oh, cry us a river..............the 2nd A stands and you just don't like that..your terror shows through
Of course you can use baseless ad homs in lieu of legitimate argument. You do it all the time. Maybe it impresses others.
Rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions with the specific Terms; Acquire and Possess, to denote, specifically, rights in private property. Our Second Amendment finds no basis for support in establishing rights in private property simply because Arming the Militia of the United States is expressly declared as socialized and delegated to our federal Congress.
get this, I don't give a rats ass about impressing socialists, or you for that matter. The only defense I need is the Bill of Rights, all of them. The fact that you don't believe in guns as a tool for self-defense, in public or in home tells me that you are anti-Rights. Period.
I think you are referring to the National Guard? (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 areĀ (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. While it is doubtful that it will ever be called to duty, the United States civilian militia does legally exist.
Then you have no worries. Then why do you need to resort repeatedly to baseless ad homs in a lame attempt to defend your views? Who said I don't believe in that? Do you always assume things you don't know about? Obviously you do.
and you know nothing of America..go figure, you wont even show where you are from..............ashamed? and it is relevant...if you are a third party interloper, this gun discussion isn't meant for you because it addresses issues that don't affect you in any way. Period.
You are, yet again, wrong. Federal Law defines the militia as every able-bodied male between the age of 18 and 45, and female National Guard members.
Explain how that is a "well regulated" militia referred to in the 2A. - - - Updated - - - You've never heard of Miami? And you claim I know nothing of America? go figure. It absolutely affects me as to how nutjobs get hold of weapons and the kinds they can get a hold of.
The term "regulated" at the time the amendment was written, meant trained. Rest assured, I am well trained. I think owning a firearm (unless it's part of a collection, or otherwise not intended to be used) without regular training is foolish.
My understanding it was a bit more than that, but bood for you. Your personal training doesn't explain how the militia defined in federal law is well trained or regulated.
You are aware that both violent crime and murder rates are at, or very near, all time lows, do you not? - - - Updated - - - A member of the militia, which I am for a few more years anyway, is responsible for their own training. However if the unorganized militia ever needs to be called up, we're probably in deep (*)(*)(*)(*).
Abortion worked great, according to our friends at freakonomics. I don't believe that the "well regulated" militia referred to the 2A were simply expectations of self training.
That is one theory, yes. Unproven, but reasonable. The reality is, nobody is really sure why crime has been falling for 20+ years. Sure they did. When it was written, firearm ownership and usage was nearly universal, and they practiced (and hunted) frequently.
The Continental Army who won the Revolution was the general public who showed up with their own weapons. The Founders didn't even want a Standing Army, instead preferring to rely on that model. Technology, however, has made it not practical to no longer have a Standing Military.
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was NOT the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it. The militia act of 1903, amended in 1908 created "classes" of militias, one funded, armed and trained to Army standards known as the National Guard. The other "reserve" or unorganized militia is made up of everyone NOT in the National Guard, including retired military I believe.
Only our federal Congress can define, welness of regulation for the Militia of the United States. Any Thing else is an appeal to ignorance of our own laws.
What your quoting only applies to the National guard as instructed by the Militia act as enacted by the SECOND CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES. Amended several times it clearly defines organized and unorganized militias.
Ever notice how the antis seem to change directions on an OP....anyway, good news. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/02/2...ts-follows-california-court-second-amendment/ Once again we are headed in the right direction.
Acquiring and possessing private property is recognized as a natural right in our State Constitution.
They didn't have television in those days so they so when they said "free speech" they couldn't have been referring to TV. Machine guns are small arms and citizens can own them.
