|
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.
The first thing to be defined is what a well regulated militia is. There are two classes of militia according the US code: the organized militia consisting of the national guard and naval militia; and the unorganized militia consisting of males 17-45 that aren't felons or mentally ill and female members of the national guard. Are both well regulated? I would think that the organized militia is well regulated, as it is physically trained and has the ability to call up on the unorganized militia. (I believe sheriffs or state police have this duty, as well.)
While the idea that an armed populous would help stop an invasion, or the quote "Behind every American door is a shotgun", which that quote needs a citation, is used so often, would an armed populous be any used against tanks and jets and ICBMs and PETMANs? I don't think a gun would be of much use.
Is the right of the people referring to those in the militia? Seemingly not, as it pertains to the individual as per US vs heller, however, in US vs heller, it's interesting to note that the wording "arms" allows for restrictions as to what "arms" actually is. Defined when some supreme court justices way back when didn't realize that guns were really used in warfare. They had no experience in war, so the term "arms" back then meant something for hunting or lawful use, such as a hunting shotgun or a knife. The heller opinions states that "arms" should not be military grade. Cannons, back when, were noted as ordinances, so things such as nuclear warheads or tanks, aren't a god given right to own and carry.
So, would an armed populous, armed meaning non military weaponry, be able to take on modern military weaponry?
 
|
|
|
I know what a bear arm is but what is a keep arm?
|
T.O.P.
Hong Kong4685 Posts
On February 07 2013 16:36 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:
So, would an armed populous, armed meaning non military weaponry, be able to take on modern military weaponry?
No, They would get rolled. Saddam Hussein had tanks and missiles and he still got rolled.
|
Its completely irrelevant. Nobody is invading anyone, and they wont be, barring some sort of apocalyptic free-for-all scenario in which nations cease to exist and militaries and militias dissolve anyway. In which case they wouldn't be organized militias defending anything, and more just people trying to survive, some of which have guns. This does little to improve the situation.
The other point of the 2nd amendment was to keep the people an armed force who could in theory rise up against the government should it become tyrannical. This is also completely outdated, as the government becomes tyrannical very slowly nowadays, and even once it has arrived, the massive US population would be so splintered as to what to do about it and if it is in fact worthy of armed revolt that no such sort of unified action would ever be taken that could ever threaten the parties in control in any way shape or form.
|
This amendment has been outdated since industrialized armies became the norm (post Civil-War in the US). No "organized militia" could do anything against an army of a first world country (whether it was invaders or the US army). They would be completely steamrolled in an embarrassing and unfortunate massacre. Coming out of the American Revolution, it is understandable why this amendment was put in, as this was the experience of the lot of people writing it at the time. However, they also made the constitution amendable, so we could change it later on, and this amendment should have been removed a long time ago.
It exists today for political and non-nonsensical reasons. There are people in the United States that live in fear of nearly everything, and they want to have access to guns because they "feel" (counter to any scientific evidence they might be presented with) it makes them safer.
I do believe some sort of firearms should be legal to own (for hunting and other sporting purposes) but they should be very restricted in their rate of fire capabilities and magazine capacities. There are even some places in this country that I think it should be legal to own a gun for personal protection (Detroit comes to mind), but these should all be the exception, not the rule. These sort of things should be licensed and regulated far more than they are today.
Gun ownership should be a privilege, not a right (one that few people would actually need), but unfortunately this law and the tradition it brings means the opposite in the US. At this point, however, guns are so pervasive in the population you could never really remove firearms for the populace, you could only hope to reduce the number and new purchases.
|
Also remember that this law was written in a time where guns were comparatively prehistoric compared to the types of arms that we have and are capable of having today. All guns had a much longer reload time and were much larger, so it's not like you would walk into a school or a place of work without them noticing you brandishing a large gun.
|
|
|
I think it's better to fight against something bad and have no chance of winning than to not resist at all.
|
On February 08 2013 02:54 Ettick wrote:
I think it's better to fight against something bad and have no chance of winning than to not resist at all.
But not if what you're fighting for is *supposedly* causing more harm and deaths in the present than would happen if you only had access to "reasonable" weaponry (i.e. not assault weapons, I suppose), compared to the probability of ever being attacked by your government.
If I were to guess, I would suspect any large militia would get steamrolled by drones, aircraft, and tactical missiles (I don't think nukes would be used). But to be honest I think no one can really say what would happen. There are so many factors involved that we don't know about (degree of defection in the army, size of the resisting army, whether it is truly just authoritarian government or just a rogue element of the government, outside help or direct intervention from other countries?) to argue that the government would "win" is just kind of meaningless when we don't even know what the situation is. Basically there are so many ways things could play out, I don't think anyone can say what would happen with any certainty.
I mean more generally people are thinking about these things in such black and white terms. Either the government is totalitarian or supports the people. What if its somewhere in between, at the point where having guns to defend yourself against unlawful government activity is actually reasonable? At that point, at least its not ridiculously lopsided in favour of the military because the government isn't bombing people's homes, just illegally seizing people and putting them in jail (for example). I mean then guns could at least act as some temporary safeguard while massive protests can lead to a change in government.
Anyway I don't really know that much about it, but I figure people should at least consider more cases than the simplistic "government killing us with nukes, aircraft, and tanks" or "government is on our side" dichotomy.
|
People need to learn there is a significant difference between an invasion, and an occupation. History is littered with cases of powerful occupying forces being whittled down by an armed populace.
In any case, individual freedoms are not predicated upon your subjective assessment of their effectiveness.
|
If the populous being armed isn't considered necessary to the security of a free state, would that mean the it's actually advocating a police state? (Re: Austria, 1851) (If you're too lazy to look that up, I don't mean an oppressive state, so go look it up.) Are the police the necessary security to a free state? Certainly, military members can't act as police, unless it martial law, right? The national guard isn't set up to enforce laws like a LEO is.
I'm trying to come up with an argument that debunks this idea, but I haven't met a challenger that is up to it, yet.
Still feel like I'm tripping up on something, though...
|
On February 08 2013 14:39 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:
Still feel like I'm tripping up on something, though...
"populace"
|
More like cs_militia, amirite guys or amirite?
|
On February 08 2013 14:45 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2013 14:39 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:
Still feel like I'm tripping up on something, though... "populace"
I guess you don't know what "populous" means, anyway, but that's alright.
Is it the militia's right to keep and bear arms? No, it is only the people's right. If the state, senate, congress, or president wished to call up on the entire militia, they could do so. When they do that, they are under the command and authority of whomever did the calling upon. At this moment, those who have been called upon must obey all commands or else they can be tried for treason. They can also make every able bodied male from 17-45, those past 45 who have been in service, and women who are in the national guard NOT be allowed to carry weapons.
This is my new development in this argument. I am finding that literally no one has any possible argument against this.
Note: I am not trolling, just to be clear here.
|
'Populous' is an adjective
|
On February 10 2013 02:19 sam!zdat wrote:
'Populous' is an adjective
Is it possible that you could come up with a slightly intelligent argument against as to why America isn't a police state? Or, are you only capable of shitposting?
|
No, I think America IS a police state. All that's left is to fight a rearguard action against the degradation of the english language, my last remaining joy in a cold gray bourgeois world.
|
I think you ought to streamline your grammar, syntax, and vocabulary before you start leveling the "shitposting" finger.
For example "Is it possible that you could come up with a slightly intelligent argument against as to why America isn't a police state?" is a garbage sentence. So I guess my question to you, OP, would be "Are you only capable of shitposting?"
|
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.
|
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
