Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 55
Like Tree28Likes
  1. Thread Author  Thread Author    #1  

    Default A thread closed before I gave my answer about flintlocks

    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.
    Way I see it we'd have to organize militias again to justify the right to bear arms and I believe that we should do so. Each citizen, non felon, non crazy, non dangerous all by judicial decree may bear arms and belong to state militias (way it was done historically}; each citizen would then by order governors and state legislatures spend a month each summer drilled and taught proper gun use and safety by the national guard. They would also be subject to calls for hunts for lost children, other persons, and also mobilize during emergencies. Service to state and community the Constitution obligation required of gun owners:
    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...
    It's more obligation than just right. Some states may require it of non pacifists.
    Last edited by saint satin stain; 12-06-2013 at 07:57 PM. Reason: Correct usage
  2. #2  

    Default Re: A thread closed before I gave my answer about flintlocks

    I don't have guns where I live and to be honest I feel safer than if we did have guns. It removes the level of potential escalation, eliminated our massacres, enthusiasts can use them if they follow the law, reduction in teen suicide, low teen murder rates (USA is 82x higher than ours per capita), I think there is really no justification to have guns to prevent a state over throwing a government. If a state doesnt like what's occurring leave the federation.

    - Android Central App. Remember courage is contagious.
    Tom Fairclough
    Credo faber est quisque fortunae suae
    I believe every man is the artisan of his own fortune
  3. #3  

    Default Re: A thread closed before I gave my answer about flintlocks

    Members of the US Militia are enumerated in USC 10 Section 311. It is clearly stated who will and at what age, they will serve and who is also exempted from service when called upon by the President. Its important to note that America is not and never will be like any other nation. We are different, our founders established the Militia clause and others to help defend against threats foreign and domestic. Its all boiler plate US Code. If people don't like the way Americans live their lives then maybe they should leave America. I think this will take you to the statute:
    Last edited by Bratigan; 12-08-2013 at 03:18 PM.
    Thanked by:
    mrsmumbles likes this.
  4. #4  
    JW4VZW's Avatar
    Banned

    Posts
    147 Posts

    Default Re: A thread closed before I gave my answer about flintlocks

    Quote Originally Posted by Bratigan View Post
    Its important to note that America is not and never will be like any other nation.
    Which is why we should stick to our constitutionally guaranteed rights!
    mrsmumbles likes this.
  5. #5  

    Default Re: A thread closed before I gave my answer about flintlocks

    There is no need for a well organized militia anymore...we have the various military services and police forces for that. This is the only excuse I ever see when people want to justify their "right" to owning every type of weapon. Id have more respect for gun happy second amendment lovers if they just owned up to liking the sport.

    ✌SG3/iPad2
    Sent from my S3
    Thanked by:
    palandri and Fairclough like this.
  6. #6  

    Default Re: A thread closed before I gave my answer about flintlocks

    Quote Originally Posted by nolittdroid View Post
    There is no need for a well organized militia anymore...we have the various military services and police forces for that.....

    ✌SG3/iPad2
    ....but those are the ones that they recruit into the New World Order and fly around in black helicopters disarming the public and then putting us all into FEMA labor camps. Haven't you ever listened to the wise one, Alex Jones?
    Thanked by:
    Fairclough likes this.
  7. #7  
    JW4VZW's Avatar
    Banned

    Posts
    147 Posts

    Default Re: A thread closed before I gave my answer about flintlocks

    Quote Originally Posted by nolittdroid View Post
    There is no need for a well organized militia anymore...we have the various military services and police forces for that. This is the only excuse I ever see when people want to justify their "right" to owning every type of weapon. Id have more respect for gun happy second amendment lovers if they just owned up to liking the sport.

    ✌SG3/iPad2
    Have you seen the state that the military is currently in? Morale is at an all time low. Maybe you haven't seen the huge defense cuts in the last five years.
    As for why I have my guns, plural. I enjoy target shooting, yes. But i have them because it is a right that is guaranteed to me in the Second Amendment.
    Quote Originally Posted by palandri View Post
    ....but those are the ones that they recruit into the New World Order and fly around in black helicopters disarming the public and then putting us all into FEMA labor camps. Haven't you ever listened to the wise one, Alex Jones?
    More liberal nonsense.
  8. #8  

    Default Re: A thread closed before I gave my answer about flintlocks

    Some believe the 2nd Amendment " A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," somehow refers to the National guard. However the 2nd amendment was ratified in 1787, and the National Guard was not created until another 130 years in 1917. Obviously they were not speaking of a National guard.

    The National Guard is federally funded, with bases on federal land, using federally-owned weapons, vehicles, buildings and uniforms, punishing trespassers under federal law, so how can it be a "state" militia?

    During Katrina the Federally funded National guard were going door to door taking away peoples arms leaving them defenseless. A true militia looking out for the safety of the citizens would or should during times like that be handing out arms to unarmed citizens based on individual case so they would be able to protect themselves and property.
    Thanked by 2:
    Bratigan likes this.
  9. #9  
    Darth Spock's Avatar

    Posts
    5,694 Posts
    Global Posts
    5,733 Global Posts
    ROM
    Assassin 'Droid

    Default Re: A thread closed before I gave my answer about flintlocks

    Quote Originally Posted by plumbrich View Post
    Some believe the 2nd Amendment " A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," somehow refers to the National guard. However the 2nd amendment was ratified in 1787, and the National Guard was not created until another 130 years in 1917. Obviously they were not speaking of a National guard.

    The National Guard is federally funded, with bases on federal land, using federally-owned weapons, vehicles, buildings and uniforms, punishing trespassers under federal law, so how can it be a "state" militia?

    During Katrina the Federally funded National guard were going door to door taking away peoples arms leaving them defenseless. A true militia looking out for the safety of the citizens would or should during times like that be handing out arms to unarmed citizens based on individual case so they would be able to protect themselves and property.
    The National Guard has existed as a dual State and Federal agency for most of it's history with chains of command through the governor and the president. Realistically, as soon as the US decided to have a standing peace time army, the part about "the militia" became obsolete. The militia was intended to exist INSTEAD of an army in the original constitution, which the founders found to be both a dangerous entity and a massively wasteful expense. It is somewhat accurate that the "well regulated militias" became part of the National Guard at their inception, however we exist in a state still with two definitions of militias, which is the basis for the legality of the draft.

    ​Obvious statement: Why, I am an assassin 'droid, Master.
    May the Force Be With You

    Community Rules & Guidelines​
    (Formerly "NothingIsTrue")

  10. #10  

    Default Re: A thread closed before I gave my answer about flintlocks

    The US Code is not obsloete so therefore the militia clause is also not obsolete. The law is the law, your description is merely whim. The clause remains on the books until
    it is repealed from the statute.
  11. #11  
    JW4VZW's Avatar
    Banned

    Posts
    147 Posts

    Default Re: A thread closed before I gave my answer about flintlocks

    Quote Originally Posted by plumbrich View Post
    Some believe the 2nd Amendment " A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," somehow refers to the National guard. However the 2nd amendment was ratified in 1787, and the National Guard was not created until another 130 years in 1917. Obviously they were not speaking of a National guard.
    So far you are correct.
    Quote Originally Posted by plumbrich View Post
    The National Guard is federally funded, with bases on federal land, using federally-owned weapons, vehicles, buildings and uniforms, punishing trespassers under federal law, so how can it be a "state" militia?
    You are not even close to being correct. Most National Guard, and Air National Guard, units operate from state-owned installations. Sure, there are a few that operate from Active Duty bases, but this is not the norm.
    Quote Originally Posted by plumbrich View Post
    During Katrina the Federally funded National guard were going door to door taking away peoples arms leaving them defenseless. A true militia looking out for the safety of the citizens would or should during times like that be handing out arms to unarmed citizens based on individual case so they would be able to protect themselves and property.
    Were they operating under state orders, or federal orders? If they were operating under federal orders they can’t do as you said.
    Quote Originally Posted by NothingIsTrue View Post
    The National Guard has existed as a dual State and Federal agency for most of it's history with chains of command through the governor and the president. Realistically, as soon as the US decided to have a standing peace time army, the part about "the militia" became obsolete. The militia was intended to exist INSTEAD of an army in the original constitution, which the founders found to be both a dangerous entity and a massively wasteful expense. It is somewhat accurate that the "well regulated militias" became part of the National Guard at their inception, however we exist in a state still with two definitions of militias, which is the basis for the legality of the draft.
    The National Guard, and the Air National Guard, is for lack of a better phrase a dual role organization. They can either operate at the state level, under the governor, or at the federal level, through the Department of Defense, under the president. What role they are filling determines which Chain of Command they fall under.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bratigan View Post
    The US Code is not obsloete so therefore the militia clause is also not obsolete. The law is the law, your description is merely whim. The clause remains on the books until
    it is repealed from the statute.
    It’ll be repealed soon I bet. That is sad though that the tyrant in chief thinks he can change the Constitution as he pleases.
  12. #12  

    Default Re: A thread closed before I gave my answer about flintlocks

    Quote Originally Posted by JW4VZW View Post
    Have you seen the state that the military is currently in? Morale is at an all time low. Maybe you haven't seen the huge defense cuts in the last five years.
    As for why I have my guns, plural. I enjoy target shooting, yes. But i have them because it is a right that is guaranteed to me in the Second Amendment.


    More liberal nonsense.
    Really?? You own guns just because it is your right granted as by the constitution? That's ridiculous.

    ✌SG3/iPad2
    Sent from my S3
  13. #13  

    Default Re: A thread closed before I gave my answer about flintlocks

    Quote Originally Posted by nolittdroid View Post
    Really?? You own guns just because it is your right granted as by the constitution? That's ridiculous.

    ✌SG3/iPad2
    I really hope not because that is one of the reasons I own firearms.

    Also shooting steel pigs at 300 meters is a real hoot.

    Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk
    Thanked by:
  14. #14  
    JW4VZW's Avatar
    Banned

    Posts
    147 Posts

    Default Re: A thread closed before I gave my answer about flintlocks

    Quote Originally Posted by nolittdroid View Post
    Really?? You own guns just because it is your right granted as by the constitution? That's ridiculous.

    ✌SG3/iPad2
    What I said was “As for why I have my guns, plural. I enjoy target shooting, yes. But i have them because it is a right that is guaranteed to me in the Second Amendment.” It shouldn’t matter why I have my guns because they are all legally obtained, registered and a Constitutional Right. Sure, target shooting is fun. Ever since I was working in Richmond and the store manager in the slot next to me got robbed late at night leaving work, I have been worried about being robbed with large amounts of cash. Perhaps people should be more worried about the street thugs illegally obtaining guns and using them for crimes then the rest of us legal gun owners. So how is it ridiculous that I own a gun because, in your words, it is my "right granted as by the constitution? " I will never understand the liberal peoples logic.
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnnytheK View Post
    I really hope not because that is one of the reasons I own firearms.

    Also shooting steel pigs at 300 meters is a real hoot.

    Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk
    Like I said, target shooting is fun. I grew up around guns and was taught, at an early age, the importance of gun safety. But they need not worry too much, we won’t have a Second Amendment for much longer. We actually have a pool going on at my store for that.
  15. #15  
    Darth Spock's Avatar

    Posts
    5,694 Posts
    Global Posts
    5,733 Global Posts
    ROM
    Assassin 'Droid

    Default Re: A thread closed before I gave my answer about flintlocks

    Quote Originally Posted by JW4VZW View Post
    What I said was “As for why I have my guns, plural. I enjoy target shooting, yes. But i have them because it is a right that is guaranteed to me in the Second Amendment.” It shouldn’t matter why I have my guns because they are all legally obtained, registered and a Constitutional Right. Sure, target shooting is fun. Ever since I was working in Richmond and the store manager in the slot next to me got robbed late at night leaving work, I have been worried about being robbed with large amounts of cash. Perhaps people should be more worried about the street thugs illegally obtaining guns and using them for crimes then the rest of us legal gun owners. So how is it ridiculous that I own a gun because, in your words, it is my "right granted as by the constitution? " I will never understand the liberal peoples logic.

    Like I said, target shooting is fun. I grew up around guns and was taught, at an early age, the importance of gun safety. But they need not worry too much, we won’t have a Second Amendment for much longer. We actually have a pool going on at my store for that.
    Not to speak for someone else, but what I think she was going after was that if you said you own them for self defense, for collecting, for hunting, for sport, or any other reason, that'd make sense. Buying them simply because they're in the Constitution is doesn't make as much sense. That's what allows you to buy them, not the cause. Otherwise, since freedom of the press is guaranteed, should we all go buy printing presses and make our own newspapers? Having the right doesn't mandate utilizing it, but rather protects the ability of those who choose to do so. That's not a liberal comment in any way that I can fathom, but I may have misunderstood it.

    ​Obvious statement: Why, I am an assassin 'droid, Master.
    May the Force Be With You

    Community Rules & Guidelines​
    (Formerly "NothingIsTrue")

    msndrstood and UJ95x like this.
  16. #16  
    JW4VZW's Avatar
    Banned

    Posts
    147 Posts

    Default Re: A thread closed before I gave my answer about flintlocks

    Quote Originally Posted by NothingIsTrue View Post
    Not to speak for someone else, but what I think she was going after was that if you said you own them for self defense, for collecting, for hunting, for sport, or any other reason, that'd make sense. Buying them simply because they're in the Constitution is doesn't make as much sense. That's what allows you to buy them, not the cause. Otherwise, since freedom of the press is guaranteed, should we all go buy printing presses and make our own newspapers? Having the right doesn't mandate utilizing it, but rather protects the ability of those who choose to do so. That's not a liberal comment in any way that I can fathom, but I may have misunderstood it.
    Again, what I said was “As for why I have my guns, plural. I enjoy target shooting, yes. But i have them because it is a right that is guaranteed to me in the Second Amendment.” So that does cover the sport aspect of things. I also covered the personal defense aspect. So I have my guns for sport (target shooting) and defense. That being said, it is my right to have a gun. The liberal comment has to do with the typical liberal attitude towards guns. That is they are not needed and nobody should have them. As for “Having the right doesn't mandate utilizing it, but rather protects the ability of those who choose to do so.” I hope like hell I never have to use my gun for personal defense. To say that it is “ridiculous” to own a gun because my right is, in fact, quite ridiculous in itself.
  17. #17  
    UJ95x's Avatar

    Posts
    5,459 Posts
    Global Posts
    5,538 Global Posts
    ROM
    Slim Kat 4.4.2 Build 3

    Default Re: A thread closed before I gave my answer about flintlocks

    Quote Originally Posted by Fairclough View Post
    I don't have guns where I live and to be honest I feel safer than if we did have guns. It removes the level of potential escalation, eliminated our massacres, enthusiasts can use them if they follow the law, reduction in teen suicide, low teen murder rates (USA is 82x higher than ours per capita), I think there is really no justification to have guns to prevent a state over throwing a government. If a state doesnt like what's occurring leave the federation.

    - Android Central App. Remember courage is contagious.
    Can't remember where I read this but a few days ago someone said that if you removed Washington DC, Michigan and another state (Can't recall atm) the US would have the second lowest crime rate in the world O_o

    Posted via Android Central App
    Everything in this post is 100% accurate...I think

    R.I.P. Motorola...and what could have been the best smartphone line ever
  18. #18  
    Darth Spock's Avatar

    Posts
    5,694 Posts
    Global Posts
    5,733 Global Posts
    ROM
    Assassin 'Droid

    Default Re: A thread closed before I gave my answer about flintlocks

    Quote Originally Posted by JW4VZW View Post
    Again, what I said was “As for why I have my guns, plural. I enjoy target shooting, yes. But i have them because it is a right that is guaranteed to me in the Second Amendment.” So that does cover the sport aspect of things. I also covered the personal defense aspect. So I have my guns for sport (target shooting) and defense. That being said, it is my right to have a gun. The liberal comment has to do with the typical liberal attitude towards guns. That is they are not needed and nobody should have them. As for “Having the right doesn't mandate utilizing it, but rather protects the ability of those who choose to do so.” I hope like hell I never have to use my gun for personal defense. To say that it is “ridiculous” to own a gun because my right is, in fact, quite ridiculous in itself.
    I think I understand what you're saying and what nolittdroid is saying, and from my perspective I think it's just a misunderstanding of terminology. As she said in another thread that she's not a liberal, I am inclined to believe her and think she's not spinning propaganda at you, but rather trying to point out that perhaps there ought to be reasons other than "it's in the Constitution" to buy things. You clearly do have additional reasons, so the "disagreement" is either non-existent or semantics. From my reading, you're not saying, "I bought them because the Constitutions says I may", but pointing that out as additional support to your purchasing decisions. I think she's just indicating an emphasis on the other reasons and clearly not saying that is ridiculous for you to own guns, but rather that your other reasons are the actual justifications for purchase, while the Constitutionality argument just protects your right to make that decision. That's not the same thing as saying you shouldn't buy or be able to buy them.

    ​Obvious statement: Why, I am an assassin 'droid, Master.
    May the Force Be With You

    Community Rules & Guidelines​
    (Formerly "NothingIsTrue")

  19. #19  
    Darth Spock's Avatar

    Posts
    5,694 Posts
    Global Posts
    5,733 Global Posts
    ROM
    Assassin 'Droid

    Default Re: A thread closed before I gave my answer about flintlocks

    Quote Originally Posted by UJ95x View Post
    Can't remember where I read this but a few days ago someone said that if you removed Washington DC, Michigan and another state (Can't recall atm) the US would have the second lowest crime rate in the world O_o

    Posted via Android Central App
    I agree that the level of crime in the US would drop to virtually nothing if we sent Washington DC and all the politicians that work there to the moon. Not sure I mean the same thing as the author of your article, but I'll walk it down anyways

    ​Obvious statement: Why, I am an assassin 'droid, Master.
    May the Force Be With You

    Community Rules & Guidelines​
    (Formerly "NothingIsTrue")

  20. #20  
    UJ95x's Avatar

    Posts
    5,459 Posts
    Global Posts
    5,538 Global Posts
    ROM
    Slim Kat 4.4.2 Build 3

    Default Re: A thread closed before I gave my answer about flintlocks

    Quote Originally Posted by NothingIsTrue View Post
    I agree that the level of crime in the US would drop to virtually nothing if we sent Washington DC and all the politicians that work there to the moon. Not sure I mean the same thing as the author of your article, but I'll walk it down anyways
    I think it might have been Reddit lol
    There was no mention of sending them to the moon but that might not be such a bad idea

    Posted via Android Central App
    Everything in this post is 100% accurate...I think

    R.I.P. Motorola...and what could have been the best smartphone line ever
  21. #21  

    Default Re: A thread closed before I gave my answer about flintlocks

    Nolittdroid we need you in the politics section. You have common sense.

    - Android Central App. Remember courage is contagious.
    Tom Fairclough
    Credo faber est quisque fortunae suae
    I believe every man is the artisan of his own fortune
    Thanked by:
    palandri likes this.
  22. #22  
    JW4VZW's Avatar
    Banned

    Posts
    147 Posts

    Default Re: A thread closed before I gave my answer about flintlocks

    Quote Originally Posted by Fairclough View Post
    Nolittdroid we need you in the politics section. You have common sense.

    - Android Central App. Remember courage is contagious.
    Yes, anyone who shares your liberal anti-gun stance has common sense. Not quite!
    Thanked by 2:
  23. #23  

    Default Re: A thread closed before I gave my answer about flintlocks

    Right... Must making my whole country liberal. Everyone views their is no need for a gun for the sake of it. Only 5% of the population obtain one and our crime rates have been wonders.

    (Actually statistically about 70% of is liberal from the last election)

    - Android Central App. Remember courage is contagious.
    Tom Fairclough
    Credo faber est quisque fortunae suae
    I believe every man is the artisan of his own fortune
  24. #24  
    JW4VZW's Avatar
    Banned

    Posts
    147 Posts

    Default Re: A thread closed before I gave my answer about flintlocks

    Quote Originally Posted by NothingIsTrue View Post
    I think I understand what you're saying and what nolittdroid is saying, and from my perspective I think it's just a misunderstanding of terminology. As she said in another thread that she's not a liberal, I am inclined to believe her and think she's not spinning propaganda at you, but rather trying to point out that perhaps there ought to be reasons other than "it's in the Constitution" to buy things. You clearly do have additional reasons, so the "disagreement" is either non-existent or semantics. From my reading, you're not saying, "I bought them because the Constitutions says I may", but pointing that out as additional support to your purchasing decisions. I think she's just indicating an emphasis on the other reasons and clearly not saying that is ridiculous for you to own guns, but rather that your other reasons are the actual justifications for purchase, while the Constitutionality argument just protects your right to make that decision. That's not the same thing as saying you shouldn't buy or be able to buy them.
    Correct, I have other reasons for having my guns, plural. The Constitution gives me the right to purchase a gun, for whatever reason. In my case it's sport and self defense. As you said, the fact that it is in the Constitution is additional support. Hopefully you'll see that I'm agreeing with you!
  25. #25  

    Default Re: A thread closed before I gave my answer about flintlocks

    Quote Originally Posted by NothingIsTrue View Post
    Not to speak for someone else, but what I think she was going after was that if you said you own them for self defense, for collecting, for hunting, for sport, or any other reason, that'd make sense. Buying them simply because they're in the Constitution is doesn't make as much sense. That's what allows you to buy them, not the cause. Otherwise, since freedom of the press is guaranteed, should we all go buy printing presses and make our own newspapers? Having the right doesn't mandate utilizing it, but rather protects the ability of those who choose to do so. That's not a liberal comment in any way that I can fathom, but I may have misunderstood it.
    The 20th amendment gave women the right to vote... therefore it is the reason I vote. Because of the constitution.

    That sounds ridiculous, doesn't it?

    ✌SG3/iPad2
    Sent from my S3
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 01-20-2014, 04:44 AM
  2. Help...my old phone won't turn on
    By hcane466 in forum General Help and How To
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-07-2013, 06:27 AM
  3. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-07-2013, 03:50 AM
  4. Bluetooth Phonebook incompatible with my phone?
    By AMK66 in forum Samsung Galaxy S3
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-07-2013, 12:48 AM
  5. How do I lock my nexus 4's files from pc connections?
    By smilodon142 in forum Google Nexus 5
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-06-2013, 03:28 PM

Posting Permissions

B