More shooting in schools

That statement is patently absurd Ice - it's codified by US Statute:

§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 intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
​

By statute the National Guard is quite clearly a class of the militia. Am I reading this wrong?

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE...011-title10-subtitleA-partI-chap13-sec311.htm
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes.

It says the militia of the US consists of all fit grown men between 17 and 45 plus a few, and also all women who happen to have enlisted in the National Guard.

These are "the people" who are guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms.

The ones in the National Guard are "organized", the others are not. This creates a class of militia - the organized - who have enlisted in the National Guard, and so the Guard itself becomes a statutory militia.

The language does not transform the Guard itself into a militia as referred to in the 2nd Amendment - language cannot do that kind of thing. It's like corporate personhood - one can define a corporation to be a legal person by statute, but it doesn't actually transform the physical reality.

A lot of State and Federal regular military has its roots in militia, in the US. The National Guard was "federalized", and re-organized as regular army forces. That's what they are now. That is different from a militia.

The lack of money does not affect the meaning of the word.

If you were frying up potatoes instead of steak because you lacked money, becoming rich enough to buy steak does not mean the potatoes are now steak, or vice versa.

And of course there's the larger matter: the 2nd Amendment is not changed by any of this. It still guarantees the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No it doesn't as the arms for any impromptu militia forces consisting of men and boys, called up I suppose in the event of a zombie apocalypse?, would most certainly be provided by the govt. But even then that group wouldn't be resorted to without the real militia of the National Guard being deployed first (yes..I watch the new series "Fear The Walking Dead"). So no, supporting a well-regulated militia doesn't justify anyone buying a gun, especially as there is no guarantee they even know how to use it properly. Protecting yourself out on the ranch? Hunting? Maybe. But not supporting a militia. The militia is supported by our govt taxes, not by farmer Billy Bob's private antique arsenal in his root cellar.

So the National Guard is the militia and is not the militia? Keep tapdancing. It's not goin to change the fact that the National Guard IS our militia as defined by our government.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Or raised in response to the Rodney King riots, or brought together by Cliven Bundy to back his defrauding of the Federal taxpayer, - and no, those guys were not armed by the government, and yes, they were pretty well regulated.

Talking about Constitutional rights as if they needed to be justified to an authority is irrational extremism, and a significant threat. This is what happens to gun control measures in the US - their backers start talking like that, and it threatens people.

No, it isn't. The militia in my county is entirely privately funded.

There is no "the militia". The National Guard is not a militia. This was backed by a long list of characteristics that disqualify it as a militia individually and together, above.

Redefinition of English words, especially key terms in the Constitution, is not among the powers of the US government.

 

Here's what was organized in response to those riots:

April 30-May 4, 1992 - "Dusk to dawn curfews are enforced in the city and county of Los Angeles.

May 1, 1992 - Rodney King makes an emotional plea for calm, stating, "People, I just want to say, can we all get along? Can we get along? Can we stop making it horrible for the older people and the kids?"

May 3, 1992 - Over 1,100 Marines, 600 Army soldiers, and 6,500 National Guard troops patrol the streets of Los Angeles."===http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/18/us/los-angeles-riots-fast-facts/

IOW, the militia AND the military were deployed. No farmer Billy Bob and his 15 cousins with pistols and shotguns.

Strange then that the framers felt they had to justify the right to bear arms with supporting a well-regulated militia.

The militia is the National Guard, and as such is federally and state funded.

Already proven. You just saying "no it isn't" is lying denial at this point.

Words change their meanings over time. That's just a historical fact.

"The term militia in the United States has been defined and modified by Congress several times throughout U.S. history. As a result, the meaning of "the militia" is complex and has transformed over time."===https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_(United_States)

 

It was grocery store owner Kim and his sons and cousins, with rifles and shotguns.
And no actual militia were deployed by any government - only the regular military forces of the State, operating under the UCMJ, equipped and paid and uniformed and housed and held to their terms of enlistment by State power.

They didn't. Reading comprehension - try it, you'll like it.

Not in my county. The fit men aged 17 to 45 + with firearms in my county have been funding themselves.

Any time you want to deal with my long list of characteristics and the argument therefrom, feel free. Until then, all you've got is a dodgy implication of the language in a federal statute, no evidence and no argument, which is not enough to alter physical reality.

The words in the Constitution do not. Written words in general do not. This is a fundamental ethical principle - the written words in the Constitution are the record of the meaning of the writers. Taking them to mean something else is at best and error - done deliberately it is a betrayal, a particularly bad form of dishonesty.

Meanwhile not all words change meaning over time, and it is not within the powers of the US government to change the meanings of English words that have failed to become convenient. This is especially relevant in the case of the Constitution, where Federal government would very much like to be able to do that.

 

LOL! Uh no.. grocery store owner Kim's family was not the officially deployed militia. The National Guard was the militia deployed by the state. Brush up on history before using it to excuse your gun fetish.

Let's read it together then:

"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."

IOW, BECAUSE a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of the state, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Since the militia is now the National Guard and is funded totally by the govt, there is no longer any reason for the people to bear arms. We are protected by them now. Get it?

The National Guard isn't deployed in your county? Since when?

I already quoted the modern definition of militia. And it's not the one used in 1770.

Yes they do. Take the word "arms" for example. It obviously means alot more than just guns as it did back in colonial days.

Congress changed the meaning of the word militia several times over history. I already proved that. So again you're just lying.

 

The word "because" does not appear, and your including it is a mistake.

Your own links define the militia to be every fit male aged 17 to 45, and some older.

So your argument is that because the writers of the 2nd Amendment are now wrong in their assertion of need, the Amerndment is no longer in force and we can ignore it?

Who cares? The militia in my county fund themselves. That would be the militia as defined in your link - allo fit men 17 to 45, available for service.

1) you didn't - you cherrypicked a small part of a bad online dictionary definition. 2) We'll be going by the meaning written into the 2nd Amendment, thanks. That would be the one used in 1770 in the US (and repeated in your modern links, btw).

It means the same now as it did then, explicitly clarified as it was by the intro clause: militia quality weapons, whatever they may be.

Congress does not have the power to change the meanings of the words in the Constitution. It is bound by those meanings - they specifically and directly curb its behavior. The only way for it to change the Constitution is to amend it.

 

That's the meaning of the statement. This is basic grammar.

No..my point is that "militia" now means the National Guard, and not all males 17-45 (what no females?), and as such is no longer a justification for the people bearing and keeping arms as the framers had argued. It's an obselete point that no longer applies, like the parts of the Constitution that mention slavery.

That's the old definition when we had to rely on the public for defense. We don't any more. We now have a well-regulated militia. It's called the National Guard.

All men between the ages of 17 and 45 isn't a well-regulated anything. It's a bunch of guys who may not even own guns, have likely never met each other, and certainly don't have any training in how to shoot enemies with them in a combat situation. Have you informed all these millions of guys they need to go buy guns and practice shooting because the Constitution says they should? That their country is counting on them in the event of a riot or a terrorist attack or a foreign invasion? Seems all these "militia members" should at least be informed of their membership in this alleged militia. Forget about the fact that they have never trained or been instructed on anything about how this militia will operate in the event of an emergency. Man, that'd be one piss poor militia! I'm glad I rely on the National Guard and the military instead.

No it isn't. Words change meanings over time, retaining meanings that are now obselete but no longer relevant. Militia is one of them, if we are interpreting militia to mean just able-bodied males.

But let's see what other meaning for "militia" was used back then:

"That section of the Articles of Confederation relevant to the discussion of militias is to be found in paragraph four of Article 6 (of the Articles), which states that

“No vessel of war shall be kept up in time of peace by any State, except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the United States in Congress assembled, for the defense of such State, or its trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any State in time of peace, except such number only, as in the judgement of the United States in Congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defense of such State; but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage."(emphasis added)

Now take a look at the language used in the Constitution regarding militias.

First, consider the powers of Congress over the Militia:

Article One

Section 8

"To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

Next, consider the powers of the President over the Militia:

Article Two

Section 2

"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;"

- See more at: http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2013/04/regarding-pesky-“well-regulated-militia”-2nd-amendment-what-exactly-did-it-mean#sthash.X1wMUeUW.dpuf

Notice here in these uses of the word "militia" it was understood even back then that a "well-regulated militia" referred to a military force that was armed and trained and equipped by the States themselves, which is the exact case with the National Guard. There is no sense in which militia was referring to untrained able-bodied citizens called to fight with their own guns.

 

Until you deal with the arguments and overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you are just blowing smoke. The National Guard bears almost no resemblance to a militia. Guardsmen don't even pick their own commanders, or choose their own wars.

Then you won't mind leaving it out, since the meaning is already there.

You are wrong, though: the "because" is only one leg of the meaning. The careful and very clever wording is also designed specifically to forestall the common government pretexts for disarming its citizens. It specifies that the arms one has the right to keep and bear are such as well equip a militia. This prevents government seizure of weapons - as was common in the heritage of the people writing the Constitution - on the pretext that they are more than is needed for domestic roles and hunting and the like, and pose a danger to the State.

Even if that were true - and your own links contradict you, by defining the modern militia as all men 17-45 plus some folks - it would not change the 2nd Amendment.

You are arguing (mistakenly, imho) that the 2nd Amendment is no longer justified. That doesn't matter. It is still there, still says what it says, still has all the force of a Constitution amendment.

Which was when the 2nd Amendment was written. That's the meaning in the 2nd Amerndment.

In my county, it would be easy to raise a very well regulated militia from among that demographic.

And so the shiny crazy sheds the last of its cocoon: If it interferes with gun control, Congress is not bound by the meanings of the words in the US Constitution. So sayeth the gun control promoter.

And people are mystified when the gun control forces make so little progress in gaining trust and power and furthering their agenda.

 

btw, overlooked:

That is false. Just to point to the obvious: Many Patriot militia that fought in the Revolutionary War were famous for carrying rifles of superior quality and suitability for militia - ie guerrilla - combat. These weapons were not provided by any State, neither did the States of the time provide training etc in their employment.

Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_rifle

 

LOL! You can call gun control advocates many things: misguided, uninformed, or even weakly pacifistic. But crazy? No..That'd be your side. You know, all the paranoid freaks who store up automatic weapons and ammo in their backyard bunkers just waiting for the day when the IRS arrives to ask them why they haven't paid their taxes. That's YOUR side. The ones who NEED big shiny guns to bolster their sense of power and control over their own miserable lives. The ones who strut around with loaded guns and big chips on their shoulders daring anyone to tell them that guns are not a solution to anything, much less to the problem of gun violence. That's YOUR little crowd of lunatic assholes, not mine. Own it.

 

"Congress has shaped the modern militia's structure by exercising its Article I militia powers through a series of statutes. The first such legislation was the Militia Act of 1792. This act codified the traditional view of the militia as consisting of all able- bodied citizens. It also required each militiaman to supply his own arms. However, since the federal government provided no funding, the states gradually allowed their militias to deteriorate. By the 1870s, the militias in most states were little more than social clubs centered on a yearly parade.

In 1903, Congress attempted to restore the usefulness of the state militias with the Dick Act. This act marked the beginning of the federalization of the militia. The Dick Act also split the militia into two branches: the organized militia, which became known as the National Guard, and the unorganized militia. The act provided federal funds for equipment and training, required drill a specified number of days each year, and gave federal inspectors the right to review state militia practices. Congress continued the federalization of the National Guard through numerous subsequent acts. The result today is that the National Guard is a reserve force of the United States Army under significant federal control.

Though the division of the militia into organized and unorganized branches still exists today, Congress has not explicitly defined the role of the unorganized militia. Nevertheless, federal statutes do provide for civilian firearms training as part of the Civilian Marksmanship Program.Although legislators have attacked the program as being outdated, it has survived Congressional debates as recently as June 1994. At least one senator has argued that the program continues to add to the nation's defense capability. Additionally, a United States Army study found that individuals who received training in the program were significantly more effective in combat than those without such training. However, although Congress explicitly created a dual- militia system, the unorganized militias of the various states have remained largely dormant."====http://academic.udayton.edu/health/syllabi/Bioterrorism/8Military/milita01.htm

 

You and a couple of similarly addled people - all on the same "side" that I have been pointing out is not being reasonable - are not "everybody else". And I didn't "interpret" it - I wrote it. And rewrote it. And rephrased it. And repeated it.

Like this , 70-odd posts ago, typical:

Any takers?

And - again, the thesis throughout - this illustrates perfectly the ruination of gun control as an approach to reducing gun violence in the US. That entire issue is hostage to factions who simply don't care whether they are making sense, on both sides. So when directly asked for recommendations, I recommended approaching gun violence by way of other issues, rather than controlling guns. There are several on the table in the US already - it was easy to list five or six, without exhausting the lode.

And invited discussion - picking one from that list (mass incarceration of black men) that was in my opinion multifaceted and debatable, that wasn't so straightforward, that would be interesting to explore. How would one go about addressing the mass incarceration of black men ( and this matter is on the table, with broad support for beneficial changes) in such a way as to maximize our desired reduction in gun violence, as a side effect? I'm thinking a reduction in school massacres might be difficult to achieve in that way, but if that proves true there is still what I mentioned also, mental health care X background check improvements, and four or five others, that more directly apply. So plenty of meat for actual discussion, if anyone is up for something as unprecedented as that.

 

No, I didn't. You don't read, you don't think.

I consider 52% a majority, although dubiously small (if I have time to waste later, I'll look into that source for you). It's notable that you tried a relevant statistic, however dubious - your first here, I believe: congratulations.

That is false. As is every single factual assertion you have made about my posting here. You are incapable of making an accurate statement about anything I post here - that is a symptom.

Right there, in the quote, I state clearly what I want, relevant to this thread: gun violence reduction. Gun control would be a very good approach, in theory. Unfortunately, you and the rest of your faction have locked up with the gun nuts and trashed almost any hope getting reasonable and effective gun control in the US. So the reasonable have to turn elsewhere. Thank you all so very much.

I'm a gun control advocate. You're crazy, recommending that Congress should be released from the meaning of the words in the Constitution for any reason.

And you're typical of an important, even dominant, and highly visible faction of gun control promoters.

Exactly. The National Guard is a reserve force of the regular Army.

I invite you to peruse the last fifteen posts by bells and Magical Realist. Note the language, the "reasoning", the tone. This has been going on for seven pages now, and yes, you are right in there with it.

 

Iceaura... are you in a 'militia'?

 

I'm not the one who recommended the mass incarceration of black men and the militarization of the police as a solution to gun violence. That's SOME gun control advocacy there!

And the organized militia of the United States as declared by law. Refer back to post #121.