Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, February 28, 2013

An Idaho lawmaker wants to rewrite the state's Constitution to define all of the state's adults as a militia, believing it will prevent the federal government from restricting their gun rights. State Sen. Jim Rice (R-Caldwell) called the amendment, which he wants to propose in the 2014 election, a "backstop" to existing protections of individual gun rights."

Advertisement

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

badgerwest

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

More

I know "gun nut" is a slur but this is crazy

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Personal attacks, profanity, abusive conduct and expressions of prejudice are not allowed. If you have comments about site moderation, contact the site publisher in email.

Making gun owners serve in militias is a great idea. Insist that they all give up one weekend a month for training if they want the right to bear arms.

#1 | Posted by rcade at 2013-02-28 09:12 AM | Reply | Flag:

Making gun owners serve in militias is a great idea. Insist that they all give up one weekend a month for training if they want the right to bear arms.

#1 | Posted by rcade at 2013-02-

I'm with you. It will be a social solution that ends up solving our current gun issues, and a competent, sane, loyal, and usefully employed militia is one such.

#2 | Posted by Zed at 2013-02-28 09:26 AM | Reply | Flag:

Have armed militia members post regular guard at elementary schools. People might learn to love AR-15s rather than fear them.

#3 | Posted by Zed at 2013-02-28 09:27 AM | Reply | Flag:

I think you overestimate the appeal Americans would have in seeing this country look like a banana republic.

#4 | Posted by rcade at 2013-02-28 11:16 AM | Reply | Flag:

Placing requirements such as national or State service solely on people who legally own firearms would, of course, be unconstitutional. That's why the Idaho GOP wants to force ALL people to join the militias. And it's a good idea. I hear grizzly bears are planning a takeover.

#5 | Posted by moder8 at 2013-02-28 11:26 AM | Reply | Flag:

Placing requirements such as national or State service solely on people who legally own firearms would, of course, be unconstitutional.

That's pretty ironic, given the wording of the Second Amendment. Our militia needs to be well-regulated!

#6 | Posted by rcade at 2013-02-28 11:26 AM | Reply | Flag:

um...every abled bodied citizen of illinois is in the state milita. such is in the state constitution. we all know how that worked out...with the most restricitve (and unconstitutional) gun laws in the nation.

#7 | Posted by visiter at 2013-02-28 12:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

advocate "involuntary servitude" much?

#8 | Posted by visiter at 2013-02-28 12:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

Making gun owners serve in militias is a great idea. Insist that they all give up one weekend a month for training if they want the right to bear arms.

#1 | POSTED BY RCADE AT 2013-02-28 09:12 AM


I agree. And then all people should have to go study political science one weekend a month, if they want the right to free speech.

And if they want the right to be persons, houses, papers, and effects, they should have to go serve search warrants.

Except they call them rights for a reason.

They aren't conditional.

.

#9 | Posted by Roy_Batty at 2013-02-28 12:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Placing requirements such as national or State service solely on people who legally own firearms would, of course, be unconstitutional."

Well without an ammendment that ties the right to bear arms with militias.....

Oh wait, there is!

#10 | Posted by Sully at 2013-02-28 12:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

Sully's almost as pathetically clueless as RCADE.

Why don't you two clowns move to Mexico where the police can protect you?

#11 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2013-02-28 12:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

Well without an ammendment that ties the right to bear arms with militias.....
Oh wait, there is!

#10 | POSTED BY SULLY AT 2013-02-28 12:52 PM


You might want to go read up on District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008).

The Supreme Court has already ruled on this. You're beating a dead horse.

.

#12 | Posted by Roy_Batty at 2013-02-28 12:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

"People might learn to love AR-15s rather than fear them."

That's sort of the problem we have in this country, people who grow to love their guns are usually psychos.
Stephen Colbert satirizes this best with his love for "Sweetness."

#13 | Posted by danni at 2013-02-28 12:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

Insist that they all give up one weekend a month for training if they want the right to bear arms.

#1 | Posted by rcade

Why?

#14 | Posted by Sniper at 2013-02-28 01:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

"I think you overestimate the appeal Americans would have in seeing this country look like a banana republic."

There's no way one could overestimate the appeal of authoritarianism for the American sheeple. A full 1/3 of them would consent to cavity searches by the TSA if it sped up the lines.

#15 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-02-28 01:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

That's pretty ironic, given the wording of the Second Amendment. Our militia needs to be well-regulated!

#6 | Posted by rcade

Can you define that?

#16 | Posted by Sniper at 2013-02-28 01:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Why don't you two clowns move to Mexico where the police can protect you?

#11 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2013-02-28 12:55 PM | Reply | Flag:"

Because you're proof that clowns, even drunken ones, can be perfectly safe in the USA!

#17 | Posted by Sully at 2013-02-28 01:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Placing requirements such as national or State service solely on people who legally own firearms would, of course, be unconstitutional."

#10 | Posted by Sully

Isn't that what the 'draft' did before we went to a voluntary army?

#19 | Posted by Sniper at 2013-02-28 01:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave.
-- "Political Disquisitions", a British republican tract of 1774-1775

The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it always to be kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now and then. It is like a storm in the Atmosphere.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Abigail Adams, 1787

& what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that his people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Col. William S. Smith, 1787

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined."
-- Patrick Henry, speech of June 5 1788

Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defence? Where is the difference between having our arms in our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defence be the *real* object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?
-- Patrick Henry, speech of June 9 1788

"To disarm the people... was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
-- George Mason, speech of June 14, 1788

#20 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2013-02-28 01:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

"The great object is, that every man be armed. [...] Every one who is able may have a gun."
-- Patrick Henry, speech of June 14 1788

Such are a well regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen.
-- "M.T. Cicero", in a newspaper letter of 1788 touching the "militia"
referred to in the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United states who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms...
-- Samuel Adams, in "Phila. Independent Gazetteer", August 20, 1789

The danger (where there is any) from armed citizens, is only to the *government*, not to *society*; and as long as they have nothing to revenge in the government (which they cannot have while it is in their own hands) there are many advantages in their being accustomed to the use of arms, and no possible disadvantage.
-- Joel Barlow, "Advice to the Privileged Orders", 1792-93

[The disarming of citizens] has a double effect, it palsies the hand and brutalizes the mind: a habitual disuse of physical forces totally destroys the moral [force]; and men lose at once the power of protecting themselves, and of discerning the cause of their oppression.
-- Joel Barlow, "Advice to the Privileged Orders", 1792-93

A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares about more than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
-- John Stuart Mill, writing on the U.S. Civil War in 1862

#21 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2013-02-28 01:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the great struggle for independence.
-- Attributed to Charles Austin Beard (1874-1948)

Every Communist must grasp the truth, 'Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.'
-- Mao Tse-tung, 1938, inadvertently endorsing the Second Amendment.

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. [...] The Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.
-- Majority Supreme Court opinion in "U.S. vs. Miller" (1939)

#22 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2013-02-28 01:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

In recent years it has been suggested that the Second Amendment protects the "collective" right of states to maintain militias, while it does not protect the right of "the people" to keep and bear arms. If anyone entertained this notion in the period during which the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were debated and ratified, it remains one of the most closely guarded secrets of the eighteenth century, for no known writing surviving from the period between 1787 and 1791 states such a thesis.
-- Stephen P. Halbrook, "That Every Man Be Armed", 1984

#23 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2013-02-28 01:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

"You might want to go read up on District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008).

The Supreme Court has already ruled on this. You're beating a dead horse..

#12 | Posted by Roy_Batty at 2013-02-28 12:57 PM | Reply | Flag:"

Legistlating from the bench. There would be no need to mentioned a militia in the 2nd ammendment if it had nothing to do with the intent of the the ammendment.

#24 | Posted by Sully at 2013-02-28 01:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

Making gun owners serve in militias is a great idea. Insist that they all give up one weekend a month for training if they want the right to bear arms.

#1 | POSTED BY RCADE

Sure, why not? Hell, let's take it a step further and follow Heinlein's lead and require said military service as prerequisite for citizenship and the right to vote while we're at it! If rights come with conditions then let's assign requirements for EVERY right...right? Tell you what; you start goose-stepping down Main Street and see if people fall in behind you.

#26 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2013-02-28 01:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

Zat's doing the "some guy said this once!" thing.

Its never been impressive but spamming it the way he does truly illustrates the idiocy of that practice....

#27 | Posted by Sully at 2013-02-28 01:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

Making gun owners serve in militias is a great idea. Insist that they all give up one weekend a month for training if they want the right to bear arms.

#1 | Posted by rcade at 2013-02-28 09:12 AM | Reply

Making registered democrats study the constitution for 51 weeks out of the year would solve all our problems.

#28 | Posted by matsop at 2013-02-28 01:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Isn't that what the 'draft' did before we went to a voluntary army?"

No. The draft applied to males in a certain age range.

The militia thing that Rcade was talking about would apply to people based on a behavior - owning a gun.

I actually don't advocate this. I'm having fun with the more easily manipulated gun kooks.

#30 | Posted by Sully at 2013-02-28 01:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

The people are already the militia. See Title 10 USC Chapter 13 Section 311.

There are two classes of militia: (1) the organized militia which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia, and (2) the unorganized militia wich consists of the rest of the militia which includes all able bodied males over age 16 and, with a few exceptions, under age 45.

The reserve militia includes everybody else.

#32 | Posted by gluon at 2013-02-28 01:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

Insist that they all give up one weekend a month for training if they want the right to bear arms.
#1 rcade

Having all of the "gun nuts" (their term, not mine)gathering,shooting targets and learning tactics once a month would have the Left pizzing themselves before the year was over.

#33 | Posted by Whizzo at 2013-02-28 01:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

With more guns, we're all much safer. Except when the trainers are shooting the trainees. Accidentally, of course.
www.kltv.com

#34 | Posted by cbob at 2013-02-28 01:41 PM | Reply | Flag:


Making gun owners serve in militias is a great idea. Insist that they all give up one weekend a month for training if they want the right to bear arms.

#1 | Posted by rcade at 2013-02-28 09:12 AM | Reply | Flag

So, we now see how far down the authoritarian liberal ladder you have fallen. You now subscribe indentured servitude for individual to obtain civil rights.

My how the standards have fallen, a long way from the reason this site was created.

#35 | Posted by moneywar at 2013-02-28 01:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

There would be no need to mentioned a militia in the 2nd ammendment if it had nothing to do with the intent of the the ammendment.

#24 | Posted by Sully at 2013-02-28 01:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

Sure there is. It's a warning. You need a militia for state security, however, you may have to shoot the militia if they support tyranny. That's why The People, in contrast to the well-regulated militia, have the right to keep and bear arms. The Brits fielded 100 regiments of Loyalist Militia, and actually expected far more local support. The People shot them.

#36 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2013-02-28 01:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

#36 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2013-02-28 01:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

I was screwing around. I don't really believe you should have to join a militia just to own a gun or that the 2nd Ammemdment was about that...

#37 | Posted by Sully at 2013-02-28 03:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

Legistlating from the bench. There would be no need to mentioned a militia in the 2nd ammendment if it had nothing to do with the intent of the the ammendment.

#24 | POSTED BY SULLY AT 2013-02-28 01:10 PM


You can agree with it, or not agree with it, but it has been ruled on.

This is the reality.

.

#38 | Posted by Roy_Batty at 2013-02-28 03:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

#37....One does not join a militia. One is automatically a militiaman.

See #32.

#39 | Posted by gluon at 2013-02-28 03:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

There are two classes of militia: (1) the organized militia which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia, and (2) the unorganized militia wich consists of the rest of the militia which includes all able bodied males over age 16 and, with a few exceptions, under age 45.

#32 | Posted by gluon at 2013-02-28 01:25 PM | Reply

The National Guard is not a militia. Its a reserve system for the regular armed forces. You didn't send any damned militia to fight the Iraq War.

#40 | Posted by Zed at 2013-02-28 04:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

The reserve militia includes everybody else.

#32 | Posted by gluon at 2013-02-28 01:25 PM | Reply

There is not such animal as an "unorganized militia". Its a contradiction in terms.

#41 | Posted by Zed at 2013-02-28 04:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

You may as well assert that all American males between the ages of 18 and 65 are members of the "Unorganized NFL".

#42 | Posted by Zed at 2013-02-28 04:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

All of you brain dead imbeciles read the law which I cited in #32.

Title 10 USC Chapter 13 Section 311

(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.

#43 | Posted by gluon at 2013-02-28 06:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

#40, 41 & 42 | Posted by Zed

Let Congress know of your dissatisfaction with the statute. It been on the books since 1916, last amended 1993.

#44 | Posted by et_al at 2013-02-28 06:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

(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.

#43 | Posted by gluon at

Sure, this is what it SAYS. In the same way that the mission statement of the US Marine Corps SAYS that Marines are to be used for amphibious operations, securing ports, and ship-to-ship military operations ONLY.

Makes you wonder how any of them got to be infantry soldiers in Iraq, doesn't it?

The National Guard isn't a militia.

#45 | Posted by Zed at 2013-02-28 06:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

#45....Federal law does not agree with you.

#46 | Posted by gluon at 2013-02-28 06:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

#45....Federal law does not agree with you.

#46 | Posted by gluon at 2013-02

Yeah, but reality is on my side.

#47 | Posted by Zed at 2013-02-28 06:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

So, we now see how far down the authoritarian liberal ladder you have fallen. You now subscribe indentured servitude for individual to obtain civil rights.

Because requiring regular training in order to use deadly weapons is completely ridiculous should be equated with slavery.

Someone has definitely fallen off of something.

But, since it was a Republican proposal we are discussing I should just consider the source I guess.

#48 | Posted by donnerboy at 2013-02-28 06:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

"There is not such animal as an "unorganized militia". Its a contradiction in terms."

There is in South Carolina:

"While a handful of states have moved to nullify President Barack Obama's recent executive orders on guns, a quartet of tea-party state senators in South Carolina introduced a bill Wednesday claiming to offer pro-gun citizens a different way around the federal rules: exempt the state's unorganized militia from federal gun regulations.

The unorganized militia consists of all able-bodied people over the age of 17 who are U.S. citizens residing in South Carolina and legally allowed to purchase a firearm, according to current state law.

The governor may activate the militia in a case of "imminent danger of war, insurrection, rebellion, invasion, tumult, riot, resistance to law or process or breach of the peace" when the National Guard is insufficient to deal with the unrest."

"dailycaller.com"

"Because requiring regular training in order to use deadly weapons is completely ridiculous should be equated with slavery."

Should training be required to exercise any of the other rights granted to "the people" in the BoR?

Not that I'm totally against the it. I think the government should issue every able bodied individual capable of serving in a security role a rifle that is at least semi-automatic, provided they are willing to attend training. This would also give the poor access to weapons they otherwise might not be able to afford. And face it, if it were any constitutional right other than the right to bear arms, progressives would be incensed that one is required to bear a monetary cost in order to exercise that right. Hell, look at how progressives whined about people being obligated to pay for health care, something that's not even guaranteed in the Constitution.

That's how the Swiss do it anyway, and their crime rates are lower than the vast majority of nations than forbid private citizens from owning firearms.

#49 | Posted by madbomber at 2013-02-28 07:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

Ohio law also defines "unorganized militia"

#50 | Posted by roadrunner22 at 2013-02-28 07:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

Ohio law also defines "unorganized militia"

#50 | Posted by roadrunner22 at 2013

Military units are by definition organizations.

#51 | Posted by Zed at 2013-02-28 08:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

#51 | Posted by Zed

Organization like this: US Code/ Title 10: Armed Forces/ Subtitle A: General Military Law/ Part I: Organization and general military powers/ Chapter 13: The militia / Section 311: Militia: composition and classes

Subject to call like this: Chapter 15: Enforcement of the laws to restore public order/ Section 332: Use of militia and armed forces to enforce Federal authority

Or did you have in mind some other form of reality?

#52 | Posted by et_al at 2013-02-28 09:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

nsist that they all give up one weekend a month for training if they want the right to bear arms.

#1 | Posted by rcade

Why?

#14 | Posted by Sniper

Because it says so in the Constitution. You should read it some time.

###
Should training be required to exercise any of the other rights granted to "the people" in the BoR?
There are restrictions on many things covered in the BofR. Also, the Constitution calls for a well-regulated militia, not the untrained mob that S. Carolina wants.

Congess powers:
"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;"

"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, "

See federal control over organizing and training a militia.

#55 | Posted by northguy3 at 2013-02-28 09:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

health care, something that's not even guaranteed in the Constitution.

define "general welfare". Then show my where the FAA is in the Constitution.

And, please explain why the Air Force exists and why there is a standing Army, given the Constitution says there isn't to be one.

Hmmm...................

#56 | Posted by northguy3 at 2013-02-28 09:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

"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;"

Oooo, righties want to create really big militias so Obama can send them to FEMA camps for re-education.

Idiots.

#57 | Posted by northguy3 at 2013-02-28 09:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

#55 | Posted by northguy3
See federal control over organizing and training a militia.

Look before you leap. See #52, the militia has been well regulated by Congress.

#58 | Posted by et_al at 2013-02-28 09:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

"On the other hand you seem to be a very nice Loser."

And Graceful, on the odd occasion that I lose...

"There are restrictions on many things covered in the BofR. Also, the Constitution calls for a well-regulated militia, not the untrained mob that S. Carolina wants."

Uh, no. It doesn't call for it. It establishes at a right. Calling for it implies that it exists at the pleasure of the federal government. That's not the case.

"define "general welfare". Then show my where the FAA is in the Constitution."

If free healthcare for all fell under the auspices of the general welfare clause, why wasn't it recognized prior to the last several decades. Furthermore, if you want to host healthcare under the general welfare clause, why not corporate bailouts as well? Or pretty much any other spending program the government deems beneficial to the general welfare of the nation.

#60 | Posted by madbomber at 2013-02-28 10:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

"And, please explain why the Air Force exists and why there is a standing Army, given the Constitution says there isn't to be one."

That's a good question. Could it be perhaps due to the fact that budget outlays are signed in one year incriments?

#61 | Posted by madbomber at 2013-02-28 10:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

If free healthcare for all fell under the auspices of the general welfare clause, why wasn't it recognized prior to the last several decades.

If all men are created equal, why did slavery last for a century? Why did it take so long to interpret that statement to cover women?

Could it be perhaps due to the fact that budget outlays are signed in one year incriments?

Yes, but based on much longer term plans, like for new weapon systems, etc..

The FF were opposed to the cost of a standing army and wanted to rely on militias in time of war. Then again, the Ff wouldn't have supported a kazillion foreign military bases and foreign wars. The military was for defending the country and keeping the rabble in line.

#62 | Posted by northguy3 at 2013-02-28 10:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

"If all men are created equal, why did slavery last for a century? Why did it take so long to interpret that statement to cover women?"

Slaves were not considered people, and therefore not as men. Women ARE NOT men, which means that by granting them sufferage, the term "men" took on a whole new meaning.

"Yes, but based on much longer term plans, like for new weapon systems, etc."

Budgeted for in incriments that sometimes last decades. Sometimes more. But funding is not allocated at the time of the program's conception.

#63 | Posted by madbomber at 2013-03-01 08:02 AM | Reply | Flag:

"The FF were opposed to the cost of a standing army and wanted to rely on militias in time of war. Then again, the Ff wouldn't have supported a kazillion foreign military bases and foreign wars."

Remind me again who the Barbary Pirates were.

Hint: They weren't whalers.

#64 | Posted by madbomber at 2013-03-01 08:03 AM | Reply | Flag:

I brought up the "well-regulated militia" because it's funny. To the modern fan of the Second Amendment, those words mean no regulations and no militia. Even a mandatory one-hour-a-month training class is an unconstitutional infringement on their rights.

#65 | Posted by rcade at 2013-03-01 08:41 AM | Reply | Flag:

Or did you have in mind some other form of reality?

#52 | Posted by et_al at 2013-02-28 09:04 PM | Reply

Yes, actually. I bring forth usage and you feed me words.

You aren't a member of any militia, no more than I am, despite what laws you find. At most, we're both still of draft age, which I find incredibly funny.

#66 | Posted by Zed at 2013-03-01 09:00 AM | Reply | Flag:

-To the modern fan of the Second Amendment, those words mean no regulations and no militia.

I ask the gun divas what "well-regulated militia" they belong to and all I get is a dumb stare.

#67 | Posted by Corky at 2013-03-01 09:29 AM | Reply | Flag:

#66 | Posted by Zed
Yes, actually. I bring forth usage and you feed me words.

Your usage is your perception. What I gave you is reality, also known as law. Perception devoid of reality is also known as delusion. But, there you have it. And why duck your original premise regarding organization?

You aren't a member of any militia, no more than I am, despite what laws you find. At most, we're both still of draft age, which I find incredibly funny.

True, I am not a member of the militia because I passed draft age and militia service long ago. My voluntary enlistment in the regular Army ended in June 1977. Still funny?

#68 | Posted by et_al at 2013-03-01 05:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

Your usage is your perception. What I gave you is reality, also known as law.

#68 | Posted by et_al at 2013-03-01 05:47 PM

I'm suspecting, from a myriad of clues, that you must be a lawyer. Therefore this argument about whether a thing is what it is or what someone has written down it is.

#69 | Posted by Zed at 2013-03-02 12:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

And why duck your original premise regarding organization?

#68 | Posted by et_al at 2013-03-01 05:47 PMFlag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

I'm not aware that I did that. A militia implies an organization, no matter how spare. The laws you are citing merely identify a potential pool of volunteers.

Unless you'd like to argue, legally, that a governor can call up free citizens into a militia for active service even if they don't want to go?

#70 | Posted by Zed at 2013-03-02 12:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

#69 | Posted by Zed

Statutes are an illusion it is.

#71 | Posted by et_al at 2013-03-02 12:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

Statutes are an illusion it is.

#71 | Posted by et_al at 2013-03

If the National Guard were involved in a legal issue, I imagine your statutes would have much use.

You're a veteran. Can a statute make a tank into a pony?

#72 | Posted by Zed at 2013-03-02 12:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Unless you'd like to argue, legally, that a governor can call up free citizens into a militia for active service even if they don't want to go?"

You should probably re-read #49, because in the case of South Carolina the civiillian population is the militia. The question of whether or not the government can force them to act on behalf of the state is something of a red herring, at least when it comes to the second amendment, which guarantees the right to keep and bear arms, not the responsibility to serve in a militia.

If you don't like guns, that's fine, but understand that if you can abrogate the second amendment, you can abrogate them all. It's not a stretch to envision a country where people were obligated to go to a church or adhere to state-mandated morality, regardless of whether society wanted to or not.

#73 | Posted by madbomber at 2013-03-02 12:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

#70 | Posted by Zed
A militia implies an organization, no matter how spare. The laws you are citing merely identify a potential pool of volunteers.

I agree, 10 U.S.C. § 311 is pretty spare but it regulates the militia. I see nothing in the Constitution about organization in the sense you appear to use the word. Look up "regulate," it basically means conform to law. Organization (divisions, battalions, companies, etc.) and training can occur after call up. Only in the perception of the delusional does the statute create a pool of volunteers.

Unless you'd like to argue, legally, that a governor can call up free citizens into a militia for active service even if they don't want to go?

I have not looked up state laws; however, 10 U.S.C. §332 grants the President authority to do exactly that. As with any statute compliance is a question separate from authority.

#72 | Posted by Zed
Can a statute make a tank into a pony?

Can you be any more idiotic?

#74 | Posted by et_al at 2013-03-02 03:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

If you don't like guns, that's fine, but understand that if you can abrogate the second amendment, you can abrogate them all. It's not a stretch to envision a country where people were obligated to go to a church or adhere to state-mandated morality, regardless of whether society wanted to or not.

#73 | Posted by madbomber at 2013-

Pish-posh. Im fine with guns. I just don't mistake them for my pets.

I think militias are intriguing idea. I don't think we'll see a true one in this country ever again. Despite the just as gun-saturated 19th Century having no problem with them.

The modern Right thinks that militias are a threat to the 2nd Amendment. More likely, they just see them as being work, a perception that will continue to doom them.

#75 | Posted by Zed at 2013-03-02 04:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

#72 | Posted by Zed
Can a statute make a tank into a pony?

Can you be any more idiotic?

#74 | Posted by et_al at 2013

Don't challenge me.

I note that a statute can make a corporation into a person. Completely silly save in a specific context.

Interesting country we live in. Everyone has the right to a gun; no one has a right to a meal.

#76 | Posted by Zed at 2013-03-02 04:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

Making gun owners serve in militias is a great idea. Insist that they all give up one weekend a month for training if they want the right to bear arms.

#1 | Posted by rcade

you guys are just being silly by attempting to frame your viewpoint by assigning definitions not in common use by original founders.
"regulated" simply meant able-bodied & capable (of battle)

as I mentioned before, by Ohio law:

ORC 5923.01 State militia membership -

(A) The Ohio organized militia consist of all citizens ... more than seventeen years, and not more than sixty-seven years of age who are members of one of the following-
(1) The Ohio national guard;
(2) The Ohio naval militia;
(3) The Ohio military reserve.
...

(D) The unorganized militia consists of those citizens of the state as described in division (A) of this section who are NOT MEMBERS OF THE OHIO ORGANIZED MILITIA.

#77 | Posted by roadrunner22 at 2013-03-02 04:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

"regulated" simply meant able-bodied & capable (of battle)

#77 | Posted by roadrunner22 at

Then an armed mob could be defined as a militia. I rather doubt that the Founders meant that, either.

#78 | Posted by Zed at 2013-03-02 05:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

#77 | Posted by roadrunner22
"regulated" simply meant...

You no more get to make up a definition than Zed gets to create reality out of perception. Unless you have something specific that says otherwise, regulated basically means conform to law.

Here's an interesting question, federal law creates an unorganized militia. Some state laws do that also, OH for example. Assuming the state has a law to call the militia to service as does the federal statute, which prevails in the event of a national need that also affects OH, meaning both the state and federal statutes are invoked. Theoretically, would assume the federal prevails because of the Supremacy Clause.

What if they are invoked for opposing reasons?

#79 | Posted by et_al at 2013-03-02 06:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

Then an armed mob could be defined as a militia. I rather doubt that the Founders meant that, either.

#78 | Posted by Zed

duhhh, not quite... your jumped the track?
anyway, in 1774 your armed mob WOULD have been described as "well regulated"

#80 | Posted by roadrunner22 at 2013-03-02 06:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

#80 | Posted by roadrunner22 at 2013-03-02 06:19 PM | Reply | Flag

You are mistaken. They knew the difference between a mob and a well regulated militia. Both were part of their lives and experiences, and they had the language skills to say what they meant.

#81 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2013-03-02 06:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

anyway, in 1774 your armed mob WOULD have been described as "well regulated"

#80 | Posted by roadrunner22 at 2013-

Well, then, that was pretty stupid.

Time to employ common sense. No civilized man condones mobs, especially armed ones. That would have been true for the Founders.

#82 | Posted by Zed at 2013-03-02 06:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

You no more get to make up a definition than Zed gets to create reality out of perception. Unless you have something specific that says otherwise, regulated basically means conform to law.
#79 | Posted by et_al
congressional record 1777:
... the strength of the Creek Indians is very different. That the said Creeks are not only greatly superior in numbers but are more united and better regulated

similar references in Federalist Papers & other writings of that time

kinda arrogant to assign/ assume meanings without research

#83 | Posted by roadrunner22 at 2013-03-02 06:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

#79 | Posted by et_al at 2013-03-02 06:03 PM | Reply

There is no such thing as a State formed unregulated militia in Ohio. Your statement seems foolish. How about a link to ANY State that has an unreulated militia formed by the State. Where is the unorganized militia formed by the Federal government.

#84 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2013-03-02 06:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

I apologize--I finally saw the link to unorganized militia in Ohio. However, the State quite clearly States they are unorganized militia, and the second amendment clearly states that only a well regulated militia was to have unrestricted access to all weapons available. That means that the unregulated militia was not given the right to bear arms.

#85 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2013-03-02 06:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

#83 | Posted by roadrunner22
kinda[sic] arrogant to assign/ assume meanings without research[sic]

Research? Like this:

regulate (v.)1630s, from Late Latin regulatus, pp. of regulare "to control by rule, direct" (5c.), from Latin regula "rule" (see regular). Related: Regulated; regulating. www.etymonline.com

See also, "regulate." www.merriam-webster.com

#86 | Posted by et_al at 2013-03-02 06:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

#85 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

Wrong again. See the definitions of regulate and regulated. For the federal unorganized militia, see links at 52. That particular iteration has been around since the early 1900's. There were others dating to 1792.

#87 | Posted by et_al at 2013-03-02 07:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

#87 | Posted by et_al at 2013

Blah Blah Blah----read the 2nd amendment.

#88 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2013-03-02 07:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

Interesting country we live in. Everyone has the right to a gun; no one has a right to a meal.

#76 | Posted by Zed at 2013-03-02 04:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

and the worm turns

rwd

#89 | Posted by rightwingdon at 2013-03-02 07:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

We need more...Food Stamps for Fat People

#90 | Posted by Greatamerican at 2013-03-02 07:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

#88 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

I have. It does not mean what you think it does (see above for brief discussion of reality, perception and delusion). The definition of regulated is linked above. The unorganized militia is regulated by statute, linked above. Sorry that it doesn't fit your narrative.

#91 | Posted by et_al at 2013-03-02 07:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

#91

The second amendment is clear and concise. It makes perfect sense. It doesn't take 600 pages of definitions to discern its meaning. All your links simply can not eerase what the 2nd amendment says---but they can twist simple words into convoluted meaning

2nd amendment says----well regulated militia---USSCsays well regulated is not necessary.

2nd amendment says---a well reulated militia is necessary----USSC says well regulated militia is not necessary.

2nd amendment says---the well regulated militia is necessary to protect a free State----USSC says State protection not a factor.

2nd amendment says---the right of the people to keep and bear arms---USSC says individuals have the right to keep and bear arms.

2nd amendment says---the right to bear arms shall not be infringed----USSC says the goverenment can infringe.

Answer this question Et Al---do you think the founders were too stupid to write---Individuals have the right to keep and bear arms but such right may be infringed as government sees fit---if that is what they were trying to say?

#92 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2013-03-02 07:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

Interesting country we live in. Everyone has the right to a gun; no one has a right to a meal.

Getting a meal has been found to be far easier with a gun than without; Although I had one cousin who could run down rabbits.

#93 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2013-03-02 07:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

#92 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

Blah Blah Blah...
#88 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

#94 | Posted by et_al at 2013-03-02 08:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

#94 | Posted by et_al at 2013-03-02 08:06 PM | Reply

Answer this question Et Al---do you think the founders were too stupid to write---Individuals have the right to keep and bear arms but such right may be infringed as government sees fit---if that is what they were trying to say?

#95 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2013-03-02 08:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

#95 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

I've answered your questions many times. We have argued this ad nauseum.

It's simpler to just say your wrong. Your wrong.

#96 | Posted by et_al at 2013-03-02 08:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

#96 | Posted by et_al at 2013-03-02 08:31 PM | Reply

I believe your post was a fabrication. Let's try again.

Answer this question Et Al---do you think the founders were too stupid to write---Individuals have the right to keep and bear arms but such right may be infringed as government sees fit---if that is what they were trying to say?

#97 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2013-03-02 08:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

"It's simpler to just say your wrong. Your wrong."

The laugh-a-minute website.

#98 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2013-03-02 08:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

#98 | Posted by Zatoichi

Damn. Got me.

Oh, and Bob, you're wrong and your resort to spamming the thread is the evidence.

Hey, Zat, saw your brick throwing cyborg BigDog post on another thread. Here's more.

#99 | Posted by et_al at 2013-03-02 08:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

#99

If you can't answer a simple question, you lose.

Simple isn't it.

;-)

#100 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2013-03-02 09:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

"saw your brick throwing cyborg"

The robotics guys are next door.
I just build cosmic ray cameras.

#101 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2013-03-02 09:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

I just build cosmic ray cameras.

#101 | Posted by Zatoichi

Dude, you oughta be like, on Mr. Rushmore or something.

#102 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-03-02 09:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

#100 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob
If you can't answer a simple question, you lose.

Were this a competition I tried to win you might have a point. It's not, so you don't.

You're still wrong.

Simple isn't it.

#103 | Posted by et_al at 2013-03-02 10:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

-cosmic ray

Ray would be proud that his tradition of Doomsayer Curmudginism is being perpetuated so well.

#104 | Posted by Corky at 2013-03-03 12:07 AM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Drudge Retort

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2013 World Readable

 

Advertisement