|
On February 10 2013 02:43 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:
Please, if you can cite supreme court cases, legal opinions, and us documents as to why America isn't a police state, then you are shitposting yourself.
You want my sources? Because the constitution, the bill of rights, supreme court cases such as us vs heller, and the clarification of the term "militia" being split into two different groups, are some of my sources.
Go read the bill of rights, then go read every US militia code. Go read us vs heller and realize that arms literally means non military grade weapons.
To prove a negative is shitposting. In your case, you shouldn't be asking "Prove to me that America isn't a police state" when instead we should be asking you "Prove to us America is a police state". Either way, the burden of proof lies on the person making the claim, negative or not.
Sources are not significant if you don't bother to extract information from them to argue your claim. It's like a student simply citing "www.wikipedia.com" or "www.google.com" as a source. Telling a person to go ahead and read hundreds, or even less, of documents is not going to make your argument persuasive nor relevant.
How about you point out key specific lines or clauses in the documents you mentioned? How about you then use those to build up an argument? This is something a middle school student could do.
Hell, given what I wrote, even your reply I quoted is shitposting...
|
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.Pp. 2–53.
(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.
2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.
(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.
The Legislature shall provide by law for organizing and disciplining the militia of the State, in such manner as they shall deem expedient, not incompatible with the Constitution and Laws of the United States.
(a) Except as provided by Subsection (b), a body of persons other than the regularly organized state military forces or the troops of the United States may not associate as a military company or organization or parade in public with firearms in a municipality of the state.
Just some stuff from US documents.
|
the problem is you are thinking about the government as the locus of tyranny. The government is irrelevant. Capital rules and the government works for capital. Guns won't help, because capital wants you to buy guns, because then they can create an arms race within the populace. Who cares what the constitution says.
|
On February 10 2013 03:02 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.Pp. 2–53.
(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.
2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.
(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.
The Legislature shall provide by law for organizing and disciplining the militia of the State, in such manner as they shall deem expedient, not incompatible with the Constitution and Laws of the United States.
(a) Except as provided by Subsection (b), a body of persons other than the regularly organized state military forces or the troops of the United States may not associate as a military company or organization or parade in public with firearms in a municipality of the state.
Just some stuff from US documents.
Well done at the first step of making an argument: copy/pasting out key specific clauses...now what do they mean to your argument? Like you said, it's just "some stuff" from "US documents" (not really, just one document, from District of Columbia vs. Heller, I'm going to assume it's a typo instead of you trying to passively exaggerate your research).
|
It's illegal for the militia to call upon itself. The militia does not have the right to keep and bear arms. The militia can be under direct control of the state, senate, congress, and the president. If the militia is to disobey a direct order, they get in trouble.
The state, congress, senate, or president can currently call upon the militia and ask themselves to not be armed. This would make every able bodied male 17-45, plus those older who have served, and women in the national guard, unarmed. Who are "the people" that are left?
Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.
The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it—
(1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or
(2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.
In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.
Whenever the President considers it necessary to use the militia or the armed forces under this chapter, he shall, by proclamation, immediately order the insurgents to disperse and retire peaceably to their abodes within a limited time.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/subtitle-A/part-I
And then I had this page that made it easy to find all the militia coding, but I can't find it.
|
On February 10 2013 03:20 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:
It's illegal for the militia to call upon itself. The militia does not have the right to keep and bear arms. The militia can be under direct control of the state, senate, congress, and the president. If the militia is to disobey a direct order, they get in trouble.
The state, congress, senate, or president can currently call upon the militia and ask themselves to not be armed. This would make every able bodied male 17-45, plus those older who have served, and women in the national guard, unarmed. Who are "the people" that are left?
Nothing in the clauses you copy and pasted stated it's illegal for a militia to call upon itself,
Nothing in the clauses you copy and pasted stated militias do not have the right to keep and bear arms, in fact, one of the clauses you gave stated:
"Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes"
Nothing in the clauses you copy and pasted stated anything about a militia disobeying an order nor the legal consequences coming from it.
Nothing in the clauses you copy and pasted said anything about calling an unarmed militia. Also, the militia is not defined as every able bodied male 17 - 45 plus those who previously served in the National Guard, instead, from the very source you provided, it states:
the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia
Which requires a person to willingly serve in the National Guard, which most able bodies Americans do not.
the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Which most able bodied Americans, including those who are Male in their 17 - 45s and those who previously served, but no longer, in the National Guard, are eligible for but most who don't belong nor want to be in any militia.
These definitions therefore leave out most able bodied males in their 17 - 45s and other people whom don't want to be in the National Guard nor in an unorganized militia.
What you've provided is for what purpose the President can call up the militia and how that militia is regulated and maintained.
Also, quote the clauses you copy and pasted, because you make it confusing which part of your reply is your argument, and which part is just a piece from a source.
Are you fucking kidding me? You're giving us a link to U.S. Code on Organization and General Military Powers as a source? Did you even look at it to know how huge that thing is? This is getting pathetic. You're not doing to well in arguments and persuasion, especially when looking at your other topic: http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?topic_id=397820
|
On February 10 2013 03:35 BirdKiller wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2013 03:20 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:
It's illegal for the militia to call upon itself. The militia does not have the right to keep and bear arms. The militia can be under direct control of the state, senate, congress, and the president. If the militia is to disobey a direct order, they get in trouble.
The state, congress, senate, or president can currently call upon the militia and ask themselves to not be armed. This would make every able bodied male 17-45, plus those older who have served, and women in the national guard, unarmed. Who are "the people" that are left?
Nothing in the clauses you copy and pasted stated it's illegal for a militia to call upon itself, Nothing in the clauses you copy and pasted stated militias do not have the right to keep and bear arms, in fact, one of the clauses you gave stated: Show nested quote +"Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes" Nothing in the clauses you copy and pasted stated anything about a militia disobeying an order nor the legal consequences coming from it. Nothing in the clauses you copy and pasted said anything about calling an unarmed militia. Also, the militia is not defined as every able bodied male 17 - 45 plus those who previously served in the National Guard, instead, from the very source you provided, it states: Show nested quote +the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia Which requires a person to willingly serve in the National Guard, which most able bodies Americans do not. Show nested quote +the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. Which basically means most able bodied Americans, including those who are Male in their 17 - 45s and those who previously served, but no longer, in the National Guard, most who don't belong nor want to be in any militia. These definitions therefore leave out most able bodied males in their 17 - 45s and other people whom don't want to be in the National Guard nor in an unorganized militia. What you've provided is for what purpose the President can call up the militia and how that militia is regulated and maintained. Also, quote the clauses you copy and pasted, because you make it confusing which part of your reply is your argument, and which part is just a piece from a source. Are you fucking kidding me? You're not doing to well in arguments and persuasion, especially when looking at your other topic: http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?topic_id=397820
Can you tell me where it states that the militia can call upon itself? If you can't then it's not a right. The militia does not have the right to keep and bear arms, that's for the people, as defined by the 2nd amendment.
The people can not have their right to keep and bear arms infringed on, but rather what "arms" means. Did you not read that opinion?
Disobeying the direct order of a superior authority always results in punishment. That's how it is in the military, that's how it is when you are subject to the regulation of a superior authority.
The militia is already unarmed, and must be supplied and trained as stated by the us coding. Remember that link I showed you?
What about not wanting to be in the militia? What does that have to do with anything? I'm apart of the militia, no matter what, by us code. if I don't want to be, I'd have to be declared mentally incompetent or something.
|
|
|
(1) "Reserve militia" means the persons liable to serve, but not serving, in the state military forces.
(1-a) "Servicemember" has the meaning assigned by Section 161.551, Health and Safety Code.
(2) "State militia" means the state military forces and the reserve militia.
(3) "State military forces" means the Texas National Guard, the Texas State Guard, and any other active militia or military force organized under state law.
Sec. 431.002. COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF.
(a) The governor is the commander-in-chief of the state military forces, except any portion of those forces in the service of the United States, and has full control and authority over all matters relating to the state military forces, including their organization, equipment, and discipline.
(b) If the governor is unable to perform the duties of commander-in-chief, the adjutant general shall command the state military forces, unless other state law requires the lieutenant governor or the president of the senate to perform the duties of governor.
Sec. 431.004. REGULATING STATE MILITARY FORCES. (a) The governor shall make and publish regulations, according to existing military law, to govern the state military forces. The regulations must cover all general orders and forms for the performance of duties of persons in the military service, including the rules governing courts-martial.
(b) The governor, for cause the governor considers good and sufficient, may muster out of the service or reorganize any portion of the Texas National Guard or reserve militia.
Sec. 431.007. OATH. (a) A commissioned officer of the state military forces may administer oaths for purposes of military administration. The officer's signature, without seal, and the title of the officer's assignment is prima facie evidence of the officer's authority.
(b) A person appointed, enlisted, or drafted in the state military forces shall take and subscribe an oath in the following form:
"I, ________________________, do solemnly swear that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the State of Texas and to the United States of America; that I will serve them honestly and faithfully against all their enemies whomsoever, and that I will obey the orders of the governor of Texas, and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the laws, rules, and articles for the government of the military forces of the State of Texas."
Sec. 431.010. ORGANIZATION PROHIBITED. (a) Except as provided by Subsection (b), a body of persons other than the regularly organized state military forces or the troops of the United States may not associate as a military company or organization or parade in public with firearms in a municipality of the state.
Sec. 431.012. INTERFERENCE WITH STATE MILITARY FORCES. (a) A person who intentionally hinders, delays, or obstructs or who intentionally attempts to hinder, delay, or obstruct a portion of the state military forces on active duty in the service of the state in performance of a military duty commits an offense. An offense under this subsection is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not less than $100 nor more than $1,000, by imprisonment for not less than one month nor more than one year, or by both.
Texas constitution
|
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=94b_1360369071
Out in the desert, having a fucking helicopter piloted by the sheriff, land, then him get out and doing an uncontested search on a male and female. (video shows the female getting searched, not the male, but you do see the male in the end.)
"That's not a problem."
They were probably in the constitution free zone, which incorporates Florida entirely.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
