Another college shooting in US

[Andy J]

It is ;

the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

The Militia, is defined in part (A) it reads ...

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

So basically, it is ALL able bodied males.

[Paul1953]

Like I said I read the first part, which was easily understandable

So, is it correct to assume, that States' Militia is the National Guard?

And if so, who is the 'unorganised militia', if not members of the National Guard?.

[Andy J]

Like I said I read the first part, which was easily understandable

So, is it correct to assume, that States' Militia is the National Guard?

And if so, who is the 'unorganised militia', if not members of the National Guard?.

GROAN*

the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

[Paul1953]

Ok, take a deep breath.

Its been established who they are not ( as in not members of the National Guard ). I'm just trying to figure out who they are. Is there a separate entity under the sobriquet of 'militia'

Its confusing as I keep running across commentary at different sites, calling for the renewal of states' militia ( which is what I had previously thought was the National Guard.)

[Andy J]

Try this, website...

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/311.html

States still have guard units, but, BY LAW, the US Army, and other branches, are NOT militia.

[rpicardi1]

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 point of the militia is being missed. When the Second Amendment was passed, citizens had no means of defending this country other then banding together into a militia and using their own firearms which the used for hunting and their own personal defense. And, such firearms in private ownership back then were often military weapons including cannons.

The whole argument today over the possession of any firearms boils down to the definition of People.

At the time of the passage of the Bill of Rights, the "Right of the People" was defined as an individual's right. Today, People is defined as "the whole body of persons constituting a community, tribe, race, or nation." It is this argument that the antis are using to say that individuals have no right to own or possess a gun.

Currently, the Supreme Court has taken the case of the right of citizens in Washington DC to be to legally bear arms. The entire case hinges on the definition of "people"

If "people" is defined as the individual as intended by the framers of the Bill of Rights, all of the gun laws denying law abiding citizens the right to bear arms will be declared illegal.

If "people" is defined as community, tribe, race, state, nation, rulers, kings, etc..., then the meaning of the other nine amendments will also be changed.

1. You will no longer have the right to assemble peacefully to address and petition your Government over any issues. This includes belonging to political organizations and many other groups. Conservative talk radio will be regulated out of existence and the Government will have exclusive control of the content of the airwaves and the Internet. The Yard will be eliminated along with most internet blogs.

2. You WILL have to surrender all of your guns and ammunition to the State.

3. Should martial law be declared, you May be forced to house members of some military defense force at your own expense in your home or business.

4. You WILL lose all rights to your personal property. (This is already happened in some states.) The Government will have the right to dictate where you live and assign you work.

5. You Will lose your 5th amendment right of self incrimination.

6. Defending yourself in a court of law will become impossible when the government seizes all of your assets.

7. The same loss of assets will hamper your ability to sue or defend yourself when the Government sues you.

8. This may not change although with your assets frozen, you will not be able to afford bail anyways. So, any bail will already be excessive.

9. Since "people" refers to the State, this amendment will no longer applies to the individual.

10. the reference to "people" in this amendment will be just a reference to your local government which still need the approval of the State.

In a few months, we shall know if the United States remains a free nation or continues on the road towards a socialist state.

BTY, that killer also violated the university's "Gun Free Zone" law.

[rdamurphy]

Tough question, Paul. The answer is steeped in the bowells of antiquity, but one simple answer is:

George Mason:"I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people." (Elliott, Debates, 425-426)

Remember, our Founding Fathers based our system of Government on the Greek/Roman model, neither pure Democracy, but more Republic. In the Greek model, Citizens were allowed full access to all arms, and were expected to know how to use them for the defense of Greece. The City-States had no central Government, and spent a lot of time fighting each other, but never hesitated to band together to deal with an outside threat. Just ask the Persians.

Hence, the Armies of George Washington provided their own equipment and arms - and took them home with them. Even at the time of the War Between the States, when Lee's Confederate Army surrendered at Appomattox, the vanquished Confederate militiamen headed home with their weapons slung over their shoulders.

Now, keep in mind the words "well regulated" in 1791 did not mean the same thing. It meant "well equipped." In other words, the People were expected to have their own military equipment, and be trained to use it. If the local Sheriff called up a posse, you were expected to go. If your town was attacked by "hostiles" you were expected to grab your musket and muster to the designated location for service. (Remember, all of the Liberals, er sorry Loyalists, had fled to Canada after the Revolution.)

Now, the issue isn't whether it's an individual Right, it's whether or not that Right has changed. Thomas Paine was quite a radical:

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside... Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them..." I Writings of Thomas Paine at 56 (1894)

In other words, he cites self defense as a justification for the possession of Arms. As did the Judiciary:

Sir George Tucker: "The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest possible limits...and [when] the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." – Sir George Tucker, Judge of the Virginia Supreme Court and U.S. District Court of Virginia in I Blackstone COMMENTARIES Sir George Tucker Ed., 1803, pg. 300 (App.)

Thomas Jefferson agreed with him:

Thomas Jefferson In his Commonplace Book, Jefferson quotes Cesare Beccaria from his seminal work, On Crimes and Punishment: “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”

Jefferson also disagreed with the Second Amendment:

Thomas Jefferson: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.", Proposal for a Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950)

Too bad they didn't use his language!

Of course, there were objections to the militia as being a threat to liberty itself, to which Alexander Hamilton answered:

"Little more can be aimed at with respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped." (Id) {responding to the claim that the militia itself could threaten liberty}" There is something so far-fetched, and so extravagant in the idea of danger of liberty from the militia that one is at a loss whether to treat it with gravity or raillery (mockery). (Id)

So, why do Democrats/Liberals/Socialists/Leftists in America hate the idea of the Right to Bear Arms and why do they work so hard to disarm the People?

Let's return once again to our Founding Fathers, to the one that Democrats love to quote as often as they can:

Thomas Jefferson: "And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms... The tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.", letter to William S. Smith, 1787, in S. Padover (Ed.), Jefferson, On Democracy (1939), p. 20.

Robert

[rdamurphy]

Like I said I read the first part, which was easily understandable

So, is it correct to assume, that States' Militia is the National Guard?

And if so, who is the 'unorganised militia', if not members of the National Guard?.

Note: The National Guard was organized in 1903. The Second Amendment was ratified in 1791. However, the National Guard Act of 1903 superceded the laws governing the State Militias (Militia Act of 1792), in which the organized militia was replaced by the National Guard. The unorganized, or "volunteer" militia was not replaced.

Hope that helps.

Robert

[Paul1953]

Thank you Andy and Robert for the info, I now have a much better idea

[rdamurphy]

Here's a good refutation of the anti-gun position, if you're interested:

http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0700aclu.htm

Robert

[Paul1953]

Ive seen some articles regarding the ACLU's stance before. They are a bundle of contadictions, eh?

In Canada, the move to total gun control continues inexorably. It is extremely hard to get certification for handguns, and a few years ago, the federal gov't wanted to set up a long gun registry, over and above that already in place at the provincal level.

One of the most onerous provisions of the legislation passed to enable this beaurocratic boondoggle, is that when you die, the police will come and seize whatever weapons you might have. You can not bequeath your gun(s) to your inheritors. This was given no play in the media.

My brother -in-law, who is a true outdoorsman ( and the source of all my venison and moose meat! ), promptly sold his extensive collection , before the rest of the country read the fine print. He is now a crossbow hunter, which works in Ontario, as the deer and moose seasons overlap for bowhunters. It gets rather exciting when he and his buddies head west for Grizzly bear ( its gotta be the first shot! ).

I suspect those ,who might mean well with their gun legislation, wont really be happy until we are back to sticks and stones.

[Paul1953]

http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd343.htm

[Paul1953]

and finally

http://www.naturalnews.com/z022656.html

[rpicardi1]

I suspect those ,who might mean well with their gun legislation, wont really be happy until we are back to sticks and stones.

And, you won't be allowed to use them to defend yourself from the well armed criminals who have never obeyed any gun control law out there. Such is the case already in the UK where criminals routinely sue homeowners that attempted to protect their lives and property from such scum.

There are two sure way to end such gun violence;

1. The quick arrest and prosecuting of those that use guns in committing a crime. No pleas, no reduced sentencing. Use a gun to commit a crime, you Will do the time.

2. The uncertainty that if you force your way into someone's home with evil intent, you are likely to forfeit your life in the process.

In short;

"When Guns are Outlawed, Only Outlaws Will Have Guns." and "An Armed Society Is A Polite Society."

The police cannot protect you from criminals. They can only respond to pick up the pieces afterwards.

[msavianney]

Now excuse me, time to break out the credit card and order that German K98k Mauser for my Collection. (I mean this literally, not figuratively , it is on my short to-do list this morning)

Do it! I'm very happy with mine!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5tyA645k4k

Cheers,
Matt