislation that has been passed and
is on the tables around the country, are not about regulation the act
of commerce they are about denying a product to the American public
for no logical reason, just emotional and feel good reasons.
>EA> In early laws prohibiting foreign imports seem to affirm
>> Congress can make rules in all areas of National and Foreign
>> Commerce.
>
>>GL)I honestly don't know about the foreign import laws, but one thing
>>that comes to mind is the prohibition of bringing ivory into the US.
>>If I as an individual went to another country, that sold ivory in an
>>open market, then I should NOT be prevented from bringing it home. I
>>may be scum in some eyes but I should not be made a criminal.
>
> But you do seem to agree a defective or dangerous product
> should BE prevented from being brought home.
Defective yes, Dangerous not necessarily, after all gas, and
fertilizer can be more dangerous then a firearm, and they have very
little or no regulation, as far as private ownership is concerned.
> The power of such prohibition appears general, not limited
> to any particular type of commerce. But would apply to
> all types of National or foreign commerce.
>
> You seem to be more opposed to certain acts, rather than the
> general power itself though.
Bottom line... What I am concerned about is that future generations of
Americans will not be left with a practical means of defense against a
tyrannical government, and with that America will no longer exists,
and it citizens will be no better off then a third world country of
today.
>> Does not Congress posess the Commerce authority to say this
>> arm is defective thus it cannot manufactured or sold anymore ?
>
>>GJ)Sure, but that would be handled as a safety issue, (kinda like a
>>recall) and there would not be any reason to ban all other weapons
>>(even if the manufacturer produced another weapon with new designs to
>>be safer but with the same *look* and the same name) I can't think of
>>any gun owners that would not be in favor of fixing a flawed design in
>>a weapon.
>
>It seems to me those that supported Federal arms prohition (iw
> AW bans,etc) seemed to cite 'public safety' as the reason.
They did, but they also did not take into consideration the person
behind the firearm, and hold them responsible for their actions.
>So then your disagreement would be as to the "opinion" it
>actually was a safety issue, rather than the authority to impose the
>prohibition if your agreed it was a safety issue.
I did not say that past "gun control" legislation was based on any
valid safety issues. In my opinion the problem is that people want to
blame the firearm for the misdeed, when in all, and total reality, it
is the person behind the firearm that is responsible for the misdeed.
> If the public believed such regulation was for safetly (and
> this generally seems to have been the case) isn't such
> regulation then valid ?
I think this goes back to "if the public thought it was for safety to
keep the black man on his side of town (which in some towns in the
deep south, back in the first half of the century, is
what they though) isn't it a valid regulation?
So in other words... no, just because the majority says it's right,
that doesn't make it right.
>>GL)On the issue of "protect the public from harm" the best things that
>>can be done is to bring back some interest in firearms, remove the
>>boogie man factor that surrounds firearms now, get more safety courses
>>going, open more ranges for practice, and then you must address the
>>criminal and negligent people with sever punishment/deterrent.
>
> That would appear to be a job for the firearms proponents certainly
> not the Federal Government. The 'boogie man' factor seems to be
> perpetuated by the press more than anyone else.
True, the "boogie man" factor is promoted by the majority of
entertainment/news personalities, but we also have US representatives
promoting the anti-gun philosophy (unless it's them, that want to
carry a firearm, then it's O.K.) As far as the safety courses and
ranges it is not necessarily the governments responsibility (unless
you want to associate it with militia service, and conscription) but
it would be to the governments advantage, not only would they be
building good will with the armed citizens (which are the ones they
need to build good will with) but they would find that more of the new
recruits to the armed services would be starting off with a better
knowledge of weapon use, and safety. (in other words 'better shots')
> But clearly support for firearms is much greater in rural
> than in urban areas. The country is increasingly becoming
> more urban and sub-urban it would seem an uphill battle.
True, but first we will never be all urban or even mostly urban, but
even if it came to that, it still comes down to, the right to self and
civil defense and the ability to choose the most effective tool. The
reason it is such an up hill battle is that most Americans get their
"news" from TV and radio (not the most unbiased sources) and that
American history is being diluted in the schools with the social
aspects of US history, and not the political or military aspects, so
more and more Americans loose what it means to be an American.
>EA>denying such regulation or prohibtion
>> of even of one arm, basically denies regulation for just about
>> any act of Commerce.
>
>>GL)No, not as long as commercial and personal property are kept
>> separated.
>
> They are already separate, the point is personal property becomes
> such in many cases only after an act of commerce.
But the government is intruding more and more into the personal lives
of Americans ie.. helmet laws, seat belt laws, child bicycle helmet
laws, and some cities are requiring that swimming pools in privet
homes must be fenced in, so with these intrusion into our privet
lives, we as firearm advocates can believe that the government WILL
intrude on personal ownership of firearms, there is no reason not to
believe this.
> It is not personal property until after the act of commerce is
> completed, and the owner has purchased the object. At this time
> Federal regulatory authority does not apply.
>
> Which is why the Federal Government can force a manufacturer
> to install seat bealts in a car, but once you posess the same
> car it cannot forbid you as the owner from removing the same
> belts.
True, they can't force you to keep or even use a seat belt, but they
can and do penalize the owner for either not having the seat belts in
his car (whether he removed them or not) or for not wearing them while
operating the vehicle.
> The former is commercial, the latter is personal.
>
>GL)No it doesn’t, and we must define what an "arm" is.
>
>EA> Where will you place a limit ?, assault weapons, Bazooka's (you
>> knew this was coming right ?),
>>
>>GL)yes :-)
>>
>>ICBM's, Nuclear weapons ?.
>
>>GL)I think that most people (the firearm owners like myself that are
>>pissed off) would agree that "crew" operated weapons would not be
>>appropriate for personal ownership (just the up keep would be a bitch)
>
> Of course the more technology is applied to weapons the less "crew"
> operated they become.
Even still the shear physical size of the weapons will still require a
"crew" of some kind, or possibly special storage. But I don't think
this is a real issue, as most firearm advocates under stand that they
don't need to have a firing howitzer or a live nuke sitting in their
backyard. We just want some common sense.
>EA> Does the 2nd protect "arms" or the "right" to bear arms ?
>
>>GL)It protects our (mine and yours) right to defend ourselves and our
>>society.
>
> An as free people we have as much a right to be armed, as not
> to be armed, correct ?
Yes
> Thus do not those who choose not to be armed if they are the
> greater number have a right to impose regulations on those
> that choose to be armed ? (as long as the Constitution is
> not violated)
>
> People in cities like New York seem to prefer allowing only
> a few select people to be armed. That appears to be their
> choice and right as a community to infringe on this right
> of the people.
Just because a lager group of people says it's right, does that make
it right?
> So perhaps it is a right only if the people choose it be. The
> Fed'l Government is prohibited from interfering with it
> either way.
No, then we come back to "if the people decide that one group/class of
people are to be denied this or that right, that that makes it O.K." I
would think that to most people would see this to be false no matter
what the group is, and this thought is based on the assumption that
one group is not engaging in an activity the harms or interferes with
another group.
>EA> What makes a Howitzer or anything larger different or special?
>
>>GL)Crew manned weapon.
>
> What if technology enabled a single person to operate the same weapon ?
Once again, I think that the majority of firearm advocates don't
really want to own larger crew manned or mass destruction weapons. We
just want some common sense and the freedom to choose, and to enjoy
our hobbies, with out harming or threatening other people.
> Insure Domestic Tranquility.
>
> Ernie.
>
>
>
"Any slave can be forced to pay taxes and forced to obey
laws but only a free person with free will can make
themselves stand up and pledge allegiance to a Flag"
Greg Locke
"But if the weak are left no civil rights to protect them from the
mighty, nevertheless I will seek protection from the Gods, who
punish human pride. And I will pray that they will grow angry with
those who are never content, not with their own possession, nor with
those they take from others. Their blood lust is not satiated by
the execution of the guilty. They will not be satisfied unless we
offer them our blood to drink, and our entrails to tear out"
John Locke
Greg Locke for dictator in 2013
Dick Winningstad
<725eh1$2lg$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> In article <364538...@halcyon.com>,
> Dean Payne <de...@halcyon.com> wrote:
> > Ernie Alston wrote:
> > > 71302.3415@compuserve, Ernie Alston wrote:
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<snip>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > Rather irrelevent since the first part affirms the National Guard
> > > as the organized Militia of the United States.
> >
> > Rather irrelevant, as the Second Amendment does not limit itself
> > to the "organized" portion of the militia.
>
> Actually it only speaks of the WELL REGULATED militia. One of the
definitions
> of WELL REGULATED is ORGANIZED.
>
Well regulated, as used in the Second Amendment, means well trained not
organized, or controlled by the Federal Government as you imply.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Learn from Clio
Dick Winningstad lem...@teleport.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------
James F. Mayer
<sms...@bellsouth.net> writes:
>
>It Was Stated:
>
>> Actually it only speaks of the WELL REGULATED militia. One of the
>> definitions
>> of WELL REGULATED is ORGANIZED.
>>
I agree and it is also to keep the governing body in line. If the
governed have no means to resist oppression or tyranny, the governing
body could do as the felt with the citizens that it would eventually
hold in contempt. The only the general citizenry can remain free is to
hold power that the governing body will be in awe of. Words and
ballots are fine but they have to be backed up with the potential of
physical force for them to be effective.
Steve Hix
> Dean Payne <de...@halcyon.com> wrote:
> > Rather irrelevant, as the Second Amendment does not limit itself
> > to the "organized" portion of the militia.
>
> Actually it only speaks of the WELL REGULATED militia.
...as an example of *one* reason that the people should not
be disarmed.
> One of the definitions of WELL REGULATED is ORGANIZED.
One of, not the only one, though. "Not an unruly mob" would
be a decent description in the context of the 2nd.
> Better luck next time.
You'll need it.
Ernie Alston
>I stated that the militia in Arizona is divided into three entities:
>the National Guard of Arizona, the state guard when organized and the
>unorganized militia. You stated that the state guard was the Arizona
>National Guard. It is not. The two are different.
Sorry, but I did not use the term "state guard" YOU did.
However we need only go back to Mr Thompson's first response to the
statement to show that he clearly interpreted "state national guard"
as I used it to mean National Guard (Arizona or any state), not State
Guard.
From Mr Thompson's posting on Nov 3.
EA> 3) The State National Guard cannot be sent outside of the United States
> to train.
>
> And if your thinking of citing Perpich vs Dept of Defense I suggest
> you read it carefully because your wrong according to it.
>
RT>Yep, I was. Let me give you a quote from an excellent source.
>
>"In 1991, the Court held that Congress may order the National Guard to
>train outside the United States without the consent of the governor of
>the state in which they are stationed and without any declaration of
>national emergency."
>
>Source: The Evolving Constitution by Arthur K. Lieberman.
>
End Thompson's posting on Nov 3.
Looking at the above posting he clearly disagrees the
State National Guard is prohibited from Leaving the United States
(as per Perpich).
His source refers to the "National Guard", thus he interpreted
"state national guard" as I used it to mean National Guard of
Arizona (or any State), not state guard as he is now claiming.
EA>Hmmm I say "State National Guard", Mr Thompson denies the existence of
>such a thing.
>
RT>Yep. Not by that name.
Funny, your posting of Nov 3 indicates you understood it by that name.
Here in a separate posting from Nov 4 Mr Thompson again indicates
this.
EA> "The State National Guard cannot be sent outside of the United States".
>
RT>Okay, let's make sure that we are all on the same page. The *entity*
>of the National Guard of Arizona cannot be sent outside the United
>States.
End Mr Thompson's other posting on Nov 4.
You didn't seem to have a problem with the term "state national
guard" on two separate posts prior to this. You seemed to be
quite certain I was referring to the National Guard, not
State guard.
>
>EA> The *State* National Guard cannot be sent outside of the
>> United States.
>
>RT>Take the word "national" out of your statement and I will agree with
>>you.
>
EA>Hmmm again note the second denial from Mr Thompson.
>
RT>Yep. Because we have a National Guard of Arizona and a state guard.
>They are not the same entitiy.
When I first used the term "state national guard" (see above from Nov 3)
you made no such distinction and clearly interpreted that as everyone
else did to mean "National Guard".
So if you interpreted my use of "state national guard" to mean
"state guard"...
Why did you so strongly disagree with my claim it could not be
sent outside the United States ?
Were you then claiming the "state guard" *could* be sent outside
the United States ?
You agree the state guard cannot be sent outside the United
States, but you disagree the "state national guard" cannot
be sent outside of the U.S ?
EA> Yet in the very same post Mr Thompson tries to claim he (or rather we)
> said the "a state national guard unit called up for training purposes".
>
>(notice the word "national" is there)
>
RT>Yep, because in this case we are taling about the National Guard of
>Arizona.
Oh ??...Then why did you interpret "state national guard" to
mean the National Guard of Arizona (or any state) when I first
used it ? I used the exact same term several times.
How is it you come to interpret it differently now
(after being shown the relevent passages from Perpich) then when
you first replied on Nov 3 ?
The first few times you interpreted it one way, now in
your second wave you interpret the same exact term a different way.
Check your statement again
>EA> 1) The State National Guard , the State Militia.
>
>RT > No, that is called the State Guard. Do you notice the absence of the
> > word "national"?
Its obvious from your own response here (and of Nov 3) you interpreted
my use of "State National Guard" to be referring to the "National Guard"
not state guard. Here at this point you clearly disagreed with it.
(This is when all of a sudden your understanding of "state national guard"
changes.)
Your reply was "No, that is called the state guard" (RT).
You said "No", then specifically stated in your own words
that your interpretation (being different from mine) of the
term "state national guard" referred to the "state guard".
(An obvious attempt to re-define the term)
No *That* (state national guard) is called the "state guard"
Your own words clear as day.
You affirm "state national guard" means the National Guard in
one instance, then claim it means "state guard" in the next,
then affirm it means National Guard again.
A clear pattern of contradictions.
Give up already, lets move on.
EA>Mr Thompson your trying so hard to back pedal out of this that your
>contradictiing yourself along the way.
>
>This is why I am calling you a twit. You do not read what is written
>but instead add your own interpretation of what you think it was.
See above.
Apparently Mr Thompson's interpretations change when convienent.
Insure Domestic Tranquility.
Ernie.
Ernie Alston
EA> The purpose was to ensure the States had a defense resource
> affirmed by the clause "to the security of a free State".
>DY: Is Ernie suggesting that the reference to a free state in the Second
>Amendment is a reference to the state governments?
Yes.
The word 'State' in the rest of the Constitution refers to the several
States its meaning can be no different in the 2nd Amendment.
DY>Has Ernie forgotten that every one of the original state bills of rights
>had a second amendment related provision which protected the people
>against the state governments?
>
>By adding a bill of rights like those in the state constitutions to the
>federal constitution, how do the rights included magically become rights
>of the state, instead of rights of the people?
Well only a four of those original State bill of rights you refer to
mention the right of the people to bear arms (PA,NC,VT,MA).
The other four which had such declarations of rights (VA,MD,DE,NH) just
mentioned a well regulated Militia which is the right of the State to posess.
The purpose of this prohibtion (2nd Amend) is to preserve the State's
right to maintain a Militia. The Amendment prohibits infringing on the
"people's" right to protect the States right.
The goal of the Amendment is to protect the States right,
the method used to attain the goal is to forbid Congress
from infringing upon the people's right to bear arms.
EA> The phrases "composed of the body of the people" and "trained to arms"
> though proposed, do *NOT* exist in the 2nd Amendment of the
Constitution.
>
> Thus any such claim that the Militia is to be of such a composition
> is not supported in the 2nd Amendment or anywhere else in the
>Constitution.
>DY: Oh, but a well regulated militia clearly is dependent upon the people
>keeping and bearing arms:
I disagree, it is merely a military force that through military exercises
and evolutions has achieved the "degree of perfection" needed to be a
well regulated Militia.
To have such a force is the right of the State.
The Government can (and posesses the authority to) provide all the arms,
and resources necessary to attain the necessary "degree of perfection"
which qualifies a force as "a well regulated militia".
EA> But so far he has yet to cite even one framer, founder or
> any other person of the Constitutional era who defines a
> *well regulated* Militia as a force composed of the
> body of the people.
>DY: Pardon me, but is it not actually the case that in Hamilton's proposed
>militia establishment that the people at large would be armed and there
>would be select corps more thoroughly trained?
>
>Isn't this a framer giving
>his opinion on what should be done by the government in the future to have
>a well regulated militia?
Yes, but as he stated it would be futile and way too costly to even try and have
the whole people become the well regulated Militia.
Hamilton suggested that instead of the futile and expensive task
of attempting to turn the whole people into the well regulated Militia,
the Government turn to creating a "select corps of moderate size"
to be the well regulated Militia while the for the rest of the
militia; they merely assemble them once or twice a year to check
they are properly armed and equipped.
DY>Hamilton did state that the people at large would be armed, did he not?
Yes he did, but in the passage prior to that he did suggest they "not" be
subject to military exercises and evolutions to meet the "degree of perfection"
that would make the people at large a well regulated Militia.
Instead he suggested the well regulated Militia be a sub-set
of the militia (select corps of moderate size composed of the
young and ardent).
DY>This clearly contradicts what Ernie just claimed above.
There's no contradiction if one reads the entire section
of Fed #29 instead of selectively picking out a single clause.
An armed populace may indeed be a "Militia", but without the proper
"degree of perfection" attained through military exercises and evolutions
it is NOT a well regulated Militia.
The well regulated Militia as Hamilton proposed is merely a small
subset of the whole Militia.
>DY: I suspect it proves Ernie completely wrong on how Ernie wishes to twist
>what Hamilton said and ignore Hamilton's own words that in his militia
>establishment the people at large would be armed.
The term "suspect" implies one is not sure. Perhaps one should
read Federalist #29, and be sure.
>DY: Does an armed populace have nothing to do with the populace's
>capability or possible military efficiency?
It may, but unless it achieves the "degree of perfection" Hamilton stated
it is merely a "militia" NOT a "well regulated" Militia.
DY>Sometimes they were referred to as the people at
>large, or the whole nation, as Hamilton did in the Federalist #29, or
>sometimes they were referred to as the body of the people capable of
>bearing arms, or to all men 16 and 60, or sometimes they referred to
>sensible men.
>
>Now, if the people are in effect the militia, as the founding generation so
>clearly understood, could a disarmed populace be considered a well
>regulated militia? Certainly not.
It most certainly can with arms provided by the Federal Government
or the State.
Again Mr Young confuses a "militia" with a "well regulated" Militia.
DY>The Bill of Rights guarantees arms to the people and gives a reason for
>this, that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free
>state.
The Bill of Rights does not guarantee arms to the people, it only
prohibits the Federal Government from infringing on that right.
Since the prohibition does not apply to State and local governments
the Bill of Rights provide no such guarantee to the people. Except
that they as a commonwealth can decide on their own without
Federal infringement, if, and how the right will be protected.
Insure Domestic Tranquility.
Ernie.
Patrick L. Humphrey
>On Wed, 11 Nov 1998 00:39:35 GMT, "Theodore M. Seeber"
><see...@teleport.com> wrote:
>>On Tue, 10 Nov 1998, Steve Hix wrote:
>>> In article <725eh1$2lg$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, thana...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>>> > Dean Payne <de...@halcyon.com> wrote:
><snip>
>>> > One of the definitions of WELL REGULATED is ORGANIZED.
>>> One of, not the only one, though. "Not an unruly mob" would
>>> be a decent description in the context of the 2nd.
>Hi Ted,
>>And I would certainly consider individual gun owners and most right-wing
>>sepratist militias in this country to be an unruly mob.
>I can (kind of) understand why you would say "right wing separatist
>militias" are an unruly mob. But why would you say individual "gun"
>owners?
>I am an individual firearm owner, and I am a lot of things but I am
>not unruly, and I most certainly am NOT a mob.
>Our are you in the habit of making statements based on emotion and not
>logic?
You should have seen Terrible Ted when he was annoying the abortion newsgroups
earlier this summer...to hear him tell it, once Sizemore had been elected
Oregon's governor, he was going to borrow a few missiles from the Army depot
in Hermiston and launch a nuclear strike against Texas (where I live, and
where I'm reading this rant of his in houston.politics - what a
coincidence!). That's aside from his proclamation that he was going to wipe
out the entire human race, because pro-choicers had "convinced" him that
everyone had to die, and his oft-stated belief that only society has rights,
not individuals. (Being the pesky libertarian type that I am, I don't give
that opinion any credence. The Second Amendment is our reset button.)
--Patrick L. "in other words, Ted should be taken with a shaker of salt"
Humphrey
Theodore M. Seeber
> In article <725eh1$2lg$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, thana...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > Dean Payne <de...@halcyon.com> wrote:
>
> > > Rather irrelevant, as the Second Amendment does not limit itself
> > > to the "organized" portion of the militia.
> >
> > Actually it only speaks of the WELL REGULATED militia.
>
> ...as an example of *one* reason that the people should not
> be disarmed.
As the example that caused it's passage in the first place.
> > One of the definitions of WELL REGULATED is ORGANIZED.
>
> One of, not the only one, though. "Not an unruly mob" would
> be a decent description in the context of the 2nd.
And I would certainly consider individual gun owners and most right-wing
sepratist militias in this country to be an unruly mob.
Ted
Greg
<see...@teleport.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 10 Nov 1998, Steve Hix wrote:
>
>> In article <725eh1$2lg$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, thana...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>> > Dean Payne <de...@halcyon.com> wrote:
<snip>
>> > One of the definitions of WELL REGULATED is ORGANIZED.
>>
>> One of, not the only one, though. "Not an unruly mob" would
>> be a decent description in the context of the 2nd.
Hi Ted,
>And I would certainly consider individual gun owners and most right-wing
>sepratist militias in this country to be an unruly mob.
I can (kind of) understand why you would say "right wing separatist
militias" are an unruly mob. But why would you say individual "gun"
owners?
I am an individual firearm owner, and I am a lot of things but I am
not unruly, and I most certainly am NOT a mob.
Our are you in the habit of making statements based on emotion and not
logic?
>Ted
David E. Young
--
David E. Young
editor - THE ORIGIN OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT: A Documentary History of the
Bill of Rights in Commentaries on Liberty, Free Government, and an Armed
Populace 1787-1792.
dey...@up.net
Dick Winningstad <lem...@teleport.com> wrote in article
<01be0d06$e7701600$f6accacc@default>...
> thana...@my-dejanews.com wrote in article
> <725eh1$2lg$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> > In article <364538...@halcyon.com>,
> > Dean Payne <de...@halcyon.com> wrote:
> > > Ernie Alston wrote:
> > > > 71302.3415@compuserve, Ernie Alston wrote:
>
> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<snip>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> > > > Rather irrelevent since the first part affirms the National Guard
> > > > as the organized Militia of the United States.
> > >
> > > Rather irrelevant, as the Second Amendment does not limit itself
> > > to the "organized" portion of the militia.
> >
> > Actually it only speaks of the WELL REGULATED militia. One of the
> definitions
> > of WELL REGULATED is ORGANIZED.
> >
>
> Well regulated, as used in the Second Amendment, means well trained not
> organized, or controlled by the Federal Government as you imply.
DY: Well regulated, as used in the Second Amendment, means established by
the supreme law of the land. How better regulated can one get in a
constitutional government than to have the regulation as part of the
Constitution? A real militia of the people is guaranteed by guaranteeing
the right of the people to keep and bear their own arms.
Linus Zimmerman
M. Eglestone <sms...@bellsouth.net> wrote in article
<36484273...@bellsouth.net>...
> Ernie Alston wrote:
>
>
> >
> > 304. Enlistment oath
>
> > Each person enlisting in the National Guard shall sign an enlistment
contract
> > and subscribe to the following oath: "I do hereby acknowledge to have
> > voluntarily enlisted this _ _ day of _ _ _ _, 19_, in the _ _ _ _ _ _
National
> > Guard of the State of _ _ _ _ _ _ for a period of _ _ year(s) under the
> > conditions prescribed by law, unless sooner discharged by proper
authority.
> >
> > "I, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support
and
> > defend the Constitution of the United States (and) of the State of _ _
_ _ _ _
> > against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith
and
> > allegiance to them; and that I will obey the orders of the President of
the
> > United States (and) the Governor of _ _ _ _ _ _ and the orders of the
officers
> > appointed over me, according to law and regulations. So help me
> > God." The oath may be taken before any officer of the National Guard of
the
> > State or Territory, or of Puerto Rico, or the District of Columbia, as
> > the case may be, or before any other person authorized by the law of
the
> > jurisdiction concerned to administer oaths of enlistment in the
National
> > Guard.
> >
> > Note the mention of *BOTH* the President of the United States and
> > the Governor of the State.
> >
> > He may very well carry Federal ID's, but he is in service to the
> > State unless, and until Federalized if he took the dual oath's
>
============================================================================
May I add one thought. In the 1980's the Governor of Minnesota refused to
let the Minn Guard deploy to Central America during their 2 week training
period. Anti Contra activists had convinced him that the guard would be
used to support supply drops to the Contras. It went to court and governor
Perpich lost. Even though not Federalized, when participating in training
they were considered under Federal control.
(I was an advisor to the Michigan and Minnesota ANG for 5 1/2 years.)
billh
> > You say that they must be Federalized to become a Federal Force. I
> > say that they are cocked and ready to go into National Service at the
> > drop of a hat. If Federal Orders are required, I would be willing to
> > bet that those orders are pre-written and on file with the Commander
> > of each unit. They can be activated with nothing more than a Phone
> > Call which will then be "followed up" by an official message. I would
> > also be willing to bet that each State Unit has a pre-assigned role on
> > file with Southern Command. Southern Command is the Military Planning
> > and Mobilization Command Center for all combined Forces under the
> > "Total Force" concept. They are the CCC unit which runs the entire
> > show for the U.S. Military.
SOUTHCOM doesn't have C3I of the ARNG forces. For CONUS it is FORSCOM.
For Pacific ARNG it is USARPAC. Also, "combined forces" are forces of
more than one nation under a unity of command. Unsure what you mean by
combined forces, if you really mean joint forces, then the ARNG units would
report to a unified CINC through the ARFOR commander of that theater.
thana...@my-dejanews.com
"Scout" <sc...@monumental.com> wrote:
>
>
> thana...@my-dejanews.com wrote in article
> <725eh1$2lg$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> > In article <364538...@halcyon.com>,
> > Dean Payne <de...@halcyon.com> wrote:
> > > Ernie Alston wrote:
> > > > 71302.3415@compuserve, Ernie Alston wrote:
> > > > >
> not
> > know
> > > > > >> >this.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> The National Guard is the Militia of the United States.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Sorry, Ernie, but you are wrong. Here's the straight skinny from
> the
> > USC:
> > > > >
> > > > > Sorry Max,
> > > > > Its right there in your own quote.
> > > > From: Max Tindell
> > > > >
> > > > > >10 USC Sec. 311
> > > > > >...
> > > > > > (b) The classes of the militia are -
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (1) the organized militia, which consists of the *National
> Guard*
> > > > > and the Naval Militia;
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > >
> > > > >What about the rest of the story:
> > > >
> > > > Rather irrelevent since the first part affirms the National Guard
> > > > as the organized Militia of the United States.
> > >
> > > Rather irrelevant, as the Second Amendment does not limit itself
> > > to the "organized" portion of the militia.
> >
> > Actually it only speaks of the WELL REGULATED militia. One of the
> definitions
> > of WELL REGULATED is ORGANIZED.
>
Text of the US Constitution, Amendment 2:
A WELL REGULATED MILITIA (emphasis mine),etc.
billh
James F. Mayer <jf...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<72ajpg$f...@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com>...
> In <36486A10...@bellsouth.net> "M. Eglestone"
> <sms...@bellsouth.net> writes:
> >
> >It Was Stated:
> >
> >> Actually it only speaks of the WELL REGULATED militia. One of the
> >> definitions
> >> of WELL REGULATED is ORGANIZED.
> >>
> > Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little
> >Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty or Safety. Nor, are they
> >likely to end up with either.
>
>
> I agree and it is also to keep the governing body in line. If the
> governed have no means to resist oppression or tyranny,
Righto! The security of a free state doesn't mean security from external
enemies only.
James F. Mayer
Alston) writes:
>
>From: "David E. Young" <dey...@up.net>
>
>EA> The purpose was to ensure the States had a defense resource
>> affirmed by the clause "to the security of a free State".
>
>>DY: Is Ernie suggesting that the reference to a free state in the
Second
>>Amendment is a reference to the state governments?
>
>Yes.
>
>The word 'State' in the rest of the Constitution refers to the several
>States its meaning can be no different in the 2nd Amendment.
>
Then why do you attempt to redefine "the people" into "The National
Guard"?
Theodore M. Seeber
> >And I would certainly consider individual gun owners and most right-wing
> >sepratist militias in this country to be an unruly mob.
>
> I can (kind of) understand why you would say "right wing separatist
> militias" are an unruly mob. But why would you say individual "gun"
> owners?
>
> I am an individual firearm owner, and I am a lot of things but I am
> not unruly, and I most certainly am NOT a mob.
But as a class, individual gun owners are untrained and are a mob. No
single individual gun owner is "an unruly mob", but put several of them
together, and you get something that looks a lot more like a vigilante
group than a militia.
> Our are you in the habit of making statements based on emotion and not
> logic?
Logic is often inadaquate for changing situations, for logic depends on
given assumptions always being true.
Eric Pinnell
Dick Winningstad wrote:
> Well regulated, as used in the Second Amendment, means well trained not
> organized, or controlled by the Federal Government as you imply.
Well trained, armed, and discplined.
Eric Pinnell
RD Thompson
<see...@teleport.com> wrote:
>> One of, not the only one, though. "Not an unruly mob" would
>> be a decent description in the context of the 2nd.
>
>And I would certainly consider individual gun owners and most right-wing
>sepratist militias in this country to be an unruly mob.
You, of course, understand that they are two different subjects. Why
would you consider individual gun owners to be an unruly mob?
Sleep well tonight.....
RD (Sandman)
Bill of Rights - The first ten Amendments to the U.S. Constitution providing
for *individual* rights, freedoms and protections.
Black's Law, 6th Edition
"After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the
people who *DIDN'T* do it..."
William Burroughs, 1992
The bottom line: Pass all the laws you want but if you want my guns,
you're gonna have to come and get 'em. :^)
http://www.azstarnet.com/~sandman
Theodore M. Seeber
> >And I would certainly consider individual gun owners and most right-wing
> >sepratist militias in this country to be an unruly mob.
>
> You, of course, understand that they are two different subjects. Why
> would you consider individual gun owners to be an unruly mob?
Note the "s" on the word owner. While the individual gun owner may be
neither unruly nor a mob, put the class of all individual gun owners in
the United States together and you have an untraind group of people with
100 million different agendas, and the likelyhood that someone will be
killed by an "accidental" fireing of a weapon.
The way to change this problem is NOT with more laws keeping guns out of
the hands of people, nor with arguments about the second ammendment, but
rather to do what the second ammendment suggests and automatically draft
every gun owner into the militia and get them the training they need to
use the weapon for the good of the free state.
Then we'd be just as unconquorable as Switzerland is today.....
RD Thompson
Alston) wrote:
>From: RD Thompson > INTERNET:*REMOVE*san...@azstarnet.com
>
>
>>I stated that the militia in Arizona is divided into three entities:
>>the National Guard of Arizona, the state guard when organized and the
>>unorganized militia. You stated that the state guard was the Arizona
>>National Guard. It is not. The two are different.
>
> Sorry, but I did not use the term "state guard" YOU did.
Of course, I did. that *is* what it is called in this state.
ARS 26-122 Components of militia
A. The militia is divided into the national guard of Arizona, the
*state guard* when organized, and the unorganized militia.
'
(Emphasis mine).
Excuse me, while I dwell into this stupid semantics argument. You had
stated that the states had two national guards, I stated that Arizona
had one. The other one is called the *state guard*. No national in
it. Now you know why I used the term.
> However we need only go back to Mr Thompson's first response to the
> statement to show that he clearly interpreted "state national guard"
> as I used it to mean National Guard (Arizona or any state), not State
> Guard.
>
> From Mr Thompson's posting on Nov 3.
>
>EA> 3) The State National Guard cannot be sent outside of the United States
>> to train.
>>
>> And if your thinking of citing Perpich vs Dept of Defense I suggest
>> you read it carefully because your wrong according to it.
>>
>RT>Yep, I was. Let me give you a quote from an excellent source.
>>
>>"In 1991, the Court held that Congress may order the National Guard to
>>train outside the United States without the consent of the governor of
>>the state in which they are stationed and without any declaration of
>>national emergency."
>>
>>Source: The Evolving Constitution by Arthur K. Lieberman.
>>
> End Thompson's posting on Nov 3.
>
> Looking at the above posting he clearly disagrees the
> State National Guard is prohibited from Leaving the United States
> (as per Perpich).
Nope. You used the term "State National Guard". I used the terms
National Guard of Arizona and state guard which are two different
entities.
> His source refers to the "National Guard", thus he interpreted
> "state national guard" as I used it to mean National Guard of
> Arizona (or any State), not state guard as he is now claiming.
It sure as hell isn't the state guard. It can't be federalized.
>EA>Hmmm I say "State National Guard", Mr Thompson denies the existence of
>>such a thing.
>>
>RT>Yep. Not by that name.
>
> Funny, your posting of Nov 3 indicates you understood it by that name.
Which is why I knew what you were talking about but corrected you on
the terms. See where I said, "..not by that name"?
> Here in a separate posting from Nov 4 Mr Thompson again indicates
> this.
>
>EA> "The State National Guard cannot be sent outside of the United States".
>>
>RT>Okay, let's make sure that we are all on the same page. The *entity*
>>of the National Guard of Arizona cannot be sent outside the United
>>States.
> End Mr Thompson's other posting on Nov 4.
>
> You didn't seem to have a problem with the term "state national
> guard" on two separate posts prior to this. You seemed to be
> quite certain I was referring to the National Guard, not
> State guard.
see above.
>>
>>EA> The *State* National Guard cannot be sent outside of the
>>> United States.
>>
>>RT>Take the word "national" out of your statement and I will agree with
>>>you.
>>
>EA>Hmmm again note the second denial from Mr Thompson.
Nope, here I am referring to the state guard. The National Guard of
Arizona *can* be sent outside the United States by federalizing it.
That makes it part of the US National Guard (due to dual membership).
My point is that it is *exactly* the same people and units who have
now just left for Columbia or whereever. You would rather have a
pissing contest about the semantics.
>RT>Yep. Because we have a National Guard of Arizona and a state guard.
>>They are not the same entitiy.
>
> When I first used the term "state national guard" (see above from Nov 3)
> you made no such distinction and clearly interpreted that as everyone
> else did to mean "National Guard".
See above.
> So if you interpreted my use of "state national guard" to mean
> "state guard"...
Which I didn't. I was playing your semantics game back to you.
> Why did you so strongly disagree with my claim it could not be
> sent outside the United States ?
Because if Johnny Jones is a member of the National Guard of Arizona
with his unit, that unit and Johnny Jones *can* be sent outside the US
on a training mission. The fact that the unit was federalized does
not change the fact that Johnny and his unit are now training on
foreign soil.
> Were you then claiming the "state guard" *could* be sent outside
> the United States ?
Nope.
> You agree the state guard cannot be sent outside the United
> States, but you disagree the "state national guard" cannot
> be sent outside of the U.S ?
I know that the National Guard of Arizona can be sent outside the US
for training puposes by federalizing them.
>EA> Yet in the very same post Mr Thompson tries to claim he (or rather we)
>> said the "a state national guard unit called up for training purposes".
>>
>>(notice the word "national" is there)
>>
>RT>Yep, because in this case we are taling about the National Guard of
>>Arizona.
>
> Oh ??...Then why did you interpret "state national guard" to
> mean the National Guard of Arizona (or any state) when I first
> used it ? I used the exact same term several times.
Because I figured out by now that you were too wrapped up in your
semantic argument to realize that the state guard existed and was a
separate entitiy.
Greg
<see...@teleport.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 11 Nov 1998, Greg wrote:
>
>> >And I would certainly consider individual gun owners and most right-wing
>> >sepratist militias in this country to be an unruly mob.
>>
>> I can (kind of) understand why you would say "right wing separatist
>> militias" are an unruly mob. But why would you say individual "gun"
>> owners?
>>
>> I am an individual firearm owner, and I am a lot of things but I am
>> not unruly, and I most certainly am NOT a mob.
Hi Ted,
>But as a class, individual gun owners are untrained and are a mob.
Really?!?!? and the basis for this opinion, or are you just making
uninformed statements to show the depth of your ignorance?
>No single individual gun owner is "an unruly mob", but put several of them
>together, and you get something that looks a lot more like a vigilante
>group than a militia.
How many vigilante groups have you seen?
>> Our are you in the habit of making statements based on emotion and not
>> logic?
>
>Logic is often inadaquate for changing situations, for logic depends on
>given assumptions always being true.
Ohh... now I get it. You're just a whining child that can't form
coherent thought yet,
Theodore M. Seeber
> >But as a class, individual gun owners are untrained and are a mob.
>
> Really?!?!? and the basis for this opinion, or are you just making
> uninformed statements to show the depth of your ignorance?
Really. NRA members, who are well trained, can only account among their
membership for about 60 million firearms. There are more than 250 million
firearms registered in the US. That tells me that there is a large gap
between "Eddie Eagle" programs and the ideal of having everybody who will
ever touch a weapon trained in it's proper use.
> >No single individual gun owner is "an unruly mob", but put several of them
> >together, and you get something that looks a lot more like a vigilante
> >group than a militia.
>
> How many vigilante groups have you seen?
Several. I lived in Klamath Falls for 6 years, and in Southern Oregon,
they're quite common.
They aren't very effective, even for their primary purpose, but they ARE
common.
> >Logic is often inadaquate for changing situations, for logic depends on
> >given assumptions always being true.
>
> Ohh... now I get it. You're just a whining child that can't form
> coherent thought yet,
Nope. Instead, I'm somebody every conservative and liberal fears:
somebody who recognizes that primary assumptions are not always correct.
Scout
thana...@my-dejanews.com wrote in article
<72bbps$fk$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> > > Actually it only speaks of the WELL REGULATED militia. One of the
> > definitions
> > > of WELL REGULATED is ORGANIZED.
> >
> > Please provide the source for your definition.
>
> Text of the US Constitution, Amendment 2:
>
> A WELL REGULATED MILITIA (emphasis mine),etc.
I see, so your definition of well regulated is organized, and is used to
define itself. Sheese, looks like I'm talking to an idiot.
Yo, stupid. I didn't ask you where you get the term well regulated militia
from, I asked how you obtained the defintion that a well regulated militia
means a well organized militia.
Scout
Theodore M. Seeber <see...@teleport.com> wrote in article
<Pine.GSO.4.02A.98111...@user2.teleport.com>...
> On Wed, 11 Nov 1998, Greg wrote:
>
> > >But as a class, individual gun owners are untrained and are a mob.
> >
> > Really?!?!? and the basis for this opinion, or are you just making
> > uninformed statements to show the depth of your ignorance?
>
> Really. NRA members, who are well trained, can only account among their
> membership for about 60 million firearms.
So according to you only a gun owner who also happens to belong to the NRA
can be well trained?
Exactly how do you come to that conclusion?
<Snip rest of rant until we can establish that well trained owners are only
those who are members of the NRA)
Michael Cidras
Scout wrote in message +ADw-01be0dcc+ACQ-89b9d7a0+ACQ-c21e7cd1+AEA-scoutp+AD4-...
+AD4-
+AD4-
+AD4-Theodore M. Seeber +ADw-seebert+AEA-teleport.com+AD4- wrote in article
+AD4APA-Pine.GSO.4.02A.9811111448110.29725-100000+AEA-user2.teleport.com+AD4-...
+AD4APg- On Wed, 11 Nov 1998, Greg wrote:
+AD4APg-
+AD4APg- +AD4- +AD4-But as a class, individual gun owners are untrained and are a mob.
+AD4APg- +AD4-
+AD4APg- +AD4- Really?+ACE-?+ACE-? and the basis for this opinion, or are you just making
+AD4APg- +AD4- uninformed statements to show the depth of your ignorance?
+AD4APg-
+AD4APg- Really. NRA members, who are well trained, can only account among their
+AD4APg- membership for about 60 million firearms.
+AD4-
+AD4-So according to you only a gun owner who also happens to belong to the NRA
+AD4-can be well trained?
+AD4-
+AD4-Exactly how do you come to that conclusion?
+AD4-
Apparently Mr. Seeber discounts all of the current military members,
veterans, police and retired police officers as being 'untrained' too.
Sheesh.
+AD4APA-Snip rest of rant until we can establish that well trained owners are only
+AD4-those who are members of the NRA)
+AD4-
David E. Young
--
David E. Young
editor - THE ORIGIN OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT: A Documentary History of the
Bill of Rights in Commentaries on Liberty, Free Government, and an Armed
Populace 1787-1792.
dey...@up.net
Theodore M. Seeber <see...@teleport.com> wrote in article
<Pine.GSO.4.02A.98111...@user2.teleport.com>...
> The way to change this problem is NOT with more laws keeping guns out of
> the hands of people, nor with arguments about the second ammendment, but
> rather to do what the second ammendment suggests and automatically draft
> every gun owner into the militia and get them the training they need to
> use the weapon for the good of the free state.
DY: The Second Amendment does not say anything about the people having to
be drafted by the government "into the militia". The Second Amendment says
that a free state is dependent upon a well regulated militia, which meant
an armed populace to those who wanted the Bill of Rights. The Second
Amendment protects the right of the people to keep and bear their own arms
against infringment by government and thus assures a free state.
Free state means a country, state, or government of consent rather than of
force. If the government has the force to make the people do what the few
in government want, then there is a government of force and not a free
state. If the people have the means of defence against oppression by the
govenrment, and of forcing the government to obey the Constitution, then
there is a government of consent, as established by the Constitution. This
is a free state.
The founding generation believed that there could be no free state where
the people had no means of defense.
Greg
<see...@teleport.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 11 Nov 1998, Greg wrote:
>
>> >But as a class, individual gun owners are untrained and are a mob.
>>
>> Really?!?!? and the basis for this opinion, or are you just making
>> uninformed statements to show the depth of your ignorance?
Hi Ted,
>Really. NRA members, who are well trained, can only account among their
>membership for about 60 million firearms. There are more than 250 million
>firearms registered in the US. That tells me that there is a large gap
>between "Eddie Eagle" programs and the ideal of having everybody who will
>ever touch a weapon trained in it's proper use.
Well first off I live in reality, and understand that there will never
be an "ideal" world. Also you seem to have forgotten the people that
have served in the military, and received firearm training, and yet
are not NRA members (like myself), or the people that were raised in
the country and grew up around firearms, and the proper use and
handling of firearms, and yet are not be members of the NRA (like my
dad), and I don’t think my dad and myself are the only two people out
side of the NRA that have received proper firearm training, so your
"thinking" is not really accurate.
>> >No single individual gun owner is "an unruly mob", but put several of them
>> >together, and you get something that looks a lot more like a vigilante
>> >group than a militia.
>>
>> How many vigilante groups have you seen?
>
>Several. I lived in Klamath Falls for 6 years, and in Southern Oregon,
>they're quite common.
You mean a group of people that go out and dispense justice with no
sanction from law enforcement? How come I have not heard about this
"common" occurrence in the notably anti-firearm news media? You would
think they would jump all over stories of that nature.
Unless of course you don't know what "vigilante" means.
Could you possibly mean a Posse?
>They aren't very effective, even for their primary purpose, but they ARE
>common.
>
>> >Logic is often inadaquate for changing situations, for logic depends on
>> >given assumptions always being true.
>>
>> Ohh... now I get it. You're just a whining child that can't form
>> coherent thought yet,
>
>Nope. Instead, I'm somebody every conservative and liberal fears:
>somebody who recognizes that primary assumptions are not always correct.
The problem with that is, I don't fit either of those categories, at
least not in an overall sense (I may be Liberal on some issues and
Conservative on others)
I would like to see what primary assumptions, you believe are not
correct
thana...@my-dejanews.com
"Dick Winningstad" <lem...@teleport.com> wrote:
> thana...@my-dejanews.com wrote in article
> <725eh1$2lg$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> > In article <364538...@halcyon.com>,
> > Dean Payne <de...@halcyon.com> wrote:
> > > Ernie Alston wrote:
> > > > 71302.3415@compuserve, Ernie Alston wrote:
>
>
> > > > Rather irrelevent since the first part affirms the National Guard
> > > > as the organized Militia of the United States.
> > >
> > > Rather irrelevant, as the Second Amendment does not limit itself
> > > to the "organized" portion of the militia.
> >
> > Actually it only speaks of the WELL REGULATED militia. One of the
> definitions
> > of WELL REGULATED is ORGANIZED.
> >
>
> organized, or controlled by the Federal Government as you imply.
Dick Dick Dick... what are we gonna do with you?:
Since when are Bubba and Skeeter in their gunrack laden 4by4 'well trained'?
M. Eglestone
> But as a class, individual gun owners are untrained and are a mob. No
> single individual gun owner is "an unruly mob", but put several of them
> together, and you get something that looks a lot more like a vigilante
> group than a militia.
True, true.. And a single black person is just fine, but don't allow
a bunch of Niggers to get together. They're always up to no good. They
might even RAPE your sister or your father.
Theodore M. Seeber, you're one SICK puppy my friend. I suggest that
you seek professional help as soon as possible. Individual Gun Owners
tend to have a higher degree of training in Fire Arm use and Safety
than your local police force will ever hope to achieve. The National
Rifle Association TRAINS Police Departments! The NRA members are
Individual Gun Owners one and all!
Put brain in gear before pounding on keyboard.
Blacksheep
As a veteran and former Marine, I have served my country and fought for the
right to keep my gun as allowed by the 2nd amendment. I am well trained in
the use of guns as well as chemical and biological weapons. I am also
trained in nuclear and high yield weapons. (Aviation Ordnance). Now I
suppose that all of this training makes me a member of your so called
"unruly mob"?
Generalities are the refuge of a weak and intellectually bankrupt mind.
Theodore M. Seeber wrote in message ...
>On Wed, 11 Nov 1998, RD Thompson wrote:
>
>> >And I would certainly consider individual gun owners and most right-wing
>> >sepratist militias in this country to be an unruly mob.
>>
>> You, of course, understand that they are two different subjects. Why
>> would you consider individual gun owners to be an unruly mob?
>
>Note the "s" on the word owner. While the individual gun owner may be
>neither unruly nor a mob, put the class of all individual gun owners in
>the United States together and you have an untraind group of people with
>100 million different agendas, and the likelyhood that someone will be
>killed by an "accidental" fireing of a weapon.
>
>The way to change this problem is NOT with more laws keeping guns out of
>the hands of people, nor with arguments about the second ammendment, but
>rather to do what the second ammendment suggests and automatically draft
>every gun owner into the militia and get them the training they need to
>use the weapon for the good of the free state.
>
>Then we'd be just as unconquorable as Switzerland is today.....
Dick Winningstad
<72dmsf$vnp$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> In article <01be0d06$e7701600$f6accacc@default>,
> "Dick Winningstad" <lem...@teleport.com> wrote:
> > thana...@my-dejanews.com wrote in article
> > <725eh1$2lg$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> > > In article <364538...@halcyon.com>,
> > > Dean Payne <de...@halcyon.com> wrote:
> > > > Ernie Alston wrote:
> > > > > 71302.3415@compuserve, Ernie Alston wrote:
> >
> > <<<<<<<<<<<<<<snip>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >
> > > > > Rather irrelevent since the first part affirms the National
Guard
> > > > > as the organized Militia of the United States.
> > > >
> > > > Rather irrelevant, as the Second Amendment does not limit itself
> > > > to the "organized" portion of the militia.
> > >
> > > Actually it only speaks of the WELL REGULATED militia. One of the
> > definitions
> > > of WELL REGULATED is ORGANIZED.
> > >
> >
> > Well regulated, as used in the Second Amendment, means well trained not
> > organized, or controlled by the Federal Government as you imply.
>
> Dick Dick Dick... what are we gonna do with you?:
>
> Since when are Bubba and Skeeter in their gunrack laden 4by4 'well
trained'?
Sigh, once again, read the whole amendment Neal. Simplistic retorts are
unbecoming of such and intellect as yourself.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall no be infringed.
It says that the states get to have a well trained militia independent of
Federal control. It then says that in order to have that militia the people
get to have firearms that are not subject to Federal legal restrictions.
Bubba and Skeeter, as you insultingly label civilian owners, do not have to
be trained. They only need to be armed (that is if they desire to own arms)
and be available to be trained.
Your insistence that the government gets to control firearms ownership,
because of what the Second Amendment says, is not based on fact. Please
show any citation/source you have that the people that wrote the Second
Amendment did not mean what they very plainly said. I have not been able to
find any sources from the founding era that supports your position. Though
I have found many sources supporting civilian firearms ownership.
But lets grant you this point for a moment (that the Federal Government
does get to regulate the RKBA). Perhaps you could comment on what your
vision of adequate gun control is.
Would you add to the 20,000 or so Federal and State laws already on the
books?
Would you get rid of some of the clutter and simplify the current mess?
Or, just what would you do?
And how would you ensure that civilian firearms ownership in the U.S. would
not go the way it has gone in Great Britain, Australia, and Canada?
So here is your assignment:
1. Supply sources that show the founders meant to control civilian arms
ownership.
2. Give us your vision of an adequate legal environment for firearms
ownership.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Learn from Clio
Dick Winningstad lem...@teleport.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Marchington
thana...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <01be0d06$e7701600$f6accacc@default>,
> "Dick Winningstad" <lem...@teleport.com> wrote:
> > thana...@my-dejanews.com wrote in article
> > <725eh1$2lg$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> > > In article <364538...@halcyon.com>,
> > > Dean Payne <de...@halcyon.com> wrote:
> > > > Ernie Alston wrote:
> > > > > 71302.3415@compuserve, Ernie Alston wrote:
> >
> > <<<<<<<<<<<<<<snip>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >
> > > > > Rather irrelevent since the first part affirms the National Guard
> > > > > as the organized Militia of the United States.
> > > >
> > > > Rather irrelevant, as the Second Amendment does not limit itself
> > > > to the "organized" portion of the militia.
> > >
> > > Actually it only speaks of the WELL REGULATED militia. One of the
> > definitions
> > > of WELL REGULATED is ORGANIZED.
> > >
> >
> > Well regulated, as used in the Second Amendment, means well trained not
> > organized, or controlled by the Federal Government as you imply.
>
> Dick Dick Dick... what are we gonna do with you?:
>
> Since when are Bubba and Skeeter in their gunrack laden 4by4 'well trained'?
It's nice to see that Neal is not afraid to parade his bigotry with regard to
gun owners.
But the real question is, what does your comment have to do with the meaning of
the term as used in the 2nd amendment?
Keith
Steve Hix
F. Mayer) wrote:
It's the only chance he has at an argument that doesn't look
irretrevably silly from the start.
Steve Hix
> Frank Ney wrote:
>
> > The doctrine for that is simple: you search, we shoot.
> >
> > Police and military are outnumbered by gun owners 10 to 1.
>
> Incorrect. Somewhere between 50 and 100 to 1.
>
> > A good portion
> > of those gun owners are ex-military, able to form a cadre of leaders.
Comment heard on radio yesterday regarding U.S. veterans:
Since the founding of the Republic, there have been roughly
40M men and women who have served.
Right now, about 26M of them are living.
Steve Hix
> In article <01be0d06$e7701600$f6accacc@default>,
> "Dick Winningstad" <lem...@teleport.com> wrote:
> > thana...@my-dejanews.com wrote in article
> > <725eh1$2lg$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> > > In article <364538...@halcyon.com>,
> > > Dean Payne <de...@halcyon.com> wrote:
> > > > Ernie Alston wrote:
> > > > > 71302.3415@compuserve, Ernie Alston wrote:
> >
> > <<<<<<<<<<<<<<snip>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >
> > > > > Rather irrelevent since the first part affirms the National Guard
> > > > > as the organized Militia of the United States.
> > > >
> > > > Rather irrelevant, as the Second Amendment does not limit itself
> > > > to the "organized" portion of the militia.
> > >
> > > Actually it only speaks of the WELL REGULATED militia. One of the
> > definitions
> > > of WELL REGULATED is ORGANIZED.
> > >
> >
> > Well regulated, as used in the Second Amendment, means well trained not
> > organized, or controlled by the Federal Government as you imply.
>
> Dick Dick Dick... what are we gonna do with you?:
>
> Since when are Bubba and Skeeter in their gunrack laden 4by4 'well trained'?
Since both "Bubba" and "Skeeter" may be military veterans...
(not that military service is they sole means of acquiring
training).
Theodore M. Seeber
> Apparently Mr. Seeber discounts all of the current military members,
> veterans, police and retired police officers as being 'untrained' too.
> Sheesh.
No, but I do discount criminals, people who inherited their weapons, farm
hands, etc as being untrained.
I already said members and previous members of militias were well trained,
all of those that you listed are obviously members of militias.
Theodore M. Seeber
> > The way to change this problem is NOT with more laws keeping guns out of
> > the hands of people, nor with arguments about the second ammendment, but
> > rather to do what the second ammendment suggests and automatically draft
> > every gun owner into the militia and get them the training they need to
> > use the weapon for the good of the free state.
>
> DY: The Second Amendment does not say anything about the people having to
> be drafted by the government "into the militia". The Second Amendment says
> that a free state is dependent upon a well regulated militia, which meant
> an armed populace to those who wanted the Bill of Rights.
In that case, they should have said "an armed populace" not "a well
regulated militia", since the second obviously implies governmental
control.
You are free to start a drive to change the second ammendement if you so
choose.
Theodore M. Seeber
> If you try to draft me into the militia, you would have a pretty tough time.
> As a veteran and former Marine,
You are already in the militia, or, at least as much as you need to be.
Same with every hick cop, every single military or ex-military person, and
even all rent-a-cops.
Yet all those groups together account for less than 50% of the weapons we
know are out there.
Wonder why?
Ted
Rest snipped.
Steve Hix
"Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@teleport.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Nov 1998, Blacksheep wrote:
>
> > If you try to draft me into the militia, you would have a pretty tough time.
> > As a veteran and former Marine,
>
> You are already in the militia, or, at least as much as you need to be.
> Same with every hick cop, every single military or ex-military person, and
> even all rent-a-cops.
> Yet all those groups together account for less than 50% of the weapons we
> know are out there.
> Wonder why?
Because the *rest* of the population is also part of the
unorganized militia?
Steve Hix
"Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@teleport.com> wrote:
> On 12 Nov 1998, David E. Young wrote:
>
> > > The way to change this problem is NOT with more laws keeping guns out of
> > > the hands of people, nor with arguments about the second ammendment, but
> > > rather to do what the second ammendment suggests and automatically draft
> > > every gun owner into the militia and get them the training they need to
> > > use the weapon for the good of the free state.
> >
> > DY: The Second Amendment does not say anything about the people having to
> > be drafted by the government "into the militia". The Second Amendment says
> > that a free state is dependent upon a well regulated militia, which meant
> > an armed populace to those who wanted the Bill of Rights.
>
> In that case, they should have said "an armed populace" not "a well
> regulated militia", since the second obviously implies governmental
> control.
Nonsense. It means no more than an law-abiding, orderly body who are
competent to use the tools of the trade.
> You are free to start a drive to change the second ammendement if you so
> choose.
Nope, it's OK as is.
It just doesn't say what you think it does.
Theodore M. Seeber
> > Yet all those groups together account for less than 50% of the weapons we
> > know are out there.
> > Wonder why?
>
> Because the *rest* of the population is also part of the
> unorganized militia?
Unorganized militia? What an oxymoron that is. An unorganized militia
might as well not exist, for it does not have the military training
neccessary to serve and protect a free state.
Ted
Theodore M. Seeber
> > In that case, they should have said "an armed populace" not "a well
> > regulated militia", since the second obviously implies governmental
> > control.
>
> Nonsense. It means no more than an law-abiding, orderly body who are
> competent to use the tools of the trade.
The majority of gun owners today do not follow that statement.
After all, well regulated implies that it's the government that's doing
the regulating, and the majority of guns out there aren't even registered,
let alone being regulated.
> > You are free to start a drive to change the second ammendement if you so
> > choose.
>
> Nope, it's OK as is.
>
> It just doesn't say what you think it does.
It apparently is NOT ok just as it is, as shown by the numbers of
criminals who use firearms.
John Johnson
"Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@teleport.com> writes:
> On Thu, 12 Nov 1998, Steve Hix wrote:
>
>>> Yet all those groups together account for less than 50% of the
>>> weapons we know are out there.
>>> Wonder why?
>>
>> Because the *rest* of the population is also part of the
>> unorganized militia?
>
> Unorganized militia? What an oxymoron that is.
Gee, Teddy: wonder just _why_ it's setting in the middle
of 10 USC Sec. 311 then?
> An unorganized militia might as well not exist, for it does not
> have the military training neccessary to serve and protect a free
> state.
Apparemtly Congress felt it did:
<http://law2.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t09t12+
139+6++>
--
John_Johnson
TXJo...@ix.netcom.com
© 1998 All rights reserved
Steve Hix
"Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@teleport.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Nov 1998, Steve Hix wrote:
>
> > > In that case, they should have said "an armed populace" not "a well
> > > regulated militia", since the second obviously implies governmental
> > > control.
> >
> > Nonsense. It means no more than an law-abiding, orderly body who are
> > competent to use the tools of the trade.
>
> The majority of gun owners today do not follow that statement.
And you know this how, exactly?
Anecdote? Your slightly loopy uncle Bob?
Statistical and historical evidence both argue against you.
> After all, well regulated implies that it's the government that's doing
> the regulating,
Not in the meaning of the term in English *at the time that the
Constitution was written*.
Your sense of the word doesn't appear *anywhere* in historical
documents until *at least* the end of the 19th century, and more
likely not until the 20th.
> and the majority of guns out there aren't even registered,
> let alone being regulated.
You seem to have this confustion between registration and
regulation. They're not connected, especially in late 18th
century usage.
> > > You are free to start a drive to change the second ammendement if you so
> > > choose.
> >
> > Nope, it's OK as is.
> >
> > It just doesn't say what you think it does.
>
> It apparently is NOT ok just as it is, as shown by the numbers of
> criminals who use firearms.
Criminal activity has nothing at all to do with the content
of the 2nd. It may have an indirect effect, as it pertains
to producing a reason that self defense might be necessary.
Steve Hix
"Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@teleport.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Nov 1998, Mike Hihn wrote:
>
> > >In that case, they should have said "an armed populace" not "a well
> > >regulated militia", since the second obviously implies governmental
> > >control.
> >
> > Tthe militia excluded females.
> > If you knew about the females, then you would not have falsely assumed
> > the implication of government control.
>
> Just more ammo for the idea that a millita is NOT an armed populace.
> Females are part of the populace.
> Thus, a militia is not an armed populace.
Sorry, Ted, you missed again.
As time passes, the definition of who is subject to being
called up as part of the militia tends to expand:
10 USC 311:
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at
least 17 year of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32 [32 USC
sec. 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 commissioned officers of the National Guard.
There's no good reason by more women might not be included as time
passes. For that matter, some states' definitions of who are in
the militia may already include women.
Steve Hix
> In article <01be0e58$d06d7da0$d8a6cacc@default>,
> "Dick Winningstad" <lem...@teleport.com> wrote:
> > thana...@my-dejanews.com wrote in article
> > <72dmsf$vnp$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>
> > > > Well regulated, as used in the Second Amendment, means well trained not
> > > > organized, or controlled by the Federal Government as you imply.
> > >
> > > Dick Dick Dick... what are we gonna do with you?:
> > >
> > > Since when are Bubba and Skeeter in their gunrack laden 4by4 'well
> > trained'?
> >
> > Sigh, once again, read the whole amendment Neal.
>
> Did so. Many times.
>
> > Simplistic retorts are unbecoming of such and intellect as yourself.
>
> Well, simplicity is the epitome of elegance.
Only if that simplicity possesses the added
benefit of being correct.
Steve Hix
> In article <01be0e58$d06d7da0$d8a6cacc@default>,
> "Dick Winningstad" <lem...@teleport.com> wrote:
> > A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
> > the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall no be infringed.
> > It says that the states get to have a well trained militia independent of
> > Federal control.
>
> It is called the National Guard. Those are STATE agencies.
No, Neal, they are not.
They are funded by and under the ultimate control of the
federal government.
The states just get to use them when the feds don't need 'em.
> That the states have allowed federal usage is irrelevant
> to that basic point.
The states "allowed" nothing of the sort. They get the NG
units solely at the sufferance of the federal government.
Try reading, in order, the relevent portions of:
Dick Act (1903)
National Defense Acts (1916, 1920, 1930).
It is clear that the National Guard is a part of the
federal Army structure.
Steve Hix
"Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@teleport.com> wrote:
>
> > In <Pine.GSO.4.02A.9811...@user2.teleport.com>
> > "Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@teleport.com> writes:
> > > Unorganized militia? What an oxymoron that is.
> >
> > Gee, Teddy: wonder just _why_ it's setting in the middle
> > of 10 USC Sec. 311 then?
>
> I didn't say that the law couldn't be oxymoronic....
Good, 'cause it isn't.
You *really* don't understand the term "well-regulated" in the
sense it was used in the 18th century.
> However, 10 USC Sec. 311 was passed in 1958, it can hardly be called "the
> thoughts of the founding fathers", now can it.
Nobody said it was. (It was last updated as recently as 1994,
btw.)
It *is* however, the current law. And it fits in nicely with
federal law applying to the militia as far back as 1792.
Keith Marchington
thana...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <364B09EB...@cv.hp.com>,
> Keith Marchington <kmar...@cv.hp.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > thana...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >
> > > > Well regulated, as used in the Second Amendment, means well trained not
> > > > organized, or controlled by the Federal Government as you imply.
> > >
> > > Dick Dick Dick... what are we gonna do with you?:
> > >
> > > Since when are Bubba and Skeeter in their gunrack laden 4by4 'well trained'?
> >
> > It's nice to see that Neal is not afraid to parade his bigotry with regard to
> > gun owners.
>
> And what 'bigotry' is this? It is an example. Now please answer the
> question, if you can.
It was the choice made in the example. Not even subtle.
> > But the real question is, what does your comment have to do with the meaning
> of
> > the term as used in the 2nd amendment?
>
> Everything.
Well, by golly, good explanation! Thanks for enlighening us.
Keith
thana...@my-dejanews.com
> > > Well regulated, as used in the Second Amendment, means well trained not
> > > organized, or controlled by the Federal Government as you imply.
> >
> > Dick Dick Dick... what are we gonna do with you?:
> >
> > Since when are Bubba and Skeeter in their gunrack laden 4by4 'well
> trained'?
>
> Sigh, once again, read the whole amendment Neal.
Did so. Many times.
> Simplistic retorts are unbecoming of such and intellect as yourself.
Well, simplicity is the epitome of elegance. And a simple answer is not
necessarily simplistic. I raised a valid point which you have not answered.
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
> the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall no be infringed.
> It says that the states get to have a well trained militia independent of
> Federal control.
It is called the National Guard. Those are STATE agencies. That the states
have allowed federal usage is irrelevant to that basic point.
> It then says that in order to have that militia the people
> get to have firearms that are not subject to Federal legal restrictions.
> Bubba and Skeeter, as you insultingly label civilian owners, do not have to
> be trained. They only need to be armed (that is if they desire to own arms)
> and be available to be trained.
If they are not trained (organized) to operate as a group then they are not a
militia. Certainly not a WELL REGULATED militia.
No insult implied. Just stating a situation. Any insult is your inference.
> Your insistence that the government gets to control firearms ownership,
> because of what the Second Amendment says, is not based on fact.
Where did I say the govt gets to control firearms ownership based on the 2nd
amendment?
> Please
> show any citation/source you have that the people that wrote the Second
> Amendment did not mean what they very plainly said.
They meant it... and it plainly does not say what you think it says. The
militia movement is legitimate in the 2nd definition. While I might not agree
with the politics of most of those groups they certainly are ORGANIZED and
TRAINED as a group for the purpose of a militia. As such they qualify. Bubba
and Skeeter in their gunrack laden 4by4 do not qualify as such.
> I have not been able to
> find any sources from the founding era that supports your position.
Find one that describes a x-234 minigun or even an Uzi or Mac-10. So if it
is not known to them it is not included? So the 2nd only protects unrifled
muzzle loaders and black powder?
> But lets grant you this point for a moment (that the Federal Government
> does get to regulate the RKBA). Perhaps you could comment on what your
> vision of adequate gun control is.
> Would you add to the 20,000 or so Federal and State laws already on the
> books?
The laws on the books include effective and ineffective laws. I do not think
there is any upper arbitrary limit by number. Remove those that do not work
and keep those that do and make new ones that work better or do something else
necessary which is not currently being done. Ranting about a number is just
mindless demagoguery and has no value to intelligent discourse on the topic.
I would like instant background checks on all firearms purchases whether
retail or wholesale or gift, whether purchased from a dealer, pawn shop, gun
show, personal sale, etc.
I would like guns tracked like cars so that any gun can be tracked to its
owner. An owner would be intelligent if a gun is lost, stolen, sold or given
away to make sure that the records are updated in that regard. This would
also make sure that all transactions go through the background check.
I would like to see all firearms stored with trigger locks and separate from
ammunition.
I would like to see gun owners who do not follow these reasonable actions held
liable for criminal actions or deaths resulting from failure of compliance.
And before you rant on the registration = confiscation tirade, I have never
seen the govt mass confiscate cars. And they have been registered as long as
I can remember.... and beyond.
> Would you get rid of some of the clutter and simplify the current mess?
> Or, just what would you do?
See above.
> And how would you ensure that civilian firearms ownership in the U.S. would
> not go the way it has gone in Great Britain, Australia, and Canada?
Which is? Do they have a second amendment?
thana...@my-dejanews.com
Keith Marchington <kmar...@cv.hp.com> wrote:
>
>
> thana...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> > > organized, or controlled by the Federal Government as you imply.
> >
> > Dick Dick Dick... what are we gonna do with you?:
> >
> > Since when are Bubba and Skeeter in their gunrack laden 4by4 'well trained'?
>
> gun owners.
And what 'bigotry' is this? It is an example. Now please answer the
question, if you can.
> But the real question is, what does your comment have to do with the meaning
of
> the term as used in the 2nd amendment?
Everything.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Mike Hihn
<see...@teleport.com> wrote:
>On 12 Nov 1998, David E. Young wrote:
>
>> DY: The Second Amendment does not say anything about the people having to
>> be drafted by the government "into the militia". The Second Amendment says
>> that a free state is dependent upon a well regulated militia, which meant
>> an armed populace to those who wanted the Bill of Rights.
>
>In that case, they should have said "an armed populace" not "a well
>regulated militia", since the second obviously implies governmental
>control.
Tthe militia excluded females.
If you knew about the females, then you would not have falsely assumed
the implication of government control.
Mike Hihn, Director, Libertarian Party of WA
"The party of principled solutions" -- http://lpws.org
"World's Smallest Political Quiz" -- http://www.self-gov.org/
Mike Hihn
<see...@teleport.com> wrote:
>Unorganized militia? What an oxymoron that is. An unorganized militia
>might as well not exist, for it does not have the military training
>neccessary to serve and protect a free state.
There you go, making wild-ass assumptions again.
Why not just admit you have no idea what you're talkng about?
Theodore M. Seeber
> >In that case, they should have said "an armed populace" not "a well
> >regulated militia", since the second obviously implies governmental
> >control.
>
> Tthe militia excluded females.
> If you knew about the females, then you would not have falsely assumed
> the implication of government control.
Just more ammo for the idea that a millita is NOT an armed populace.
Females are part of the populace.
Thus, a militia is not an armed populace.
Theodore M. Seeber
> In <Pine.GSO.4.02A.9811...@user2.teleport.com>
> "Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@teleport.com> writes:
>
> > On Thu, 12 Nov 1998, Steve Hix wrote:
> >
> >>> Yet all those groups together account for less than 50% of the
> >>> weapons we know are out there.
> >>> Wonder why?
> >>
> >> Because the *rest* of the population is also part of the
> >> unorganized militia?
> >
> > Unorganized militia? What an oxymoron that is.
>
> Gee, Teddy: wonder just _why_ it's setting in the middle
> of 10 USC Sec. 311 then?
I didn't say that the law couldn't be oxymoronic....
However, 10 USC Sec. 311 was passed in 1958, it can hardly be called "the
thoughts of the founding fathers", now can it.
> > An unorganized militia might as well not exist, for it does not
> > have the military training neccessary to serve and protect a free
> > state.
>
> Apparemtly Congress felt it did:
>
> <http://law2.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t09t12+
> 139+6++>
And that link leads to 10 USC Sec 242, which does not have the word
"unorganized" anywhere within it.
Also, after viewing this law, I find that the "unorganized militia" is not
allowed to fight until after being drafted and going through boot camp. I
wonder why...could it be because an untrained fighting force isn't worth
the money they pay for it?
James F. Mayer
"Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@teleport.com> writes:
>
>On Thu, 12 Nov 1998, Steve Hix wrote:
>
well
>> > regulated militia", since the second obviously implies
governmental
>> > control.
>>
>> competent to use the tools of the trade.
>
>The majority of gun owners today do not follow that statement.
>
doing
>the regulating,
I have a "well regulated" power supply. Does the government have
anything to do with the regulation or is it a product of the design
specifications of the end user?
and the majority of guns out there aren't even registered,
>let alone being regulated.
>
Registered for what? Confiscation?
>> > You are free to start a drive to change the second ammendement if
you so
>> > choose.
>>
>> Nope, it's OK as is.
>>
>> It just doesn't say what you think it does.
>
>It apparently is NOT ok just as it is, as shown by the numbers of
>criminals who use firearms.
>Ted
>
You would like it repealed so that you could implement your
confiscation schemes and generate a police state in the mean time,
wouldn't you?
Dick Winningstad
Theodore M. Seeber <see...@teleport.com> wrote in article
<Pine.GSO.4.02A.9811...@user2.teleport.com>...
> On Thu, 12 Nov 1998, Steve Hix wrote:
>
> > > In that case, they should have said "an armed populace" not "a well
> > > regulated militia", since the second obviously implies governmental
> > > control.
> >
> > Nonsense. It means no more than an law-abiding, orderly body who are
> > competent to use the tools of the trade.
>
> The majority of gun owners today do not follow that statement.
>
> After all, well regulated implies that it's the government that's doing
> the regulating, and the majority of guns out there aren't even
registered,
> let alone being regulated.
Wrong. Well regulated as used in the Second Amendment meant well trained,
not controlled.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<snip>>>>>>>>>>>>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Learn from Clio
Dick Winningstad lem...@teleport.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------
M. Eglestone
> Unorganized militia? What an oxymoron that is. An unorganized militia
> might as well not exist, for it does not have the military training
> neccessary to serve and protect a free state.
> Ted
=========================================================================
Troll, Troll, Troll your boat...
Mike Eglestone
---------------
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little
Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty or Safety. Nor, are they
likely to end up with either.
M. Eglestone
> > It just doesn't say what you think it does.
>
> It apparently is NOT ok just as it is, as shown by the numbers of
> criminals who use firearms.
> Ted
=====================================================================
And HOW MANY Criminals use guns, Ted the TROLL? What exactly are
those numbers you refer to? Opinions are are like ass holes, everyone
has one. FACTS are a different story. How about TROLLING your boat
over to a Net Site that has some facts about the number of criminals
who use guns and the number who don't. It also might be interesting to
note the number of honest citizens who NEVER commit a crime with their
personally owned guns.
Since you know absolutely NOTHING about the Second Amendment or the
Constitution of the United States, it might be to your advantage to at
least know a bit about the crime rates in 1998; or, is that too much
to ask of a TROLL such as yourself?
James F. Mayer
>
>> >In that case, they should have said "an armed populace" not "a well
>> >regulated militia", since the second obviously implies governmental
>> >control.
>>
>> If you knew about the females, then you would not have falsely
assumed
>> the implication of government control.
>
>Just more ammo for the idea that a millita is NOT an armed populace.
>Females are part of the populace.
>Thus, a militia is not an armed populace.
>Ted
>
UNITED STATES CODE
TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
Subtitle A - General Military Law
PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA
Updated 01/24/94
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, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of inte
ntion 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.
Art X of the Florida Constitution
Section 2. Militia.-
(a) The militia shall be composed of all ablebodied (sic)
inhabitants of the state who are or have declared their intention to
become citizens of the United States; and no person because of
religious creed or opinion shall be exempted from military duty except
upon conditions provided by law.
Fl Statutes Ch. 250.02
(1) The militia shall consist of all able-bodied citizens of this
state, and all other able-bodied persons who shall have declared their
intention to become citizens.
(2) The Organized Militia shall be composed of the National Guard
and other such other organized military forces as are now or may be
authorized by law.
(3) The unorganized militia shall be composed of all persons
subject to military duty but who are not members of the Organized
Militia.
(4) Only persons exempt from military duty by the terms of the
National Defense Act shall be exempt from military duty in this state.
James F. Mayer
>> >
>> >>> weapons we know are out there.
>> >>> Wonder why?
>> >>
>> >> Because the *rest* of the population is also part of the
>> >> unorganized militia?
>> >
>>
>> of 10 USC Sec. 311 then?
>
>I didn't say that the law couldn't be oxymoronic....
>
>However, 10 USC Sec. 311 was passed in 1958, it can hardly be called
"the
>thoughts of the founding fathers", now can it.
>
But it is the law NOW and has been updated as recently as 1994, I
believe.
>> > An unorganized militia might as well not exist, for it does not
>> > have the military training neccessary to serve and protect a free
>> > state.
>>
>> Apparemtly Congress felt it did:
>>
>> <http://law2.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t09t12+
>> 139+6++>
>
>And that link leads to 10 USC Sec 242, which does not have the word
>"unorganized" anywhere within it.
>
>Also, after viewing this law, I find that the "unorganized militia" is
not
>allowed to fight until after being drafted and going through boot
camp.
Say no such thing.
I
>wonder why...could it be because an untrained fighting force isn't
worth
>the money they pay for it?
>Ted
>
It is worth MORE than they pay for it because they are UNPAID!
M. Eglestone
> Wrong. Well regulated as used in the Second Amendment meant well trained,
> not controlled.
Well regulated has absolutely nothing to do with training. The
Militia of the 2nd Amendment requires no special skills other than the
willingness to show up and fight if it becomes necessary. The right to
keep and bear Arms was directed at the PEOPLE, not the State or the
Federal Government. It is a RIGHT (reserved) by the people themselves
and it shall NOT be infringed upon by any level of government.
Service in a Militia is NOT a factor in the (Right to keep and bear
Arms). It never has been and it never will be. Never confuse Military
Service with Militia Duty under the 2nd Amendment clause. They're not
even close to the same. Militia is covered under Article 1, Section 8
of the original Constitution. The Second Amendment changed the meaning
of the original. THAT, is what Amendments are designed to do; alter
the original intent.
The Organized Militia belongs to Congress. The 2nd Amendment Militia
is the people. They answer to NO ONE but themselves. They are free to
fight or not fight as they see fit. Regardless, each individual has
the RIGHT to Keep and Bear Arms!
If you want to know about Military Training, ask me. I spent 26 years
in the Military.
David E. Young
--
David E. Young
editor - THE ORIGIN OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT: A Documentary History of the
Bill of Rights in Commentaries on Liberty, Free Government, and an Armed
Populace 1787-1792.
dey...@up.net
Theodore M. Seeber <see...@teleport.com> wrote in article
<Pine.GSO.4.02A.9811...@user2.teleport.com>...
> On 12 Nov 1998, David E. Young wrote:
>
TS: > > > The way to change this problem is NOT with more laws keeping guns
out of
> > > the hands of people, nor with arguments about the second ammendment,
but
> > > rather to do what the second ammendment suggests and automatically
draft
> > > every gun owner into the militia and get them the training they need
to
> > > use the weapon for the good of the free state.
> >
> > DY: The Second Amendment does not say anything about the people having
to
> > be drafted by the government "into the militia". The Second Amendment
says
> > that a free state is dependent upon a well regulated militia, which
meant
> > an armed populace to those who wanted the Bill of Rights.
>
> In that case, they should have said "an armed populace" not "a well
> regulated militia", since the second obviously implies governmental
> control.
DY: Populace was not a term used during that period of time. The Second
Amendment implies no government control. It is a protection for the right
of the people to keep and bear arms against government control. Where on
earth did Ted ever get the idea that the Bill of Rights was added to the
Constitution to assure government control? Anyone who thinks Ted is correct
needs to study the ratification era sources.
> You are free to start a drive to change the second ammendement if you so
> choose.
DY: TheSecond Amendment is just fine as is so long as the terms are not
redefined as something other than what the founding generation understood
by those terms. A well regulated militia was undestood to be an armed
populace (using language understandable today). It was just such a well
regulated militia which made resistance to the schemes of the British
possible at the outset of the Revolution.
Greg
<sms...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>Theodore M. Seeber wrote:
>
>> Unorganized militia? What an oxymoron that is. An unorganized militia
>> might as well not exist, for it does not have the military training
>> neccessary to serve and protect a free state.
>> Ted
>=========================================================================
Hi Mike,
> Troll, Troll, Troll your boat...
Now *that's* comedy :-D
> Mike Eglestone
>---------------
>
> Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little
>Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty or Safety. Nor, are they
>likely to end up with either.
>
>
>
"Any slave can be forced to pay taxes and forced to obey
laws but only a free person with free will can make
themselves stand up and pledge allegiance to a Flag"
Greg Locke
"But if the weak are left no civil rights to protect them from the
mighty, nevertheless I will seek protection from the Gods, who
punish human pride. And I will pray that they will grow angry with
those who are never content, not with their own possession, nor with
those they take from others. Their blood lust is not satiated by
the execution of the guilty. They will not be satisfied unless we
offer them our blood to drink, and our entrails to tear out"
John Locke
Greg Locke for dictator in 2013
David E. Young
--
David E. Young
editor - THE ORIGIN OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT: A Documentary History of the
Bill of Rights in Commentaries on Liberty, Free Government, and an Armed
Populace 1787-1792.
dey...@up.net
Theodore M. Seeber <see...@teleport.com> wrote in article
<Pine.GSO.4.02A.9811...@user2.teleport.com>...
TS: > After all, well regulated implies that it's the government that's
doing
> the regulating
DY: Ted has made an assumption which is not correct. Does the government
enact Bills of Rights to regulate the people, or do the people throught
their Constitution forming authority enact Bills of Rights and
Constitutions to regulate the government?
The Second Amendment protects the right of the people themselves to be the
ultimate protectors of their own liberty and the free state they have
created by their Constitution. The Second Amendment is directed against
government control of this right, regardless of Ted's twisted
understanding. Once again, I suggest that reading the original sources
would help Ted get back on the right track.
David E. Young
--
David E. Young
editor - THE ORIGIN OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT: A Documentary History of the
Bill of Rights in Commentaries on Liberty, Free Government, and an Armed
Populace 1787-1792.
dey...@up.net
Theodore M. Seeber <see...@teleport.com> wrote in article
<Pine.GSO.4.02A.98111...@user2.teleport.com>...
> On Fri, 13 Nov 1998, Mike Hihn wrote:
>
> > >In that case, they should have said "an armed populace" not "a well
> > >regulated militia", since the second obviously implies governmental
> > >control.
> >
> > Tthe militia excluded females.
> > If you knew about the females, then you would not have falsely assumed
> > the implication of government control.
>
> Just more ammo for the idea that a millita is NOT an armed populace.
> Females are part of the populace.
> Thus, a militia is not an armed populace.
DY: Is not the right to keep and bear arms guaranteed to the people? Does
not this protect an armed populace? The right is not protected for some
group which gun control advocates wish to define as government authorized
or controlled, is it?
An armed populace is the well regulated militia understood by the founding
generation. I suggest reading the original sources.
Mike Hihn
>In <Pine.GSO.4.02A.9811...@user2.teleport.com>
>"Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@teleport.com> writes:
>>It apparently is NOT ok just as it is, as shown by the numbers of
>>criminals who use firearms.
>>Ted
>>
> You would like it repealed so that you could implement your
>confiscation schemes and generate a police state in the mean time,
>wouldn't you?
Mayer deftly pulls back the curtain.
Greg
wrote:
>On 13 Nov 1998 00:59:13 GMT, jf...@ix.netcom.com(James F. Mayer) wrote:
>
>>In <Pine.GSO.4.02A.9811...@user2.teleport.com>
>>"Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@teleport.com> writes:
>>
>>>It apparently is NOT ok just as it is, as shown by the numbers of
>>>criminals who use firearms.
>>>Ted
>>>
>> You would like it repealed so that you could implement your
>>confiscation schemes and generate a police state in the mean time,
>>wouldn't you?
Hi Mike,
>Mayer deftly pulls back the curtain.
*<smoke & fire>*
**PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN**
*<end smoke & fire>*
psst... i think ted’s a troll... pass it on
>Mike Hihn, Director, Libertarian Party of WA
>"The party of principled solutions" -- http://lpws.org
>"World's Smallest Political Quiz" -- http://www.self-gov.org/
My Personal Self-Government Score is 70%.
My Economic Self-Government Score is 80%.
Patrick O'Connolly
"The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defense of
themselves,"
***
Now please some 'netizen' out there please show me where you can construe
that we don't have the right to own a gun, Oregon has the strongest
Constitution in America, the founders of Oregon traveled a long way from
Washington DC, and they knew exactly what they were doing when Oregon became
a State, and there is no way in hell anyone from the Kiesling crowd can
destroy OUR constitution,
sincerely,
Keith Marchington
Theodore M. Seeber wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Nov 1998, Mike Hihn wrote:
>
> > >In that case, they should have said "an armed populace" not "a well
> > >regulated militia", since the second obviously implies governmental
> > >control.
> >
> > Tthe militia excluded females.
> > If you knew about the females, then you would not have falsely assumed
> > the implication of government control.
>
> Just more ammo for the idea that a millita is NOT an armed populace.
> Females are part of the populace.
> Thus, a militia is not an armed populace.
Your assertion that an "armed populace" indicates that each and every member
of the populace be armed is argumentum ad absurdum. An armed populace, as a
term of art, indicates that a sufficient number of the population be armed
such that successful defense of the entire population can be achieved. Your
little straw man is just that -- a straw man.
Keith
RD Thompson
<see...@teleport.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 11 Nov 1998, Michael Cidras wrote:
>
>> Apparently Mr. Seeber discounts all of the current military members,
>> veterans, police and retired police officers as being 'untrained' too.
>> Sheesh.
>
>No, but I do discount criminals, people who inherited their weapons, farm
>hands, etc as being untrained.
Many of those farmhands are excellent shots.
>I already said members and previous members of militias were well trained,
>all of those that you listed are obviously members of militias.
Some are even members of the unorganized militia.
Sleep well tonight.....
RD (Sandman)
Bill of Rights - The first ten Amendments to the U.S. Constitution providing
for *individual* rights, freedoms and protections.
Black's Law, 6th Edition
"After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the
people who *DIDN'T* do it..."
William Burroughs, 1992
The bottom line: Pass all the laws you want but if you want my guns,
you're gonna have to come and get 'em. :^)
http://www.azstarnet.com/~sandman
RD Thompson
<see...@teleport.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 12 Nov 1998, Steve Hix wrote:
>
>> > In that case, they should have said "an armed populace" not "a well
>> > regulated militia", since the second obviously implies governmental
>> > control.
>>
>> Nonsense. It means no more than an law-abiding, orderly body who are
>> competent to use the tools of the trade.
>
>The majority of gun owners today do not follow that statement.
>
>After all, well regulated implies that it's the government that's doing
>the regulating, and the majority of guns out there aren't even registered,
>let alone being regulated.
Hmmm, perhaps it is because they belong to the "unorganized" militia
members.
>> > You are free to start a drive to change the second ammendement if you so
>> > choose.
>>
>> Nope, it's OK as is.
>>
>> It just doesn't say what you think it does.
>
>It apparently is NOT ok just as it is, as shown by the numbers of
>criminals who use firearms.
The Second Amendment does address anything about criminals. That
means that they must be addressed by the other 24,000+ gun laws that
out there.