History 102: Which people form part of a well-regulated militia?

I responded to you directly and specifically.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ulated-militia.589757/page-11#post-1073260946

If you cannot discuss these points, directly and specifically, I'll simply, and correctly, assume it is because you know you cannot.

 

Heller v US firmly established that the "militia"wording in the 2d Amendment in no way limited the right to bear arms. The Supreme Court says so. If I want to own a gun, I will own one. The Constitution says I can. This issue is really quite simple. The Constitution and Heller v US are very clear.

 

No more than your subjective opinion interprets my comment the way you want.
Your idea that I would condone idiots in a militia is completely wrong. And, while I did suggest that people were free to join militias that were not well-regulated, it seems to be your idea that they could do what they want. Anytime a person joins anything there is going to be some regulation. That does not necessarily indicate that that regulation will be done well.
I guess you missed the part of my post where I agreed with you that the right to arms was not unlimited.

 

Your comment, "Anytime a person joins anything there is going to be some regulation". is in fact a subjective, baseless and nonsensical assumption. Of course people can join groups and remain unregulated in the sense they become angry mobs, break laws, etc. Furthemore group neuro-psychology analysis has proven that in fact when people join each other in groups, lower each other's inhibitions which in fact deregulate their behaviour. The studies have shown when in a group the influence and interaction with the group triggers physiological (neurological) effects on the frontal lobe region of their brain that governs inhibition, similiar to alcohol, pressure from brain tumours, certain or brain injury impacting on that area, reducing the frontal lobe's ability to maintain inhibition and that is why groups are so quick to turn violent and people do things in groups they would not do as individuals.

In fact it is precisely because humans in groups need regulation they turn to an alpha male to control the group. That dominance I suppose is what would argue is regulation. Its not the regulation the constitution envisioned. Yes in nature what you call militias were once called homo sapiens packs and required an Alpha Male to control them. However regulation refers to creating laws to assure civilized and peaceful behaviour and to assure anyone placed in a trust position to use authority to assure peace and civility NOT ABUSE it. The constitution did not create unaccountable power, i.e., power in a vacuum that would not be properly regulated.

You clearly do not understand the concepts of primal homo sapiens pack behaviour, group coercion, peer group pressure, group hysteria.

So in fact its you who missed the entire point yet again.

Making excuses for why you think certain groups are not well regulated does not mean they can't be well regulated. One does not automatically preclude the other or necessarily prove or indicate groups can not be well regulated. That is your assumption but it is not fact,

In fact, every state in the union and federal laws prevent paramilitary activity, terrorism, violent actions, unsafe or reckless use of firearms by individuals and/or groups and so your personal subjective assumptions as to what you think is "well" or 'poorly" regulated is immaterial to that fact.

As to who should regulate the militias is mostly settled. The vast majority of militias are already well regulated. Its only a minority of unorganized militias that in fact are NOT regulated other than by existing laws and the laws that regulate them are enforced by the police and other government enforcement agencies such as the FBI, Office of Homeland Security, State police, Dept. of Alcholol, Tobbacco and Firearms. Treasury Dept. and many layers of police forces and even the US military in exceptional cases.

Tell me does your selective memory acknowledge Article 1, section 8, clause 15?

"Congress shall have the power ... 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."

Based on the above in fact each state and most territories have two mandatory forces, namely the Army National Guard and the Air National Guard. Many states also have state defense forces and a naval militia, which assist, support and augment National Guard forces. There are already well regulated militias and to say they are not well regulated or can't be well regulated is absolutely nonsensical. In fact because they are I and others argue, it makes the need for unorganized militias, i.e., ones outside their domain, not only redundant but not well regulated and so subject to existing federal and state laws if they engage in unregulated behaviour.

The Code of Laws of the United States does state under Title 10 (Armed forces), section 246 (Militia: Composition and Classes) already under paragraph B, that: "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."

So in fact let's make it clear what we are talking about are "unorganized militia" and the question remains who regulates them and how and why are they even needed?

Finally you stated: "it seems to be your idea that they could do what they want". I have no idea who you mean by "they". I have contended from the get go and I I challenged you because I believe you have attempted to claim militias can do what they want because you feel subjectively they can not be well regulated but are already regulated simply because they are a plurality and not a singularity.

I find your assertions illogical and nonsensical.

I again repeat the issue I have challenged and still have yet to hear an answer for and that is, who regulates the unorganized militias or are they unaccountable?

How do armed groups not accountable to anyone protect against tyranny? What role do they fill?

What actual functions do unorganized militias perform in the US?

According to US government stats and the The Southern Poverty Law Center they estimated there were about 276 unorganized militias ex in 2015. The FBI claims they are a domestic terror threat because of their stockpile of weapons.

Just how many of these unorganized militias plot violence, terrorism, or hatred? How many are extremist and willing to break laws in the same of defending what they think should be the law?

Who regulates the extremist militias?

Instead of trying to engage me in semantics answer the question. Who will regulate these extremist militias who operate on a self regylated basis? Who? Please don't tell me they will regulate themselves.

 

I numbered your comments to make it easier to respond.

1-Your response provides a subjective political opinion not a legal one. The term infringement is not determined by what you subjectively feel is arbitrary, unnecessary or ineffective. As for what you call obvious reasons, you think your subjective beliefs are "obvious" because you reflect a narcissistic bias that can not imagine any of your subjective beliefs may not necessarily be accurate.

2-Again you use the obvious as a device because like in 1 above it, you ignore the legal definition of infringement since it does not suit your political interpretation.

3-You try engage me in nonsensical responses that again show feel you have a sense of entitlement, i.e., can order me to do things for you, and should cut and paste your words back that I challenged which you repeated once again in 4 above.

4- You again repeat the same nonsensical response I challenged and you asked me to cut and paste:

"Well regulated" modifies "militia", not "the people"; "the people" hold the right to keep and bear arms as protected by the 2nd.
Thus, in those terms, it does not matter how well-regulated the militia is.

The fact people have a right to keep and hear arms is NOT the issue and is not challenged by me. The issue I raised which you can't answer is whether someone with the right to keep and bear and arm which is not in dispute can be regulated as to how they use a firearm.

Of course they can. Your trying to deflect from the fact they can and are regulated by trying to switch the issue to the right to own weapons is transparent and pointless.

You are well aware each state has laws the provide licensing requirements to obtain a weapon and that might govern its safe use and storage. There are federal laws that govern how firearms can be transported across each state or across international borders. There are both federal and state laws that govern who can buy and sell weapons. There are federal and state laws that govern when the use of a weapon is illegal, i.e., us used to commit a crime. People who own weapons of course are regulated by all existing laws at the state and federal levels. No they do not operate their weapons in a vacuum with zero regulation.

Next if those same people want to form unorganized militias, the unorganized militias are to be "well regulated". No those two words were not drafted to mean nothing. They were put in because the constitutional writers did not want unruly mobs roaming the streets.

Unorganized militias are people. They are made up of people. They give themselves a name, and they express political opinions. The difference between people with weapons and militias with weapons is that militias self identity as militias, people otherwise do not.

In either situation the laws of the federal and individual US states regulate these two categories. So your words are meaningless.

Next the fact is the vast majority of militias are already regulated by the federal or state governments. It is estimated there are around 260 unorganized militias that fall outside state government and federal regulation.

They are a minority. The question remains who regulates or holds these militias accountable for their behaviour if they break laws? Its a simple question you won't answer. Your responses to date avoid answering. You can hide from the question all you want and keep deflecting and referring to yourself in elevated terms of brilliance be my guest but the fact remains you can't answer the damn question.

Who regulates these unorganized militias who do not come under state or federal direction? Who? Well we know at one level they will be regulated by municipal, country or state police. At a federal level the Dept. Of Homeland Defence, Treasury Department, FBI Counterintelligence Branch, Dept. of Alcohol and Tobbacco Branch, can regulate them. Those agencies can enforce them if they break laws.However who regulates their behaviour if they do not break laws? Who? Themselves?

We already had an idiot boy modelling himself as a self appointed vigilante who almost killed himself and killed others precisely because he was not properly trained. How many more idiots do you want out there? Tell me the idiots who went on Capital Hill do you consider them the kind of militia that protects you? Did that idiot boy? Do the white extremist groups like the KKK and Proud Boys protect you?

Give it a rest. You are against anyone who does not agree with you. If a militia came to your door to monitor you because they disagreed with your political views you would do what? Take the law into your own hands or go to the police?

Spit it out man. You are someone who wants self appointed vigilantes with guns roaming the streets to push your political views on others, period. The law will not work that way. Each state has laws against paramilitary activities and there are federal laws that deal with terrorism.

The question Americans must face is what should they do with their fellow citizens like you who can't sit and talk but need to arm themselves with weapons because they are so damn insecure about their ability to talk they need to hide behind a gun.

 

Why do you believe arbitrary, unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on the exercise of rights do not infringe on those rights?
If arbitrary, unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on the exercise of rights do not qualify as infringements, what restrictions do?
Are you at all familiar with the legal/judicial precept of strict scrutiny? "Compelling state interest"? "Least restrictive means"? Ring a bell?

Umm.... see above, especially re: strict scrutiny.
You want the legal definition of infringement? You got it.

No. I challenge you to support your claims.
You made several claims about my positions,and I want you to demonstrate that I actually took those positions.
Else, all you have is a subjective, baseless and nonsensical assumption.

Because, well, its true. It's right there in the text of amendment.

I certainly did.
I said : [the 2nd amendment] does not allow regulations that infringe on the right.
Or, said otherwise: The 2nd Amendment allows regulations, so long as they do not infringe on the right.
How did you miss that?

You are apparently unaware that the vast majority of states have no such laws.
You also apparently don't wonder how a state has standing to issue, must less require, a license for the basic exercise of a right -- a right it did not grant.
You are -also- apparently unaware that a legal requirement for a person to secure his firearms has been held unconstitutional, by the USSC, under the 2nd.

As defined and provided for by congress - that is, Congress, through its power to regulate the militia, defines "well regulated" through its regulations.

Not in the slightest - Congress can regulate the militia however it wants - so long as is it does not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.

I am? When did I say this? Cite the post and copy/paste the text.
Else, as before, all you have is a subjective, baseless and nonsensical assumption.

So, to recap:
None of what you posted changes the fact that the government, state or federal, can regulate the people, or the the exercise of right of the people to keep and bear arms, in such a way that said regulation infringes on said right of said people.

Give it a rest.

 

What extremist militias?

 

Heller v US clearly establishes that the "militia" wording in the 2d amendment in no way limits a citizens' right to bear arms. Its that simple. (Isn't it nice to see a post here that isn't endlessly verbose? LOL)

 

I moved this to the appropriate thread.

I'm talking about the 2nd Amendment!

The OP describes the process. The original draft. What was approved by the House. And why the militia "composed of the body of the people" was removed by the Senate at the behest of Washington and Hamilton.

Read the OP in this thread, please...

 

what gun banners cannot handle is the fact that no where in Article One, section 8 was any gun control powers delegated to the federal government. That only happened when a corrupt supreme court ignored that problem when pretending the second amendment did not prevent the prosecution of an absent litigant for possession of a sawn off shotgun in US v Miller. in other words, the commerce clause nonsense was court created so the anti gunners cannot whine that the Heller decision destroys their bullshit mis interpretations of the second amendment. If you want to go by the actual language of the constitution, we never need to even get to a second amendment issue.

 

True. But it is good that the Second Amendment, applied through the Fourteenth Amendment, also protects against state and local abuses.

 

even more clear is that the fiction that the commerce clause was intended to empower federal gun control is complete nonsense. There is nothing in article one section eight, nor anything written by the founders, that even hints that the founders intended the federal government have any gun control power over private citizens

 

So should the federal government should stop interfering in state regulation of privately owned guns? If the federal government can't meddle in an issue like gun-control or abortion then it seems like the states should be free to pass whatever laws they wish regarding those matters.

 

Up until the 14th Amendment, the states were free to do so. Once the Bill of Rights were incorporated against thecstates they no longer had the authority, but it took until 2010 to get the Second Amendment incorporated against the states.

Should the stated be able to pass laws bypassing rhe 1st or 4th Amendments?

PS, Dobbs isn't the example you're looking for here.

 

No. The Second Amendment forbids the states from violating our right to keep and bear arms.

The Second Amendment says otherwise.

 

Yup. And that is called DEMOCRACY.

 

The federal government shold stop meddling in a ton of things that belong to the states, but that is a whole another story.

It isn't the fedearl government that's meddling but the Supreme Court which has constitutional authority to address gun control but not abortion.

 

Yes, the Constitution is quite clear about what the federal government can and cannot do. That's why the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government could not ban, approve, or regulate abortion and said it was all in the hands of the states. Heller v US reaffirmed the 2d amendment, but said any regulation belonged to the states.

 

That is true except a broad based Supreme Court ruling applies equally to the states and the federal government.

 

In the recent Supreme Court decision concerning abortion, the Supreme Court said that the Federal Government had no power to ban, allow or regulate abortion. It specifically said that the states, through their elected representatives, had the power. The rules they established were quite different for the federal government and state governments.
The Heller decision was quite similar. They reaffirmed the 2d Amendment but said regulation was the purview of the states. Again, totally different rules for the federal and state governments.
It all stems from the fact that the Constitution lists what powers the federal government has. If a power is not listed in the Constitution, then it becomes the purview of the states. The Court essentially held that since there was no mention of abortion in the Constitution, the federal had no power to allow it, ban it, or regulate it. The Constitution DOES address the right to bear arms so they reaffirmed that, but said regulation of firearms belonged to the states. There will be battles about this in the coming years concerning federal controls already in place, I expect.

 

Close but not exactly. In the Roe reversal the Supreme Court said nothing about any federal power or authority. They said abortion was not in the Constitution and therefore the Court has no say in it as far as states are concerned. The Heller decision was quite dissimilar in that the SCOTUS said that arms were a constitutional question and they can (and did) rule on states (or local) regulations. The Heller case stemmed from a Washington DC law IIRC.

It is true the federal government is (technically) limited to those powers listed in the Constitution, but that has long since been obliterated with (IMO) bad SCOTUS rulings supporting federal usurpation.

 

I always take Pepto for usurpation.

 

You must have some kind of insecurity about your education because you try SO VERY HARD to show that you are educated. Unfortunately, for you, in doing so you shine a light on how limited your education has been.

This isn't about English or binary math, or walking or chewing gum. It's your inability to defend your quest to ban the sale of undefined weapons. You've made no proposal to ban weapons sales that would make it to an appellate court; certainly NOT the Supreme Court. Especially since you're unable to define what it is you want to ban.

And please stop posting truncated versions of my posts. It only shows you can't argue these points fairly.

 

Which ultimately was outright rejected by the Supreme Court.

Just because a brief is written does not mean it has any merit. And as the Supreme Court of the United States rejected it, it means about as much as used toilet paper.

You know, that really is a fail, trying to claim that a brief that was rejected in a landmark case is valid evidence of your argument. Maybe you should not use rejected and ignored legal opinions next time.

 

I'm not the topic of this thread. Do not use personal attacks to try to evade my arguments. It will not work. Even if your personal attacks were accurate, I am pretty much immune to shame by insult. So your tactic is a lost cause. Countering my points is the ONLY thing that might (or might not) work

I quote what I respond to without taking it out of context. But I WILL truncate personal attacks and off topic attempts to derail the thread and hide from my real arguments. And your post proves how RIGHT I am to do that because there is not ONE sentence in your post that addresses any of my arguments.

Having said that, I do not wish to discourage you from doing this because it's lame absurd posts with no content like yours that demonstrate that my point is not refutable. However, the above is what you can expect. So it's up to you to respond, not respond or do whatever the f...hell you want.