Accuracy in Media

Dana Loesch, conservative commentator and representative for the National Rifle Association (NRA), did not mince words in a recent appearance in the NRA’s “Commentators” segment. She criticized the New York Times, a liberal newspaper, for their “fake news” and liberal propaganda:

“We’ve had it with your pretentious, tone-deaf assertion that you are in any way truth or fact-based journalism,” says Loesch.  “Consider this the shot across your proverbial bow.

You can watch her comments below:





Ready to fight back against media bias?
Join us by donating to AIM today.

Comments

  • sox83cubs84

    Hot, smart and conservative…Dana is one great woman!

  • sonicmoon

    Time to use effective and smart tactics in calling out, exposing, and targeting the left and their hypocrisy and lies. Traditionally, the right and conservatives have been lousy at messaging and strategy. No more. And people like @unsavoryagents (Sabo), @StevenCrowder , et al are doing their part. Dana is doing hers, too. The red coats are the establishment style… the minutemen are the new counter culture that takes everyone by surprise and spawns effective actions.

  • Neil Ringlee

    Republicans and conservatives have been, up until election 2016 losing the battle against the Alinsky left. Visions of a blubbering John Boehner come to mind when I try to describe how the left has cowed and brow beaten conservatives and Republicans for decades. Like it or not the Alinsky model has worked brilliantly for the Progressive New Left. They won the Viet Nam war with it and have used it to attack all manner of American institutions and virtues. For too long our side has been rope-a-doped. Then came the new class of conservatives who now know that speaking truth to power, fact to hyperbole is the only effective tactic. Keep your cool, don’t let the personal attacks make you cry and assume the fetal position (Boehner) and state your case. Allow hyperbolic leftists to rage, spit and spew and keep to your point. Folks with see through the hyperbole if you stick to your guns.

    Speaking of guns and fundamental Natural Rights I have to commend Dana for being a strong, clear and informative voice in the wilderness. For too long we civil libertarians of the right have been ignored and used by the Republican Party and the so-called conservative power elites. No more. Sacrificing a little bit of liberty for a little bit of comfort and security is a bargain with the devil.

  • The Texan

    Once upon a time in the distant past The New York Times was a distinguished and reputable news paper. But over the last ten years it has become nothing more than a socialist propaganda rag. It is not worth the price of purchase.

  • roger dodger

    The NYT has to be very glad that Timothy McVeigh is gone, certainly he would have got around ro them, by now.

  • George Blumel

    It lost any decent reputation it ever had long before 10 years ago –remember, Fidel Castro got his job through the NY Times.

  • parthenon1

    Looks like they still think the battle of Manassas Junction was still on and inflammatory lies are ok to help defeat the grey coated men. But they have never gotten beyond those feelings.
    ITS OK FOR MEDIA OUTLETS TO COME OUT IN SUPPORT OF ONE CANDIDATE BUT THEY MUST MUST PRINT ALL ALL THE NEWS GOOD OR BAD ABOUT BOTH NOT JUST ONE ! People used to count on the media to have the truth but not any more only FOX and FOX Business does a good job of this !

  • coconuisse

    It’s about time!

  • FUBAR=100%P_O

    More likely “Pursuit of PROFIT from the LEFT”. Both the TOOTHBRUSH and ANY GUN can be used to kill by a HUMAN or modified. Future robots will probably once programed by (AGAIN HUMANS). How many times has The NYT incited violence and blamed the VICTUMS of their articles?

  • Rosco P Coaltrain II

    Obviously others also believe that these newspapers aren’t worth reading. Look at their subscription numbers. Tell lies, lose customers. These, businesses are in for a major shake up,
    as people boycott their products. Lets watch Pepsi and see how that works out!

  • gobrien

    Even Fox is getting iffy these days — depends on who’s on. I can’t believe Fox added Marie Harf from the Obama/Hillary cabal, as a commentator. Shepherd Smith is the worst — and he has his own show! Juan Williams, Geraldo, and that heavy set alcoholic from the Clinton administration often on The 5 (can’t think of his name right this second).

  • What about acknowledging the truth that the Constitution declares only one thing in the entire document to “necessary to the security of a free State”—”A well regulated Militia” ? If the NRA and its pundits want to “champion” the Second Amendment they have a duty to address what the Second Amendment ACTUALLY SAYS—not consign the first half of it to oblivion.

  • cwgf

    We are the militia.

    10 U.S.C. § 311 – U.S. Code – Title 10. Armed Forces §?311. Militia: ?composition and classes
    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.
    The classes of the militia are–
    the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; ?and
    the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

  • Cletus B Neckbeard

    ???

  • Your post highlights the critical need for education on this subject. If we read our Constitution we learn that there is no “Militia of the United States”, but only “the Militia of the several States” (ARTICLE II, SECTION 2, CLAUSE 1). additionally, the Constitution recognizes no “unorganized” Militia, only “well regulated Militia” (Second Amendment). We also discover that the term “National Guard” is nowhere to be found in the Constitution because no such thing existed until an act of Congress created them in 1903, one hundred and fifteen years after the Constitution was ratified. And if we read the act that originally created the National Guard we learn they are not “Militia”, but “Troops or Ships of War” (ARTICLE I, SECTION 10, CLAUSE 3). Americans must do their constitutional homework.

  • !!!

  • Mister Duke

    The last Presidential candidate endorsed by the NY Times who was not a Democrat? Dwight Eisenhower over 60 years ago.

  • Deovindice

    The “militia” is simply American Citizens armed with their own weapons. I am sorry that the Founders didn’t write the Constitution the way that you would have written it.

  • cwgf

    The Bill of Rights, including the 2nd Amendment, are prohibitions on the federal government. They do not grant powers to the federal government. The term “well-regulated” did not refer to government regulation but to the individual militia members to regulate themselves. The purpose of the Bill of Rights was to declare individual rights and tell the national government where the scope of its enumerated powers ended. The Founders believed that the militia included all people capable of bearing arms. As George Mason stated, “”Who are the Militia? They consist now of the whole people.” One of the anti-federalist papers referred to the “militia, when properly formed, [as] in fact the people themselves.”

    Here is a good article on the subject that will help you understand the meaning of “militia” as the Founders understood it, and “well-regulated” as they intended it.
    http://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm

  • Old Jarhead

    That Congress has failed to abide by their Constitutional duties is no surprise. But, the militia is irrelevant to the right afforded in the 2A. A well regulated militia, as quoted in the 2A is not a commandment, but a statement that reflects what a militia should look like in an ideal situation. And the term dealt more with training and discipline of the militia, and not regulation in the sense of restrictions imposed by government.

    There actually are militias for the states. Most often called “State Defense Forces” or “State Guard”, these are the militias which the founders envisioned when drafting the Constitution. The thing lacking is the training and organization Congress has ignored since 1903.

    I agree that the NG is NOT the militia, as the NG must take 2 oaths. One for NG duty, and one for US Military duty. Militia has 3 reasons for which the feds may call them to national duty, and ALL are strictly domestic in nature. That right there tells me that the NG is simply a reserve force for the federal government. However, Article 1, Section 8, paragraph 16 makes the way Congress has organized the NG a grey area as to whether this would violate Section 3 of Article 10. Personally, I agree, but the government I suspect would disagree. And it is they that controls the court.

    So, the 2A makes NO commandment concerning the Militia. Those commandments are actually seen in the Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, paragraphs 15 and 16. Those are the duties of Congress, which the Congress has ignored for over a century now.

  • OHJonesy

    We don’t consign the first half oblivion, we embrace it. A well regulated militia is only possible, if the people can bring their own arms and ammo when called to militia duty. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is imperative to their ability muster militias in time of crisis. Therefore, it shall not be infringed.

  • Three specific points were noted in 10 U.S.C. § 311 (which you cited), that contradict the Constitution. And Constitution is the “supreme Law” which all other Laws “shall be made in pursuance thereof” (Art. VI), not in “contradiction” of the Constitution. So you have homework to do on that particular.

    The term “well regulated” was used in the titles and bodies of countless Militia statutes from the early 1600s in the American Colonies, then independent States. A decade before George Mason’s statement and the Federalist Papers existed—the precursor to the Constitution, the Articles of Confederation, expressly mandated that “every state shall always keep up a well regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutred” (Arts. of Confed’n art. VI, ¶ 4). George Mason and the Federalist Papers did not “create”, “invent”, nor define any “well regulated Militia”, the Framers merely incorporated them into the Constitution as they already existed, by law, for generations, each a creature of their own Colony, then State’s statutes. One simply had to reference the then current Militia statutes of that particular Colony or State to know what those regulations were, which remain available today for anyone desiring education the subject and willing to crack open a book.

    Here is the example of Rhode Island (Virginia is there as well) regulating her Militia from the early 1600s that will help you educate yourself and understand the legal definition of “well regulated Militia” as WE THE PEOPLE had understood it in fact and law for over 150 years before the Constitution was even a thought. Rhode Island “Regulating” Her Militia http://bit.ly/2fMftDP

  • The term “well regulated” was used in the titles and bodies of countless Militia statutes from the early 1600s in the American Colonies, then independent States.The Framers did not “create” nor “invent” any “well regulated Militia, but merely incorporated them into the Constitution as they then existed and had been in existence by law for generations. One simply had to reference the then current Militia statutes of that particular Colony or State to know what those regulations were, which remain available today for anyone desiring education the subject and willing to crack open a book.

    “State Defense Forces” or “State Guard”, or whatever else they may choose to call themselves, are not any part of “the Militia of the several States” or a “well regulated Militia”. They are “Troops or Ships of War” kept “in time of Peace” with “the Consent of Congress” (ARTICLE I, SECTION 10, CLAUSE 3). The States are required to maintain their Militia, at all times with no consent from Congress required, “reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia” (ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 16). Further details can be found here National Guard, State Guard, State Defense Forces: Not a Militia http://bit.ly/2fMrWaF

  • Your post emphasizes the critical need for education on this subject. “Well regulated Militia” pre-existed the Constitution in fact and law by more than 150 years in the American Colonies, then independent States. The term “well regulated” was used in the titles and bodies of countless Militia statutes from the early 1600s in the American Colonies, then independent States.The Framers did not “create” nor “invent” any “well regulated Militia”, but merely incorporated them into the Constitution as they then existed and had been in existence by law for generations, each a creature of their own Colony, then State’s statutes. Even the precursor to the Constitution, the Articles of Confederation, expressly mandated that “every state shall always keep up a well regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutred” (Arts. of Confed’n art. VI, ¶ 4). The legal history is available today for anyone desiring education the subject and willing to crack open a book.

  • The Framers clearly felt very strongly ably the “Militia”, because they are the only thing in the entire Constitution and Bill of Rights recognized as “necessary to the security of a free State” (Second Amendment)—a status not given to Congress, the President or the Supreme Court. The NRA, arguably the biggest Second Amendment “advocate” group in the U.S., dedicates virtually no time, effort, or discussion of the first thirteen words of that very amendment. That is consigning it to oblivion.

  • AWinters

    I have observed Ms. Loesch attempting to “explain” the Militia—she stutters and trips over herself. The NRA’s own commentators stumble and fumble over the subject. They must become better educated on this important constitutional topic. Currently they are not.

  • AWinters

    That Code was written in 1903. The Framers were not relying on an unborn Congress to define “Militia” over 100 years later! Copy/paste is not education. We all need to do our homework.

  • AWinters

    “Well regulated Militia”—not just”well regulated”—were civilian institutions of government that existed from the 1660s in America. The people have to do their own research and stop regurgitating what other people say. It was universally accepted that the world was flat at one time, a universal mistake.

  • AWinters

    Childish. Have a look at the Constitutional Militia website. Plenty of laws and fact based information well footnoted. I have double-checked a few myself 🙂

  • AWinters

    The NRA and its people avoid the subject of the Militia like the plague. if one cannot see it, likely they are avoiding it also 🙂

  • AWinters

    Amen!

  • Old Jarhead

    As to your first paragraph, I have no issue with what you said, as long as we agree that well regulated at the time, when referring to troops, meant to be well trained and disciplined. That can be seen in the Federalist Papers, #29.

    As for the NG and State Guards, please familiarize yourself with Perpich v. DOD, 496 U.S. 334 (1990). Yes, it is the government telling us that they are unlimited in their powers, but there is a specific phrase which tells the states they are allowed, and encouraged to create their own militia forces, which are exempted from any federal duty what-so-ever. Since the NG is no longer trained by the states, and almost all training is handled by the feds, with fed owned equipment, and feds money for it’s mere existence, the NG, while advertised as the Militia, is in fact, a federal force. The State Guard is the states militia, organized and trained by the states, for use as a militia should they be needed.

    https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/496/334/case.html

    https://sgaus.org/

    Like I said, the Congress has most definitely ignored their Constitutional mandate since at least 1903.

    FYI, you and I have no argument. We agree the NG is not the militia as envisioned by the founders. And while the state guard may not be the militia envisioned by the founders, they are certainly the closest in existence at this time. The missing key is spelled out in Article 1, Section 8, paragraph 15.

  • Old Jarhead

    Actually, some further education on your part is also in order. The Bill of Rights is very specific, and easily understood as restrictions on the power of the federal government.

    “THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.” Preamble of the Bill of Rights

    To whom are those “declaratory and restrictive clauses” directed?

    And what does the phrase, “…in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers…” mean in the context?

    And court decisions support and confirm exactly that the 2A, as well as ALL of the original 10 in the Bill of Rights are in fact, restrictions on the power of the federal government.

    “Nor can Congress deny to the people the RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, nor the right to trial by jury, nor compel any one to be a witness against himself in a criminal proceeding…. The POWERS OVER PERSON AND PROPERTY OF WHICH WE SPEAK ARE NOT ONLY NOT GRANTED TO CONGRESS, BUT ARE IN EXPRESS TERMS DENIED, AND THEY ARE FORBIDDEN TO EXERCISE THEM.” Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393, 417, 450-451 (1857).

    And further:

    “The right there specified is that of “bearing arms for a lawful purpose.” This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.” U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875).

    So, the right is not granted by the Constitution.

    The right exists independent of the Constitution.

    The right is a restriction on the power of the federal government.

    This decision is cited in:
    Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886).
    Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535 (1894).
    District of Columbia Et al. v. Heller

    So, the “well regulated” militia was a reason for the right of the 2A, and not any commandment or requirement, as noted in the Federalist Papers #29.

    “The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as
    futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried
    into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a
    business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a
    week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great
    body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be
    under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and
    evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of
    perfection which would entitle them to the character of a WELL-REGULATED
    militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public
    inconvenience and loss.”

  • OHJonesy

    Yep, that’s exactly what I said. The framers felt that an armed citizenry was crucial protecting liberty, so that in times of crisis, they could form militias. Whether the NRA discusses it or not changes nothing in regards to the meaning of the 2nd Amendment. It’s quite clear – The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, so that they may form well regulated militias.

  • OHJonesy

    I just addressed it directly. What do you think I am avoiding?

  • Old Jarhead

    There is nothing childish at all about his comment. Even the founders said the same thing.

    From the Virginia Ratifying Convention.

    “I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers.”

    Kind of proves exactly what the poster said.

  • GAU-8

    The original act was written in 1792, and that act specified the minimum each man should personally own.

    “As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”

    — Tench Coxe, in `Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution under the Pseudonym `A Pennsylvanian’ in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

  • williamdiamon

    So if the Founders didn’t intend that every man be armed, why did they disarm the population then? That is, do you suppose they wrote it in some kind of code normal people can’t grasp, waiting until you came along to explain it to us?

  • Patriot

    The statement is childish. Militia are delegated the constitutional duty and authority to “execute the Laws” (ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 15). To assert, “The ‘militia’ is simply American Citizens armed with their own weapons” does not prepare them to do so. Which is why they must be “organiz[ed], arm[ed], and disciplin[ed]” (ART I, § 8, CL 16) by law (i.e. “well regulated”). Which is the “Part” of the Militia that Congress Governs (ART I, § 8, CL 16).

    As for the States—”reserving to the States * Appointment of the Officers, and * training the Militia” ART I, § 8, CL 16.

    So “regulating” the Militia is a constitutional mandate of Congress, the States and the people. Anyone who bothers to study how the Militia had been regulated, by law (“well regulated” #2A) can see precisely how it was done. The Constitution followed the same legal pattern. Without studying the laws people will continue to be confused by random quotes and other diversions.

  • Patriot

    The Militia Act of 1792 was Congress performing its constitutional duty to “provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia” (ART I, § 8, CL 16). Sixteen years before the Militia Act of 1792, the precursor to the Constitution, the Articles of Confederation, expressly mandated that “every state shall always keep up a well regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutred” (Arts. of Confed’n art. VI, ¶ 4). So how did every State “keep up” their Militia, “sufficiently armed and accoutered”? All one needs to do is reference the 100s of Militia statutes from any Colony or State and see exactly how those laws worked.

    You cannot begin a book in the middle somewhere and expect to understand it at the end. This is true with history. The Militia had been regulated, by law, from the early 1600s in the American Colonies. That is where people must begin their education. Not somewhere in the middle.

  • Patriot

    Love it!

  • williamdiamon

    You are reading the amendment backwards.

    We don’t own guns so that we can serve in a militia,

    we can serve in a militia, Because we own guns.
    ^…the militia clause……….^…the “shall not be infringed” part.

    Here is your clue, – women have always owned guns, but until recently, never served in our militias.
    Tell me, in their lifetimes the Founding Fathers knew only the conquered and
    slaves to be disarmed. Whom do you recommend we disarm today?

  • Patriot

    The Constitution recognizes the Militia as permanent institutions of government, comprised of the people. These structures performed many functions such as emergency preparedness, food, medical, and the like. There was no “FEMA”, the people actually governed themselves on a local level. If you don’t study the history of the institution, you cannot understand the expansive functions they served, which is why they are “necessary to the security of a free State”—Second Amendment.

  • williamdiamon

    Doesn’t that interpretation conflict with “shall not be infringed”? Remember women, who had never served in a militia during the Founders lifetimes, owned guns too?

  • Old Jarhead

    The statement is not childish. The statement is accurate.

    And the Militia are not delegated any authority. Just like the military has no authority to unilaterally decide to forcefully execute the desires of Congress without Congressional orders to do so.

    Have you ever read the Federalist Papers? If not, let me suggest you start with Federalist #29.

    “The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried
    into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and
    evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a WELL-REGULATED militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public
    inconvenience and loss.”

    The 2A creates NO demand for regulation of the militia. That is in Article 1, Section 8. The ONLY place “well regulated” is mentioned anywhere in the Constitution is in the 2A. The 2A is a restriction on the power of the federal government. Nothing more, and nothing less. The first 13 words enumerate a REASON for the right of the people, not a command.

    The militia is to be regulated when called to duty for purposes of training. When Congress has failed in that, intentionally, I might add, that is NOT the fault of the people. It is the responsibility of Congress to transmit to the states the requirements for training. It has been well over 100 years since Congress has done their duties in regards to the militia.

    By the way, how many different sock accounts do you have, CM? This is getting boring to answer the same nonsense over and over when you decide you don’t like what I said, so instead you use a new sock to say the same thing–again!

  • Patriot

    People use to claim the earth was flat, addressing it directly. They meant what they said based on the information and education they had.

  • Old Jarhead

    Methinks it is a sock, and there are now 3 of them here, all arguing the exact same point, in the exact same manner.

  • Patriot

    They all struggle with it. Likely because they cannot or do not wish to put in the effort.

  • williamdiamon

    Like they’re trying out a new talking point, to see if it sticks. Isn’t nature wonderful.

  • Old Jarhead

    Yep! Using the old–MILITIA–“argument” as if we, the people may ONLY be armed if we are members of the militia! Just going at it like they are some kind of super right wing nut, who is trying to convince everyone of their cognitive abilities! Yet, they are failing miserably.

  • Patriot

    Women did not “bear Arms” in the field at that time, which is what the Second Amendment is referring to. Women were not required to personally possess an “bear Arms” to “execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions” (ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 15). Only males were. Women did participate in the Militia in other ways—revealed by studying the Militia statutes.

  • Patriot

    Or we have all studied the subject 🙂

  • Lee Clayton

    Hahahaha! The “MILITIA”? You mean those gangs of pissed off rednecks sneaking around in the woods with leaves glued to their trucker hats, pretending to overthrow the Gubmint?

  • Old Jarhead

    Not when the writing style of the 3 I am talking about is identical. And trust me, I have studied this. You use a little bit of truth, and weave a fantasy around that. The 2A is a restriction on the power of the federal government. Nothing more, and nothing less. Read my next comment if you have any questions.

  • Old Jarhead

    The 2A is NOT about bearing arms in the field, and NEVER has been!

    “THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.” Preamble of the Bill of Rights

    To whom are those “declaratory and restrictive clauses” directed?

    And what does the phrase, “…in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers…” mean in the context?

    And
    court decisions support and confirm exactly that the 2A, as well as ALL
    of the original 10 in the Bill of Rights are in fact, restrictions on
    the power of the federal government.

    “Nor can Congress deny to the
    people the RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, nor the right to trial by jury,
    nor compel any one to be a witness against himself in a criminal
    proceeding…. The POWERS OVER PERSON AND PROPERTY OF WHICH WE SPEAK ARE
    NOT ONLY NOT GRANTED TO CONGRESS, BUT ARE IN EXPRESS TERMS DENIED, AND
    THEY ARE FORBIDDEN TO EXERCISE THEM.” Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S.
    393, 417, 450-451 (1857).

    And further:

    “The right there
    specified is that of “bearing arms for a lawful purpose.” This is not a
    right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent
    upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares
    that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no
    more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.” U.S. v.
    Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875).

    So, the right is not granted by the Constitution.

    The right exists independent of the Constitution.

    The right is a restriction on the power of the federal government.

    This decision is cited in:
    Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886).
    Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535 (1894).
    District of Columbia Et al. v. Heller

    So,
    the “well regulated” militia was a reason for the right of the 2A, and
    not any commandment or requirement, as noted in the Federalist Papers
    #29.

  • williamdiamon

    History alone proves them wrong as all who were able, were armed. I picture them in footsie pajamas, not a ghille suit…unless they’re all inside it together all cuddly like…

  • Stan_t_Man

    No Lee, he means the Militia, as in the Armed Citizens of this nation.
    You know, the people you are so scared of encountering?

  • Old Jarhead

    You are still too willfully inane to waste any time or bandwidth on, Guffie. Why don’t you go troll somewhere else, instead of following me around like a puppy dog, panting and yapping for attention?

  • Lee Clayton

    You mean like those hillbillies that staged a protest on a taxpayer funded wildlife sanctuary for a few weeks, the sole result of which was a trench full of shit?

  • Actually, further education on your part is needed. Americans were not so childish in the pre-constitutional period—and should not be today—as to need or to seek their education from the very public officials whom they themselves had or have selected, particularly judges. Because even the Supreme Court itself recognized in the early days of the Republic:
    “Judicial power, as contradistinguished from the power of the laws, has no existence. Courts or the mere instruments of the law, and can will nothing.” (footnote 1) “in the ordinary use of language it will hardly be contended that the decisions of courts constitute laws. They are, at most, only evidence of what the laws are; and are not themselves laws. They are often re-examined, reversed, and qualified by the Courts themselves, whenever they are found to be either defective, or ill-founded, or otherwise incorrect.” (footnote 2) that is, the courts decisions or mere precedents: previous statements of the views of its then members on particular legal issues raised by particular litigants in certain defined factual contacts—statements which can be (and in many instances have later been admitted to the court, recognized by others, to be) wrong, and which are not binding on the Court itself, let alone anyone other than the original litigants, especially where constitutional issues are concerned. (footnote 3)

  • Old Jarhead

    Let’s not feed this troll, and see if he will go away to seek someone elses leg to, well you know!

  • Stan_t_Man

    If you need help with understanding the clear words I posted, ask for help. There are many remedial English programs available.

  • williamdiamon

    My point is people of every age and sex owned guns then as now without regard to militia laws as it is considered a birthright to be able to defend yourself with equal and proper force, unless a slave.
    The suggestion that gun ownership is tied to militia service in any way is simply not defensible and even our SCOTUS understands that part.
    Aren’t you missing the forest by staring at that one little tree?

  • Near-universal armament was a requirement, by law. Why you cannot grasp that is your concern,

  • “Divergent” sgthwjack ?

    Focusing on the militia alone serves to divert from the operative part concerning the right of the people. The plain language of the document states the militia should be well regulated then states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Jefferson warned of this quite some time ago. “Metaphysical subtleties” was a refined manner to describe Bravo Sierra.

    “Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure.” Thomas Jefferson , Letter to Justice William Johnson, June 12, 1823

  • Amazing what passes for “addressing the issue” these days 🙂

  • Old Jarhead

    You quoted something you claim is from the Supreme Court. Yet, you have failed to give a citation for it. Pleas provide the citation, so I can look at it and decide for myself that the quote would be in context with this conversation.

    As to the quote, it seems silly in this context. The court claimed no judicial power, and had declared exactly that the 2A, as well as the 1A in Cruikshank, were, and were always, restrictions on the power of the federal government. If you have something that can absolutely refute that, by all means, post it. But don’t forget the citation.

  • Lee Clayton

    Oh, that’s right. You’re the guy who has stated that when you get your chance to go vigilante on some minority kid who looks at you the wrong way, it’ll be okay, because you’re a “militia of one”.

  • Old Jarhead

    And that appears to be what the “gentlemen” are attempting to do. I suspect GCZ, who are simply poseurs attempting to detract and redirect any conversation.

  • Old Jarhead

    But the 2A did not require armament. The 2A required the feds to NOT interfere with the individual right to arms. That is what the 2A is all about.

  • williamdiamon

    Yes, by the laws of nature. But no one in my neighborhood has been attacked by wild Indians or packs of wolves in about a hundred years so, no worries. If a threat appears your Governor will notify you and your Sheriff will call muster.

    Why, do you need someone to tell you to arm yourself? Just do it and don’t worry about it, like normal people.

  • You are reading the amendment sideways and upside down. The regulations insured the people possessed and were trained in the use of contemporary military grade/design Arms. Why, because the people actively governed themselves with legal authority through the Militia institution. Which is why “A well regulated Militia” not “voting”, “petitioning”, “Congress”, “President”, Supreme Court”. or anything else is “necessary to the security of a free State”—Second Amendment.

  • “Divergent” sgthwjack ?

    Whether by design or simple arrogance is difficult to determine. Bless their hearts.

  • Its the Russians again 🙁

  • Old Jarhead

    sigh* The first 13 words of the 2A create no requirements or restrictions on the last 14 words of the 2A. The first 13 words are the reason, though not the exclusive reason, for the last 14 words of the 2A. At the time, EVERY state had their own Constitution, just as today, and each of those states had their own version of a 2A embedded within them. The 2A also prevented the feds from negating those states Constitutions.

  • Those darn Russians again. First the elections, now social media.

  • Old Jarhead

    Gee, Guffie. I have a wide open profile. Lying again about what I have NEVER said. Your integrity is simply nonexistent.

  • Women did perform Militia service. They didn’t “bear Arms” in the field.

  • williamdiamon

    Correct, but we haven’t had to call muster for some time now, although my State periodically revises statutes to keep abreast of current needs. Do you want to start your own militia, you can, you don’t have to wait for the Governor.

  • Lee Clayton

    The “Armed Citizens of the nation” include women, and men younger than 17 and older than 45. They do not qualify for membership in the “Militia”. Your “clear words”, therefore, conveyed an incorrect precept.

  • williamdiamon

    Are you Russian?

  • No “Militia” of the constitutional pattern have existed since the late 1800s, early 1900s. Which is why people such as yourself have a void on the subject.

  • Stan_t_Man

    No, your incorrect definition of militia is what is at odds here, Lee.

  • Old Jarhead

    So, now, instead of actually trying to argue your point, you instead devolve to insulting and mocking others? Yep, you are a GCZ, posing as a “Super Patriot”!

  • Its not an “argument”—the Constitution itself recognizes only the Militia as “necessary to the security of agree State”—Second Amendment. Ignorance as to the history as to why does not diminish the Constitution.

  • Old Jarhead

    I am not sure the constitution recognizes any such thing. Let’s take this slowly, so maybe you will actually answer a direct question.

    First off, can you answer the 2 very simple question after this very simply paragraph?

    “THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.” Preamble of the Bill of Rights

    To whom are those “declaratory and restrictive clauses” directed?

    And what does the phrase, “…in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers…” mean in the context?

  • Lee Clayton

    You claimed that the “militia” is “the Armed Citizens of this nation”. You were incorrect. Sorry you’re too gutless to admit it.

  • Old Jarhead

    I can’t argue with you there! That poster is void of anything that isn’t connected to trolling.

  • williamdiamon

    You are saying that “service” gave them the right to arms, yes? But what of SCOTUS claiming – no – requirement to bear arms?
    It’s not a trick question, or even hard to answer, like a mathematical impossibility problem. History will give you the clues. All Americans have always had the right to arms, since Jamestown.

    The Second consists of two parts, a system of command by our Governors in case of emergency, and a restriction to the Federal Government forbidding it’s interference in the people’s right to arms. The Second grants no super powers to the militia that it’s members would not have anyway. It is only a command structure for purposes of force multiplication. Neither does it take away any rights citizens already have.

    An analogy, Yes the Sheriff can from a posse and lead us to fight the bad guys – because even if he wasn’t here, we would still be fighting them anyway if he wasn’t there.

    Why? As it’s sovereign, We the People have the highest authority and responsibility to defend the Constitution and uphold the peace.

    But no one could call for a muster had We the People not had the right to do it ourselves, at will.
    How do you think we kept the peace before the creation of armies, fire departments, and police forces before the Bill of Rights were written? The 2A didn’t create the militia, the militia created the 2A, literally. And tell me, if we didn’t have the right to bear arms sixteen years before the Second Amendment was written…how did they fire The Shot Heard Round the World?

    In it we confer command to a central authority for purposes of force multiplication, but our rights do not diminish in the absence of an emergency or Governor’s call to muster.

    There is no minimum size to militia, and a solitary act of defense, including self-defense, can be thought of as one person calling up himself to defend the community, represented by himself or others, and to enforce the law.

  • You are incorrect because
    .
    “[i]nquiries into [legislators’] motives * * * are a hazardous matter”, (footnote 1) as is “bas[ing] speculations about the purposes or construction of a statute upon the vicissitudes of its passage”, (footnote 2) because “it is impossible to determine with certainty what construction” the legislature as a whole “put upon an act * * * by resorting to the speeches of individual members”, (footnote 3) the arguments of individual legislators being “so often influenced by personal or political considerations, or by the assumed necessities of the situation”. (footnote 4) Difficult to interpret in any event, and sometimes colored by ignorance or questionable motives, legislative debates and like materials are inadmissible as evidence of what statutes mean, (footnote 5)

    1.) United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 383-384 (1968). Accord, Palmer v. Thompson, 403 U.S. 217, 224 (1971).

    2.) Pine Hill Coal Company v. United States, 259 U.S. 191, 196 (1922).

    3.) United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Association, 166 U.S. 290, 318 (1897).

    4.) Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, 254 (1901).

    5.) E.g., Aldridge v. Williams, 44 U.S. (3 Howard) 9, 24 (1845); United States v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, 91 U.S. 72, 79 (1875); United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Association, 166 U.S. 290, 318-319 (1897); United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 699 (1898).

  • When a child speaks to another child neither one would likely consider the other “childish”, but may actually unite in a common bond.

  • The Second Amendment is recognizing that if “the people” wish to live in “a free State” then “A well regulated Militia” is the only thing “necessary” to the “security of a free State”. To diminish the more expansive meaning of the Second Amendment to merely an “individual” gun right only is simply “gun dense”.

  • Are you?

  • John Crawford

    I can agree that the Constitution recognizes such, as you write. What has that to do with the Right of the People??
    Semper fi

  • williamdiamon

    Sure, as if the maintenance of the “State” takes precedent over the lives of it’s sovereign – We the People.
    I guess we’re just the little people that make it all possible, hah?

    Is that how it is in Russia?

  • John Crawford

    When thousands of citizens show up, to shore the failing levees of the Mississippi, they are the militia. Your hatred of the U.S. citizen is noted.
    Semper fi

  • Old Jarhead

    Except, I am not wrong. It is not me pretending the first 13 words of the 2A create any command or requirement. That is you. The “people” have always been the militia, as evidenced by the 2nd Militia Act of 1792. An act that was passed by Congress to satisfy the Constitutional mandates of Article 1, Section 8. And had NOTHING to do with the 2A.

  • Old Jarhead

    How many socks have you got going here?

  • John Crawford

    Several States define their militias. Your ignorance does you no credit.
    Semper fi

  • The Second Amendment is not referring to individual self-defense. Its referring to the community self-defense structure, which were regulated by law, them in 1791 and 150 plus years prior. Are you aware that up through 1900 Congress provided that Arms manufactured for the army be made available to civilians? Not for individual self-defense (separate issue), but to maintain their local Militia structures. We have strayed very far from the Constitution.

  • Old Jarhead

    You brought it up. Would you have had it not been important to YOU?

  • John Crawford

    Tell that to the few women who manned cannon at Bladensburg..
    Semper fi

  • cwgf

    I think you’re right. All three of these posers have locked profiles. Two of them “AWinters” and “Patriot” were created the same day, April 16, 2016, with 29 and 25 total comments respectively. “Constitutional Militia” was created June 2013 with 214 total comments. Methinks they are anti-gun anti 2nA trolls who want to bind the individual right to bear arms to membership in a government sanctioned “militia.” You, WilliamDiamon and OHJonesy stated it clearly. The individual right to bear arms stands alone. It exists so that we can form a militia if necessary.

  • 150 plus years of pre-constitutional Militia statutes say otherwise. Sorry 🙂

  • Old Jarhead

    No, the 2A is a restriction on the power of the federal government. Now, if it isn’t too much for you to handle, please answer the 2 very simple questions I posed to you in a different comment.

  • John Crawford

    Which statutes do you mean? Which are U.S. statutes?
    Semper fi

  • williamdiamon

    Nope, but I worked with a Russian gentleman once. He grew up there before the commies took over, fought the Nazis when they invaded, and drove them back to Berlin. Then, instead of returning, he went to Italy, and 6 months later came to America. He was very wise and loved freedom, that’s why he left and came here, so he could do things like own a gun.

  • John Crawford

    So what? How does that differ from what you’ve been told, that the term doesn’t mean “controlled by government “?
    Semper fi

  • williamdiamon

    They’re likely call center employees trying to earn a paycheck from Bloomberg or Soros. I’ve read they have centers in Berkley and Georgetown.

  • Old Jarhead

    So, you won’t answer 2 simple questions? And those 150 years worth of statutes are completely meaningless in regards to the Constitution AS DRAFTED AND RATIFIED!

  • John Crawford

    Not really. What is the subject of the Bill of Rights? If you come out on the side of anything but Rights, you are wrong. Next, what entities have Rights. If you come down on the side of any but citizens, you are wrong. Therefore, only a citizen has Rights to arms. Why? Because the militia requires an armed citizenry.
    Semper fi

  • Dedicated a we page to it. Bill of Rights: “further declaratory and restrictive clauses” http://bit.ly/2eqjldV

  • cwgf

    Lol. Girls gotta eat!

  • John Crawford

    Where, in the Constitution, is universal armament required?
    Semper fi

  • williamdiamon

    No we haven’t, our Governors still have the right to call us up and Sheriffs still have the right to command, nothing has changed.

    Self-defense is a birthright, yes?
    Proper self-defense must include the right to equal force, yes?
    Criminals use guns, right?
    Proper self-defense against a criminal armed with a gun must include the right to meet that attacking force with a gun then, right?

    Are you suggesting Americans, or anyone else, have no right to selfdefense?

    My ancestors had owned guns on this Continent for over a hundred years before the Revolution, served in the Connecticut and Massachusetts militias, and we have owned guns ever since. If the Founding Fathers had intended for any limit at all, wouldn’t they have said so then?

    Have you noticed any restriction mentioned in the Second Amendment other than the one directed solely to the newly created Federal Government, “shall not be infringed”?

  • John Crawford

    No, actually we don’t avoid it. We embrace it, being the militia. It is the Left that tries to twist the Constitution.
    Semper fi

  • If the “people” #2A want to live in a “free State” #2A something is “necessary” #2A for its “security” #2A What would that be? “A well regulated Militia” #2A Studying some American history will reveal the reasons why this is.

  • John Crawford

    I apologize for not understanding your reply. Something repeatedly interjected #2A into your reply. Would you mind restating your answer to me?
    Semper fi

  • Visit constitutionalmilitia.org and see what other conspiracies you can find. Or Follow us on Twitter with over 60,000 Followers. You should find plenty of conspiracies there.

  • Old Jarhead

    You didn’t answer my simple questions. It isn’t difficult. Want to try again, or are you going to avoid continuously? And no, I want YOUR opinion, not an opinion of someone whom I have no idea of who they are, and what their expertise may be. As a matter of fact, it appears to be a website that uses a little truth and weaves a fantasy around that truth.

  • cwgf

    Why is your profile locked? What prompted you to dust off your 2013 account today?

  • John Crawford

    Constitution.org devotes time to it. Constitutional scholars devote time to it. And yet, you don’t link to any of them. Why is that?
    Semper fi

  • Many people often confuse what the Framers designated as the “General Government” with the “Federal Government”. Apparently someone as astute as you fancy yourself didn’t notice the designation throughout the Federalist Papers. But surely your expertise in writing styles is flawless 🙂

  • “Divergent” sgthwjack ?

    I’ll go with an actual constitutional scholar.

    ” ‘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 importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons who have duly reflected upon the subject…. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, ally, even if these are successful in the first instance, stance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them…. There is certainly no small danger that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt, and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our National Bill of Rights.” Constitutional scholar and Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story

  • The same statutory pattern continued in every State 100 years AFTER the Constitution was ratified 🙂

  • Lee Clayton

    I claimed that that I prance around my compound in a crotchless ghillie suit. I was correct. I am not too gutless to admit it.

  • williamdiamon

    I agree with you, let’s consider their sentiments honestly and not pervert their intent,

    “On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry
    ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect
    the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it,
    [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”
    – Thomas Jefferson

    Now a few words from our sponsors,

    “A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies.”
    – George Washington

    “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” – Benjamin Franklin

    “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” – Thomas Jefferson

    “I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.” – Thomas Jefferson

    “The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They 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.”
    – Thomas Jefferson (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria)

    “A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.” – Thomas Jefferson

    “The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.” – Thomas Jefferson

    “I enclose you a list of the killed, wounded, and captives of the enemy from the commencement of hostilities at Lexington in April, 1775, until November, 1777, since which there has been no event of any consequence … I think that upon the whole it has been about one half the number lost by them, in some instances more, but in others less. This difference is ascribed to our superiority in taking aim when we fire; every soldier in our army having been intimate with his gun from his infancy.”
    – Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Giovanni Fabbroni, June 8, 1778

    “Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense.” – John Adams

    “To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them.”
    – George Mason

    “I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians.”
    – George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

    “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe.” – Noah Webster

    “The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.” – Noah Webster

    “A government resting on the minority is an aristocracy, not a Republic, and could not be safe with a numerical and physical force against it, without a standing army, an enslaved press and a disarmed populace.”
    – James Madison

    “Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose leaders are afraid to trust them with arms.”
    – James Madison

    “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.” – James Madison

    “The ultimate authority resides in the people alone.” – James Madison

    “Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.” – William Pitt

    “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.” – Richard Henry Lee

    “A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves … and include all men capable of bearing arms.” – Richard Henry Lee

    “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…. The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.”
    – Patrick Henry

    “This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty…. 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 limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and 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.” – St. George Tucker

    “… arms … discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property…. Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived the use of them.” – Thomas Paine

    “The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”
    – Samuel Adams

    “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.” – Joseph Story

    “What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty …. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.”
    – Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts

    ” … for it is a truth, which the experience of all ages has attested, that the people are commonly most in danger when the means of insuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion.” – Alexander Hamilton

    Tell me, do you notice the intent to restrict anyone’s right to arms in those sentiments?

  • Originally they were Colonial statutes. When the Colonies declared independence and became “free and independent States”, they were State statutes. More specifics of those laws here— “Well Regulated Militia” http://bit.ly/2f3Etmd

  • John Crawford

    Cute. Being an old Jarhead, I can laugh at the imagery, and imagine you low-crawling through a nettle patch.
    Semper fi

  • Lee Clayton

    I’m rotting from the inside out, aren’t I? Does it worry, if I keel over I’ll be able to waddle back into my trailer?

  • cwgf

    Superb. Saving for future use.

  • williamdiamon

    So? You didn’t have to join a militia to own a gun in the colonies, do you think we should make it a requirement now?

  • John Crawford

    Colonial statutes have no bearing, or little at best, being British subjects. It is the English language that counts. What did “well regulated” mean at the time? Hint, Samuel Johnsons Dictionary of the English Language. If you don’t like that, check Daniel Websters dictionary of the Era.
    Semper fi

  • Excellent. Justice Joseph Story was concerned in the 1830s that people were shirking their Militia duties because they feared no consequences. As we see today, Story’s concern has come to fruition. Dedicated a page to this— Justice Joseph Story http://bit.ly/15cowCi

  • Militia are State government institutions, organized under statute, with full legal authority, thoroughly civilian in character.

  • Sorry. Constitutional law vs. “Old Jarhead” on social media. Guess who loses? Old Jarhead” ;(

  • Old Jarhead

    Still haven’t answered 2 simple questions.

    BTW, the militia clause in the 2A has NEVER created any requirements or restrictions on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

  • John Crawford

    And how are the civilians to be armed? As the States have abrogated their responsibilities, who then do they fall upon? But more, where does the 2d Amendment Right require participation in a formal organization in order to exercise a Right? For that matter, apply the question to all 10 of the Articles of the Bill of Rights.
    Semper fi

  • No. The Constitution did not define many words, like “Militia”, “felony”, “dollar”, and the list goes on. Why? Because no one knew what they meant? Because the Constitution did not have to define them because they were already defined by law. So the Constitution was incorporating them as they then existed—BY LAW. Militia, at that time, consisted of every “able-bodied” adult male, required by law to personally possess and be trained in the use of Arms. Why? Because “the people” #2A played a direct role in the martial institutions of their community. Nothing to do with hunting or defending your home. You certainly can—and should—defend yourself when circumstances require it, but the #2A is talking about maintaing “a free Sate”—as opposed to a “police state”.

  • williamdiamon

    Then show a restriction on the right of the people to bear arms…I’ll wait right here.

  • Old Jarhead

    Constitutional scholars of the period would disagree that the 2A is not about self defense. Take for example, St. George Tucker, who was wounded in the Revolutionary War, taught law at William and Mary, and was on the Virginia Supreme Court. He published a 5 volume set of Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England.

    “This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty …. The right
    of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has
    been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest
    limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right
    of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext
    whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the
    brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed,
    generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a
    never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any
    measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different
    purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to
    counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to
    protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree,
    have been interpreted to authorize the prohibition of keeping a gun
    or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior
    tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one
    man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being
    subject to a penalty.”

  • cwgf

    Quoting the statute verbatim is appropriate. Your implication that I should rewrite the statute in my own words is absurd.

    The statute did not define the meaning of “militia” in the Constitution. The statute is congruent with the understanding of the Founders, which is that the People constitute the militia. George Mason: “Who are the Militia? They consist now of the whole people.”

  • How many neighborhoods are plagued with violence, like the Chicago murder rate? Or the recent riots in Ferguson and Baltimore? And the list goes on. If that’s being “like normal people” then go sit on the sidelines somewhere and get of the way.

  • “Arms” and the 2nd Amendment http://bit.ly/2g65V70

  • Wrong.

  • John Crawford

    I’m sorry, but any citations that don’t come from recognizable authorities on the Constitution are meaningless. They have no value, are null and void. Use the Constitution as your source. Use recognized Constitutional authorities as your sources. But your source is nonsense. I await your sourced response.
    Semper fi

  • Part of the “regulations” (well regulated) allowed unfettered access to Arms in the free market, not the restrictions we experience today. Militia: Reliance on the Free Market for Arms http://bit.ly/2g1hyx5

  • John Crawford

    I perused your site. It doesn’t speak to the RIGHT to keep and bear arms. It speaks to the Militia. I wanted to be honest in my responses to you, so I did that at least. I see a basis for your arguments, but not a Constitutional underpinning for or against the Right. I think you must do better.
    Semper fi

  • What we today call “Original Intent” was already hundreds of years old when the Constitution was ratified. It has nothing to do with searching the individual mind sets of the Founders, by amassing a series of quotes even they knew that.

  • williamdiamon

    Well then write the Governors and suggest they call muster. Personally I don’t wait for anyone’s “OK” before arming myself.

  • John Crawford

    Regulations “allowed” no such thing. Our Constitution makes it clear to the citizen is unrestricted provided he is not a criminal or insane. No regulation can change that, constitutionally.
    “We’ll regulated” meant, and means, properly equipped and trained, and places no limitation on the individual choice. If you demand limitation, you must demand that government open its contracts to civilian purchase of infantry, artillery, naval, and air equipment at government prices or better.
    Semper fi

  • Old Jarhead

    All the powers the federal (or general) government needed for militia purposes were defined in Article 1, Section 8. There were several of the states that believe the Constitution gave the new government too much power, as the militia could be called into service, and be removed from a state, leaving that state defenseless. By insuring the citizens were freely armed, the states could, if the need arose, form a new militia from the armed populace of the state, and then “regulate”, as in train and discipline, the new militia. Had this, AND THE OTHER 9 AMENDMENTS, not been offered, there is a very good chance we would have been saddled with the Confederation of states for an unknown length of time. The ENTIRE Bill of Right formed restrictions on the power of what the feds were denied as to power over these rights enumerated.

  • The Bill of Rights is a constitutional redundancy consisting of “further declaratory and restrictive clauses” of the Constitution’s then existing powers. The preamble to the Bill of Rights states this, if anyone bothers to read it. Unfortunately, it confuses people like yourself proving Alexander Hamilton correct when he pointed out that a Bills of Rights “are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous”— Federalist 84.

  • Old Jarhead

    I am 100% correct. It is you that is placing way too much dependence on the first 13 words of the 2A. Read the preamble, and then answer the VERY SIMPLE QUESTIONS I asked you. It should take no more than 2 or 3 words per answer. But for some reason, you refuse to answer those questions, except for citing a website which I suspect is your own, and quite lacking in any Constitutional; authority or knowledge.

  • Point out specifically where such an assertion was made in the first place….I’ll wait right here.

  • John Crawford

    All of those words were defined in English. Not a single one was unknown or new. And the 2d is not limited to service in a militia.
    Semper fi

  • Cletus B Neckbeard

    LOL SMH

  • John Crawford

    Cite the word, or words in combination, that mean or are synonymous with anything limiting or required.
    SEMPER FI

  • “well regulated Militia”—not just “well regulated”—pre-existed the Constitution in fact and law by 150+ years before the Constitution was even a thought. And those regulations “allowed” for exactly that. Provided you the links with citations to some of those laws. Read them or not—it changes nothing.

  • Where do you think “jury trial” in the Constitution comes from? English common law. Where did the constitutional “dollar” come from? England had adopted it from Spain in the early 1700s, then the Constitution did as well. Less social media for you, more homework. Set a good example for the kids.

  • John Crawford

    Actually, Samuel Johnsons likely knew far more on the subject than you, when he published his dictionary, in use by our Founders. So, please cite YOUR dictionary, in use at the time, that shows it meant “regulated by government”.
    Semper fi

  • Through the Militia structure the people could enforce their immunity from infringement of Arms, which has greatly diminished from what it should be constitutionally.

  • Over 2,500 citations on the website. What have you done?

  • Over 2,500 citations on the website. What do you offer?

  • williamdiamon

    You are claiming that militia service is a requirement of gun ownership, yes?

  • John Crawford

    Of course it is redundancy. Our Founders disagreed as to the necessity, because the central government was ceded ZERO authority over a single thing outside of Section 8. And yet, here we are. You insist on the militia, which has no Rights. We insist the Right is independent of a militia. We speak of a microns difference in reality, but a universe’s difference politically. So, what is the answer? Does a citizen have a Right to arms? Are there any restrictions, beyond felony or incompetence? If so, where do you find them??
    Semper fi

  • Old Jarhead

    Where did the constitutional dollar come from?

    http://projects.exeter.ac.uk/RDavies/arian/dollar.html

    Even though the dollar was used by the British, that is not the reason the newly formed nation used dollars.

    “The reasons for the adoption of the dollar as the official currency of
    the US are bound up with events in Mexico, Peru and Bolivia”

    What else you wrong about? Perhaps it is you who should get off deFacedbook, or Twitiot, or whatever you are posting on. Or you could just grow up yourself.

    But it is absolutely amazing that you failed answer ANOTHER SIMPLE QUESTION. Instead, you just insult a poster who has vastly more knowledge than you have displayed here.

  • GAU-8

    Men would be subject to fine in pre-revolutionary colonies for being out without THEIR weapons, including church. Doubt many militia formed in church.

    Read the whole act, it expressly dictated what each man should, at a minimum, personally own.

    All one need to do is reference the State Constitutions that expressly protect the right to keep and bear arms. The right is not connected with the Militia.

    PA 1776: “That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power.”

    VT 1775: “That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power.”

    NC 1776: “[t]hat the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.”

    CT: “Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.”

    DE: “A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use.”

    ME: “Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms for the common defence; and this right shall never be questioned.”

    TN (1796): “That the freemen of this State have a right to keep and bear arms for their common defence.”

    NH: “All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state.”

    RI: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

    VA: “”That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.”

    You cannot skip chapters and expect to understand the intent (plot). The people have a right to keep and bear arms, the Militia is composed of the people – meant only to be called in time of need – and even then held under strict control.

  • Old Jarhead

    That website you have been spamming? Like I have said repeatedly now, I believe that is YOUR website, and that you are misreading, or more likely, deliberately misinterpreting what the actual meaning of the Bill of Rights and the 2A is all about. I have also given you the actual words of the court, which you dismissed with gobbledygook about something not even related to the discussion.

  • cwgf

    “Original Intent….has nothing to do with searching the individual mind sets of the Founders…”
    Thank you for the making the most ridiculous statement of the day. Or week. Perhaps all month. The mindsets of the Founders are exactly what must be established to understand their intent when they wrote the Constitution.

  • John Crawford

    Your citations show no Constitutional underpinning. Please show them.
    Semper fi

  • GAU-8

    Sorry….SCOTUS has consistently ruled on OJ’s side…but thanks for playing.

    Here’s your consolation prize
    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/5495d833960ba8b1b3682f2fee8cdb0d90de7881dbc08f4c00ac84b9952226f8.jpg

  • GAU-8

    shhhhh…..he’s taking a secret position.

  • John Crawford

    I know where it comes from. I also know from where the militia concept springs. That doesn’t mean we are limited to the British ideals.
    Semper fi

  • cwgf

    Superb.

  • Old Jarhead

    Say there, sweetness. I have been at this for years. I have dealt with trolls like you, and managed to shut every one of them down. I use “federal” government, because that is what the Constitution created. A compact between the 13 colonies to create a LIMITED government. Yet, you seem to think you and your little web site are the end all of the Constitutional debate. Welp, I actually go to a LOT more sources than you display in that silly web site, which until today, I had NEVER heard of, or seen, in any search or research I have done. And yeah, my “expertise” in writing styles, while not flawless, can pick up on styles when 3 different people make the same basic comment over and over.

  • GAU-8

    I am actually waiting to see it take an actual position. Socket Puppetry 101 – never actually take a position

  • GAU-8
  • Old Jarhead

    I believe you have just hit a home run with that observation! He seems to be here with 3 separate accounts, and is upvoting the other 2 every time he changes!

  • GAU-8

    Not an answer? Why do you you refuse to answer a simple question?

  • Old Jarhead

    He won’t answer. He is, I believe, a GCZ here to obscure the issue, and to give strength to the “Militia Only” argument of the far left. He can’t answer any questions since that would destroy his talking points!

    Hey, GAU, hope you and yours have a safe, and happy Easter holiday!

  • Your social media comments show no understanding of the Constitution. Please show it,

  • Do these people not know they recycle the same old jokes? You don’t put any time into understanding your own Constitution, at least be humorous.

  • You don’t even know what a constitutional “dollar” is—embarassing as your “simple questions”.

  • Old Jarhead

    It seems appropriate, as it is you who has a poor grasp of the Constitution. I have been reading some of the gobbledygook at that site. I find it humorous that not a single name is offered as to the owners of that site, or the academic status of anyone who posts there. The website constitution.org lists the founder, and has much more varied and knowledgeable contributors than the site you are spamming.

  • Already on the website, but in more detail and properly footnoted. Your point?

  • Old Jarhead

    Hilarious. You didn’t even look at the web site! Your “knowledge” here is certainly interesting. You seem to be a legend in your own mind.

    So, did you come here to make the militia the main focus of this article, in order to provide the Gun Control Zealots the ammunition for their “Militia Only” fantasy of the 2A? Or are you simply being silly and obtuse?

  • Properly cite the dictionary you refer to—term. page number, volume, publication date, etc

  • OK What is “Original Intent?

  • Militia service is a requirement for “the security of a free State” #2A The entire amendment is only 27 words.

  • Guess you have to be a social media scholar to understand whatever that means.

  • GAU-8

    Again, what point are trying to make?

  • The Constitution recognizes the Militia as permanent institutions with perpetual duties. Your making up a scenario the Constitution doesn’t deal with—so you can debate it at your local bar.

  • GAU-8

    So you realize the right to keep and bear arms is in no way connected with service in a militia, well then – what is your point?

  • The Militia are “necessary” because “the security of a free State” depends upon them because what is “necessary” is “impossible * * * to be dispensed with”. Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary, (Springfield, Massachusetts: G. & C. Merriam Company, 1913), at 967, definition 2.

  • You not recognizing the authorities comes as no surprise whatsoever 🙂

  • “the security of a free State” #2A depends upon “A well regulated Militia” #2A which is why they are “necessary” #2A because what is “necessary” is “impossible * * * to be dispensed with”. Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary, (Springfield, Massachusetts: G. & C. Merriam Company, 1913), at 967, definition 2. Maybe you stick to recycling other people’s graphics. Reading isn’t your strong suit 🙂

  • GAU-8

    Does Harvard know you out and about Eddie?

  • You keep making it 🙂

  • You posted to me first. Feel free to go away not knowing what a “dollar” is—other than a link.

  • Does the institute know your on the computer?

  • GAU-8

    You need to google old Eddie Vieira….both oars are not in the water. Who else would take 2,000 pages to make his case?

  • Old Jarhead

    I know what it is. You seemed to be confused. May I suggest you go to constitution.org, where real scholars explain it quite well. But stay away from that nonsensical site you have been spamming.

  • Not what the #2A is referring to—its referring to “the security of a free State” and the institutions “necessary” for that purpose. A,B,C,1,2,3, read with me!

  • GAU-8

    I’m not the one who published a 2,000 page manifesto.

  • Since your knowledge of the Constitution failed miserably, I guess it makes sense to you that your somehow qualified to be a top notch investigator. #Fail

  • Old Jarhead

    How many drinks have you imbibed to post that non-answer word salad?

  • GAU-8

    Still avoiding stating a position? Even your web site fails to take a position. Even in your interviews you fail to take a position. Why can’t you state your position in a simple declarative sentence?

  • Not everyone is as educated as you who can dazzle the world with social media posts and recycled jokes :/

  • Breaking: Social media scholar demands “position”: Start reading and stop banging your sippy cup.

  • GAU-8

    Just what I figured…you just another troll. But hey, I’m sure you’ve sold a bunch of your CDs on Amazon (what is it now? about 3 per month?)

  • Old Jarhead

    Aww, the lil’ snotflake is getting all butthurt! Poor lil’ snotflake!

    You do realize, that a simple declarative of your intent is not difficult. You come here, spamming YOUR website, and demand we all just believe you, lock, stock, and barrel. Yet, your best “argument” is to spam a website no one here trusts. And you have YET to specify what it is you are trying to get across, just vague assertions and more spamming YOUR website. Yep, ALL the hallmarks of a troll!

  • You posted to me first, and kept re-posting. That’s not spam scholar. You lost embarrassingly. Now somebody else has a “better” website. You continue to lose.

  • Cue the crickets. Didn’t think you would embarrass yourself by attempting to answer.

  • cwgf

    You’re expert at the non-answer. Pretty simple questions. Any reason for locking your profile, along with your two pals? I think it’s because you would be exposed for the fraud that you are.

    No, you’ve been beaten like a red-headed stepchild due to your lack of understanding of the Constitution, particularly the 2nd Amendment.

  • Old Jarhead

    Poor lil’ troll! It’s hard when people just won’t by what you’re spamming! Get it through to what little grey matter may reside between your ears. No one trust the website you keep spamming. But it is amazing you think I lost! Or is “think” the wrong adjective? Since you aren’t using a brain.

  • Don’t sell CDs. Keep trying since the well is completely dry as far as any constitutional knowledge is concerned.

  • l-o-s-i-n-g………..

  • Old Jarhead

    Bwahahahaha! At least, you’re good for a laugh! Why don’t you unlock that profile of yours? Worried that someone might just be able to show what a troll you are?

  • GAU-8

    Sorry to ruffle your feather Eddie. Just not buying what your selling.

  • cwgf

    I suppose a narcissist who believes the world revolves around him would think we’re all sitting around waiting for his posts. On the edge of our seats ready to pounce on every nonsensical statement he makes. Hey it took you at least an hour to respond to mine.

    Would you like the common sense definition or the technical definition? “Original intent” pretty much speaks for itself.

  • You posted here first. When your constitutional knowledge failed you resorted to recycling graphics, old jokes, and name calling. Go away. No interest in your “scholarship”.

  • GAU-8

    So your solution is what?

    I’m curious what a desk jockey like Eddie, a lifetime of Harvard, proposes.

  • I hear there is some guy by the name of “Old Jarhead” who is a complete whack job. So I’m scared.

  • That’s what it means? “It speaks for itself”. One day people just stared throwing the term around at a bar somewhere while throwing darts?

  • I take a shot of whiskey every time you assert how smart you are—so I’m pretty well loaded.

  • GAU-8

    You speak like Militia and Self Defense are mutually exclusive. The 2A restricts the power of the Federal Government, on that we can agree. We can agree that the Federal Government abandoned many principles set forth in the Constitution years ago. The BoR is explicit the “right of the people (individual)” is to keep and bear arms. States have powers, people have rights. The Constitutions of many states solidify a dual purpose for the right to keep and bear arms – personal defense and service in the Militia.

  • Intent of the website? To revitalize “the Militia of the several States” and reinstitute constitutional Money—silver and gold.

  • GAU-8

    Eddie’s book sales must be low….this is probably not the best marketing strategy.

  • GAU-8

    That’s the best a Harvard man can produce?

    What are you advocating Eddie? Cliven Bundy style militia?

  • Another one who claims his own “victory” on social media. Gee, you never see any of those types :/

  • GAU-8

    I am sorry…PDFs

  • I’m not your “sweetness”. You know this is not a dating website right? Or maybe I’m in the wrong place!

  • Old Jarhead

    See, just a barrel of laughs! All the hallmarks of a troll! I would be happy to direct you to some real scholarship concerning the 2A, but it won’t be at constitutionalmilitia.org.

    http://www.constitution.org/dhbr.htm
    http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/35FinalPartOne.htm
    http://constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm
    http://www.guncite.com/
    http://davekopel.org/2A/Mags/Collective-Right.html
    http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm
    http://www.rain.org/~karpeles/

    The last one is a vastly better site than the one you insist on spamming!

  • GAU-8

    90% of them citations to your own book.

  • You know what, you should steal other people’s jokes. Its pathetic as hell, but still far better than what you can do on your own.

  • Old Jarhead

    Why not? You have been claiming victory here for hours, yet you have failed to even make a coherent argument that would justify anything resembling victory.

  • Old Jarhead

    Well, you are wrong.

  • If you say so it must be true. I read it in Cosmopolitan.

  • GAU-8

    “Do these people not know they recycle the same old jokes?”

    Who are you talking to? Voices in your head?

  • GAU-8

    I think what we have here is a wingnut promoting Bundy style militia…

  • That was posted an hour ago. Quick-witted :/

  • Old Jarhead

    Both laudable goals. Do you intend to make arms allowable for the militia only, or will you acknowledge that the individual who is not active in the militia can also keep and bear arms as is spelled out quite clearly in the 2A? That seems to be the nugget you have avoided all day long. If so, you should probably make that clear at your website.

  • I only hope that you and the other judges can find it in your hearts to give me a victory. With a big parade and all you can eat shrimp buffet please.

  • GAU-8

    Did they reply?

  • Old Jarhead

    Must be a dry evening for you, because I haven’t asserted anything about my knowledge of the subject. I have asked a few really simple questions that you have ignored. That post was still a word salad, and made exactly no sense.

  • Old Jarhead

    Could be. In fact, that makes a lot of sense! That, or he is a GCZ looking to muddy up the issue, and have the “Militia Only” meme as the thread subject.

  • That’s ‘s what I would say if I was void of any legal and historical facts with nothing useful to say: “He’s a wingnut!”. “She’s a wingnut!”. “They are a couple of wing nuts going to have “wing nut babies!”

  • cwgf

    Darts and a bar? Your words, not mine. Your ad hominems consistently demonstrate your weakness. Original intent is exactly what it says. O.r.i.g.i.n.a.l. I.n.t.e.n.t.

    o·rig·i·nal
    adjective
    1. present or existing from the beginning; first or earliest.

    in·tent
    noun
    1.intention or purpose.

    In this context, original intent refers to the “subjective opinion of those who wrote the Constitution as to what a particular provision was supposed to communicate. Original intent also is called the intent of the Framers. Researchers try to deduce the original intent by examining both direct evidence (what the 55 drafters said during the Constitutional Convention), and indirect or circumstantial evidence. Examples of the latter include, among other things, what people said about the instrument during the ratification debates, the meaning of key words in common discourse and in contemporaneous dictionaries, and their meaning in legal and literary sources.” – Rob Natelson.

    Your statement that original intent has nothing to do with the mindset of the Framers is patently absurd.

  • Somebody needs to get their GED in math.

  • Old Jarhead

    Interesting that instead of refuting anything at those sites I offered, you mock me. I bet you think that makes me mad! Nope, it just so precious when you get all indignant.

    Now your website, with 2,500 different citations–the majority of which link back to your own website in different sections! Now THAT is entertainment!

  • You could be a professional copy/paster since that’s all you do. But its incorrect. #Fail

  • GAU-8

    At least I didn’t build a website based solely on my myopic view and then start trolling boards self aggrandizing myself with links to said glorious web site.

  • cwgf

    Nevertheless, it is correct. What do you think is incorrect?

  • No. You don’t do anything but criticize other people. There’s something to be proud of.

  • GAU-8

    I think he’s too full of himself to be a GCZ, I think it’s his website and most of the posts are articles he has authored and he has a chip on his shoulder for being shunned by his peers.

  • Old Jarhead

    We would be happy to do so, if you ever actually make an argument to be able to claim victory. But the shrimp buffet is out. Barbecue or nothing!

  • Old Jarhead

    Yep, I think you are right. He is being a real douche right now, so the chip is starting to get real heavy for him. I think he should take a nice cup of Chamomile tea, and call it a night. I know I am about to do so!

  • GAU-8

    All this from a guy who has spent all evening belittling everyone and claiming he IS the smartest guy in the room.

    It’s taken all evening to get anything remotely resembling a position from you. I shudder to ask, but what is your “solution?”

  • GAU-8

    You have no idea lawyer what I have and what I have done. But troll on, you amuse me.

  • Haven’t avoided it. Its not what the #2A is referring to—that has been what it has become limited to by many people. If an individual is not active in the Militia they can have whatever firearms they like. It makes no sense why gun-owners are not staunchly advocating for revitalizing the Militia, since they would empower gun-owners to enforce their immunity from infringement of the “right”, which has greatly deteriorated.

  • GAU-8

    So what is your proposal? I’ll wait.

  • I know your math is inaccurate 🙂

  • Posting it yet again—Intent of the website? To revitalize “the Militia of the several States” and reinstitute constitutional Money—silver and gold.

  • Old Jarhead

    Not according to many of the Supreme Court cases that have looked at the 2A. In fact, not a single Supreme Court has said the 2A is about the militia only. This is where you have gone off the rails. There are 27 words in the 2A. The first 13 do NOT make a sentence that can stand by itself, so it cannot be the defining portion of the sentence. The last 14 words do form a sentence that can stand on its own, which makes that the subject of the entire sentence. That is common grammar.

    http://www.largo.org/literary.html

    Read the above link. From a man who happens to be one of the top grammar experts in the US.

  • OK. Barbecue shrimp.

  • Old Jarhead

    Nope. Brisket and sausage, beans, and coleslaw. Iced tea as the beverage. And maybe some peach cobbler.

  • I fought it was more of a self-loathing narcissist who never received he love from his parents he so greatly needed.

  • Old Jarhead

    His math is inaccurate? So, is it 95% that link back to yourself? Just asking, cause it was the majority of your citations.

  • Old Jarhead

    There, there! You want me to make GAU go into a time out? Or maybe you need a nice cup of tea, and a break.

  • GAU-8

    How, I am waiting for your proposal to revitalize the Militia.

    I am curious – just how well trained, and equipped are you?

  • Even the Heller case recognized:

    “Anyone studying * * * English grammar in the eighteenth century would have understood how an absolute phrase works. And since the absolute phrase already had become a normal, naturalized English construction by then, any competent English writer at the time would have been able to use the absolute construction without having taken any formal grammar lessons.

    * * * * *
    Most American readers in the federal period, including those without formal grammar study, would have had no trouble understanding that the Second Amendment’s absolute construction functioned to make the Amendment effectively read: ‘because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.'” (footnote 1)

    1.) BRIEF FOR PROFESSORS OF LINGUISTICS AND ENGLISH DENNIS E. BARON, Ph.D., RICHARD W. BAILEY, Ph.D. AND JEFFREY P. KAPLAN, Ph.D. IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS, District of Columbia v. Dick Anthony Heller, Supreme Court of the United States, No. 07-290 (filed 11 January 2008), at 11, 14.

  • GAU-8

    I know Eddie it’s really much higher…I don’t think you could share even 10% with anyone.

  • GAU-8

    I’m curious what his solution is.

  • GAU-8

    So….what is your solution to the Militia? I really am curious. Also, just how well equipped and well trained are you?

  • Copy/pasting other people’s work. You point to what other people say rather than provide any original analysis. In this case, the “analysis” you point to is just someone else’s option editorial like that found in Cosmopolitan Magazine.

  • Is it a victory or enhanced interrogation?

  • GAU-8

    I need more ice anyway….and a refill….

  • Provide a list of all the links. Then we can easily calculate what percentage is attributed to what category.

  • The “solution” is to follow the Constitution, which delegates broad legal authority to “the Militia of the several States”.

  • Old Jarhead

    From YOUR link, which shows you really should read what you link.

    The first clause is what linguists call an “absolute construction” or “absolute clause.” It functions by melding the sentence “A well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State”
    together with the sentence “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed” to express this thought: “BECAUSE A WELL REGULATED MILITIA IS NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.”

    The meaning at the time of the founding is also very much evident, as many of the founders spoke eloquently of the meaning. And for some reason there are few, if any, dissenting opinion from the time. If there are, feel free to quote them.

    “No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
    —Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.

    “Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress
    have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other
    terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American…[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”
    —Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

    “[W]hereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body
    of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all
    promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly
    anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practiceupon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.”
    —Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

    “The whole of that Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals…[I]t establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of.”
    —Albert Gallatin to Alexander Addison, Oct 7, 1789, MS. in N.Y. Hist. Soc.-A.G. Papers, 2.

    Now, if you have a verifiable source (not yours) that can refute what the founders said, and the plain meaning, by all means, post it.

  • The Militia would be revitaled/re-established under State statute, through the local legislature.

  • Old Jarhead

    The interrogation is happening now. It isn’t looking good for your victory. Better luck next time.

  • cwgf

    I acknowledged the work and did not claim it as my own. It states perfectly the technical definition of Original Intent in this context. I have no problem quoting it and acknowledging the source.

    You have made numerous verbatim quotes in this thread as well. At least you properly attributed most of them. I see no problem with that.

    Now back to the subject at hand. What do you think is incorrect about the definition of Original Intent that I quoted?

  • Old Jarhead

    Nope. It is your website, and I have no intention of digging through that mess. Thanks anyway. Jeez, can’t even answer a question about something you seem to have control over!

  • The first paragraph is from the Heller case, which is on the website. The quotes, etc. after that are not, because quotes are inconclusive an were never used as a method to interpret law—they are hersay.

  • Aware of what the links are. You made a false assertion. Dumb.

  • Original Intent http://bit.ly/2fFHCKs

  • Old Jarhead

    Actually, the first paragraph in your comment does not appear anywhere in the Heller Decision. I am looking at the actual decision, and not someone’s interpretation of what they think it means. This is what the court actually said concerning the meaning of the militia clause in the 2A. This is from the Opinion, Section II, subsection A, 3rd paragraph.

    “The

    Second Amendment
    is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its
    operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically,
    but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased,
    “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free
    State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be
    infringed.” See J. Tiffany, A Treatise on Government and Constitutional
    Law §585, p. 394 (1867); Brief for Professors of Linguistics and
    English as Amici Curiae 3 (hereinafter Linguists’ Brief).”

    So, Heller doesn’t seem to agree with you at all. If I am wrong, simply give me the exact location in the Opinion, just like I did for you.

  • Old Jarhead

    The only assertion I made was that it was the majority of your citations. I did ask a question. You didn’t respond, again, in a meaningful manner.

    Prove me wrong.

  • cwgf

    How about you explain it here. In your own words.

  • Nothing to prove. If you want to know go and count. Otherwise, move it along.

  • Old Jarhead

    And those quotes were all part of the debate about the Constitution and Bill of Rights, so they are NOT “hearsay”.

  • See previous post with footnote.

  • Old Jarhead

    BTW, your Heller “quote”? I looked at the actual Heller decision published by the Court. Your “interpretation” of what the court said is NOT in the decision. Not the Syllabus, not the Opinion, and not in either Dissent. See what I mean about not trusting your website?

  • Old Jarhead

    The one that says exactly what I have been saying?

    Most American readers in the federal period, including those without
    formal grammar study, would have had no trouble understanding that the Second Amendment’s absolute construction functioned to make the
    Amendment effectively read: ‘because a well regulated Militia is
    necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to
    keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.'” (footnote 1)

    In case you didn’t notice, that does NOT say that only militia members may keep and bear arms. And that is exactly what I posted to you in my comment. You are imagining things!

  • #2A is a Militia Clause. It recognizes the institutions that are “necessary to the security of a free State”—”A well regulated Militia”. Nothing to do with gun collecting, hunting, etc.

  • It was a brief submitted as to the grammatical meaning of the #2A. See the footnote.

  • Stan_t_Man

    And I am correct, the militia is the citizens of this nation, Too bad to you to stupid to admit the truth!

  • No need to. Already did the research, presented it on a web page replete with footnotes. So i don’t haft to copy/paste from other people’s work. If your to lazy to read, move on.

  • Hearsay.

  • cwgf

    I rest my case. Both of the definitions of original intent I provided are correct. You have not refuted either of them here, or on the website you continue to spam.

    You also did not respond to my point about you being in disagreement with the Supreme Court, the words of many of the Founders and the plain evidence from many State Constitutions as to the understanding and original intent of the 2nd Amendment. And these were my words, so don’t use that to cop out on us again.

  • Lee Clayton

    According to all those decrepit stone tablets to which you and your fellow “patriots” refer, the “militia” is comprised only of able-bodied males between the ages of 17 and 45.

  • Lee Clayton

    Hahaha! And I suppose they opened fire on the river, to stop it from overflowing?

  • “Divergent” sgthwjack ?

    It does not “haft” to do any further to demonstrate its superior skill in the “art” of arrogance. Pathetic creature indeed. 😉

  • cwgf

    Yes, he is a six-sigma datapoint – the ones we have to toss. Especially when they resort to sockpuppets and insults to shore up their errors and bolster their damaged egos.

  • “Divergent” sgthwjack ?

    It seems to have “adjusted” its “data”. NOAA would approve. 🙂

  • cwgf

    Lol. Why am I not surprised? 😉

  • Breaking: Copy/pasting social media scholar declares victory. National holiday declared in his honor :/

  • cwgf

    More ad hominems. You lose again.

  • leeclayton

    Pretending to be a woman gives me a tiny little chub.

  • leeclayton

    I know where you live and what you look like. You are hot as hell. It’s driving me crazy.

  • Steveglen

    I expect that the nomination of Justice Grouch to the Supreme Court will ensure that the 2nd Amendment is interpreted properly in the future, and it seems an increasing number of states are implementing Constitutional Carry, and the transfer of these rights across state lines.
    Most of your critics are on the losing side here.

  • Old Jarhead

    Nope. Matter of history.

  • Old Jarhead

    Yes it was. And it didn’t say what you imagined it said. Thanks for playing.

  • Old Jarhead

    The entire Bill of Rights, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly, deals with restrictions on the power of the federal government.

  • OHJonesy

    Yes, and now people claim the 2nd Amendment does not really say “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. Both are wrong.

  • John Crawford

    No, they fill sandbags, and shore it up as best they can. See, your understanding of militia is juvenile.
    Semper fi

  • John Crawford

    Thank you. Now, what did “well regulated” mean. Hint, it is much the same definition as we have now.
    Semper fi

  • John Crawford

    The Constitution doesn’t have to figure it out, because the militia belongs to the State, unless it is called upon by the central government. The Governors figure it out.
    Semper fi

  • John Crawford

    He wrote one dictionary, and it is available online, where I found it. The word “regulate” is there for you to find, as the dictionary is indexed alphabetically.
    Semper fi

  • leeclayton
  • Old Jarhead

    Try here, though you will need to visit an actual library, as it appears to not be online.

    Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1989

    The Random House College Dictionary (1980)

    “The Random House College Dictionary (1980) gives four definitions
    for the word “regulate,” which were all in use during the Colonial period and one more definition dating from 1690 (Oxford English
    Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1989). They are:

    1) To control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.

    2) To adjust to some standard or requirement as for amount, degree, etc.

    3) To adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation.

    4) To put in good order.

    [obsolete sense]

    b. Of troops: Properly disciplined. Obs. rare-1.

    1690 Lond. Gaz. No. 2568/3 We hear likewise that the French
    are in a great Allarm in Dauphine and Bresse, not having at
    present 1500 Men of regulated Troops on that side.”

    Other examples, again, NOT hearsay.

    “The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of
    it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other
    classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the CHARACTER OF A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.

    TheFederalist Papers, No. 29.

    From the Journals of the Continental Congress, 774-1789
    also demonstrates the meaning of well regulated:

    Resolved , That this appointment be conferred on experienced and vigilant general officers, who are acquainted with whatever relates to the general economy, manoeuvres and DISCIPLINE OF A WELL REGULATED ARMY.”

    Saturday, December 13, 1777.

  • John Crawford

    Since the militia is every citizen, yes. Why, did you imagine something different?
    Semper fi

  • John Crawford

    I note that Old Jarhead provided a source on this. So tell us your thoughts, please.
    Semper fi

  • Thomas Moloian

    to dana loesh, go for it and put nytimes in your pocket

  • Thomas Moloian

    is she you bed warmer calling her hot

  • Thomas Moloian

    to all men who call women “hot” stop ;looking at their behinds you sex driven perverts

  • Howleyesque

    LOL Let me guess, you prefer Swillary, Piglousy, Fineswine Whatters or Pocahontas Warren… any old worn addle brained hag

  • Old Jarhead

    The shooter in Guffies post was crazy as a barking moonbat. But Guffie still wants to smear EVERYONE not involved with a loons crimes!

    http://www.theadvocate.com/new_orleans/news/article_736270ed-87ff-58fa-afa4-9b14702854ec.html

  • Howleyesque

    I USED TO follow the Cowboys by reading the articles in The Dallas Morning News even though I OFTEN disagreed with their writers… UNTIL they endorsed the perjuring old bat… I told them to KEEP their birdcage liner!

  • Howleyesque

    ROFLMAO!! This IDIOCY never ceases to amuse me. Let me see, you want US to PRETEND that ALL of the men who gave us the Declaration of Independence and Constitution suddenly LOST THEIR MINDS and went utterly stupid at the same time. For your NONSENSE to BE true wouldREQUIRE BOTH. WHY? BECAUSE there is NO OTHER explanation FOR those men TOO have interjected as the second item in a CLEAR AND CONCISE LISTING of rights of THE INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN that government was NEVER, EVER to DENY THEM, some otherwise meaningless BLATHER about some “collective right”. Nor does your CHOSEN perception ALTER the FACT stated below!

  • Howleyesque

    That “homework” is EXCEEDINGLY SIMPLE the BILL OF RIGHTS is? A CLEAR and concise LISTING of? RIGHTS OF? The individual citizen that government IS NOT to DENY TO ANY OF US for ANY EXCUSE of a “reason”.

  • Howleyesque

    IN? THE BILL OF? RIGHTS! Rights OF? The INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN. End of arguementyour contention is balderdash on it’s face.

  • Howleyesque

    And YOURS IGNORE the very BASIC element of what the BILL OF RIGHTS IS!

  • Howleyesque

    The “false assertion” I SEE is YOURS! Your entire premise is based upon it!

  • Howleyesque

    LOL Imperious nonsense changes? NOTHING! News flash, the FOUNDERS didn’t tolerate tyrants and NEITHER DO WE!

  • Linda

    Really glad to see more and more calling the NYT out for their oh-so-complete BIAS…. and that Dana Loesch is another calling them out.

    Just read this on one of my favorite blog sites… about how the NYT decides how they can best support/protect/aid the left side of the aisle and their members, in their completely progressive coverage of most events. When the NYT decides to remain ‘silent’ and when they’re more than happy to make anyone on the right look terrible: =
    Friday, April 14, 2017

    “PASS ME A TISSUE: New York Times Extremely Butthurt About Laws Suddenly Being Enforced” = http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2017/04/pass-me-tissue-new-york-times-extremely.html

  • Howleyesque

    ROFLMAO!! First it’s purposefully ignoring the simple basic FACTS regarding the BOR, NOW you’ve moved along to the fabrications of an agency whose very mission INCLUDES fabricating BOGUS propaganda for the PURPOSE OF delegitimizing and destabilizing LEGALLY ELECTED governments to bring about their over throw,.
    I can hardly wait to see what’s next!

  • Howleyesque

    Yep they’ve got the patter down and make sure to throw in all of the latest propaganda along the way in their attempts to attack the credibility of anyone who DARES to state the ACTUAL truth.

  • Howleyesque

    Or in the alternative, YOU could just follow the lead of the Founding Fathers instead… https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/fa621b254d72aad627d58a70cd9f2fb0f078da8e74e002b0be0b56d16cacf48e.jpg
    Now EXPLAIN to us if you can, WHY a nation that won’t even allow it’s own POLICE to carry firearms on it’s streets allowed Mikie Bloomerbug and his personal goon squad TOO carry full auto guns.

  • Howleyesque

    BTW what WAS being discussed WASN’T the Constitution… it WAS and IS … THE BILL OF RIGHTS… two DIFFERENT documents … try to keep up.

  • cargosquid

    They were not part of the organized militia.
    Women have always assisted.

  • cargosquid

    Thus, the militia and the right to keep and bear arms, which protects the populace and the militia, are indispensable.

  • Howleyesque

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9ce8d0919c6ea48e69f856608f976b49f1402821fd8fd2ee3c8848050b5d3778.jpg
    As opposed to the “clear and concise” thinking of the anti gun HYPOCRITES who not only OWN guns themselves but have CC permits as well because? IT”S THEIR? RIGHT TO DO SO!

  • cargosquid

    Right…..
    Thus the 2nd protects the right to keep and bear arms, protecting both the populace AND the militia. It ensures a well regulated militia by protecting the source of arms and personnel regardless of gov’t action or inaction.

  • cargosquid

    WE are the militia.
    The ORGANIZED militia is a gov’t entity.

  • cargosquid

    Explain your answer. Otherwise, it is meaningless.
    WHY is he wrong?

  • cargosquid

    An armed citizenry that enforces the law on itself prevents abuse of rights. THAT is why a militia is necessary to the security of a free state.

  • Howleyesque

    So you’re saying that Bloomerbug, Piglousy, Fineswine and the other HYPOCRITES who OWN AND CARRY firearms are KNOWINGLY disregarding the BOR?

  • cargosquid

    Why are you being dishonest since we discuss the militia clause and the way gun control advocates misuse it all of the time.
    It was covered in depth in Heller.

  • cargosquid

    It has already been addressed.
    Read the Heller decision.

  • OHJonesy

    You want “Well Regulated” to mean “Encumbered by Laws and Regulations”, but that’s not what it meant in the context used by the founders.

    I challenge you to rewrite the 2nd Amendment to say something like “A militia can be encumbered by laws and restrictions, so the right of the people to keep and bear arms can be infringed”

    While you’re working on that, let’s look at what the phrase actually means:

    http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

    The meaning of the phrase “well-regulated” in the 2nd Amendment

    From: Brian T. Halonen

    The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

    1709: “If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations.”

    1714: “The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world.”

    1812: “The equation of time … is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial.”

    1848: “A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor.”

    1862: “It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding.”

    1894: “The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city.”

    The phrase “well-regulated” was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people’s arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

  • OHJonesy

    And now, a few words from our sponsors –

    “Americans have the right and advantage of being armed – unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms” – James Madison

    “I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” – George Mason

    “The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; … “ – Thomas Jefferson

    “As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” – Tenche Coxe

    “The right of the people to keep and bear…arms shall not
    be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the
    people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free
    country.”
    – James Madison

  • Howleyesque

    I’m STILL waiting to hear any of the ANTI gun types decry the utter hypocrisy of wealthy individuals who want to DENY the rest of us the very RIGHT they lay claim to and point to in order to justify the FIRE ARMS carried BY their personal thug squads who provide THEM with the protection for them and their families that they don’t seem to think that the REST of us MERE tax payers DO have a right too!
    Yo BLOOMERBUG get back to us IF AND WHEN you and your goon squad NO LONGER carry!

  • Howleyesque
  • Paul

    Since your preferred debating tactic seems to be reciprocal cut and paste, I’ll leave you with this. It is original material of mine. Argue the merits of it or not. As you wish. Don’t post links to refutations unless your reasoning for citing them, relevant to my post is clearly appropriate. Anything else is less than you merit and an acknowledgement of defeat. It will be ignored as the smoke-screen it is. If you want to play with the big-dogs, you need to demonstrate your competence to reason.

    “Why does this ridiculous argument continue to pop up? There is no power granted to regulate, only the stated desire for the militia to be “well regulated” We do not ignore the first half, we embrace it. Any impression that the 2A empowers regulation is unsupported in its own construction regardless of opinion or historical justification.

    There is no power granted in the Constitution that is not found in the establishment of an office or officer to wield it. No gun regulation office is brought into being in the Second Amendment. It does not authorize Congress to “Make all laws appropriate” It is a declaratory statement of purpose (see the preamble) followed by the governing principle.

    Per the Preamble:

    “in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added:”

    The Second amendment has a declaratory clause and a restrictive clause. Why is it mystical that its form follows the stated intent of the Bill of Rights?

    The governing principle, the restrictive clause is:

    …,the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

    The declaratory good is to be achieved through the governing principle. Notice the people thing in there?

    It is the total denial of discretion granted to the government in favor of the prohibition of infringement upon the discretion of the individual people.

    There is no secret message here. It really is just as plain and consistent as it appears to be.

    By the counter argument, Who gets this power to regulate guns? The Congress? The Executive? The Judiciary? Some elected panel? The government in General? Show me one other place that the Government “in general” is granted a power over the discretion of the citizen.

  • Paul

    Stolen!

  • OHJonesy

    Beautiful, that just says it all, Howley!

  • OHJonesy

    You are the wind beneath my wings, my friend. Beautifully stated.

  • “Divergent” sgthwjack ?
  • Howleyesque

    Yeah ok and? LOL

  • Howleyesque
  • Paul

    That’s a bit much brother 🙂
    Pardon my blushes.

  • Howleyesque

    Well you am one sick puppy ain’t cha?

  • Howleyesque
  • “Divergent” sgthwjack ?

    Just trying to reach all segments of the audience. 😉

  • Howleyesque

    You left OUT the minor little matter of the MURDER of one of those men by the very POLICE you tell us WILL protect us REGARDLESS of the FACT that COURTS have said that? THEY ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO DO SO!

  • Howleyesque

    Thanks my friend, I TRY to keep things simple for those simple minds that can’t seem to grasp it!

  • Paul

    Oh they grasp it. They understand it very well and rightly perceive it as a threat to their objective and “Something must be done” about this irrefutable fact. So they dance in the blood of sympathetic victims without any consideration of true causes. They make the ridiculous assertion that reason doesn’t apply because; “Guns shoot babies!”. It’s really all they have.

  • sox83cubs84

    Why would you be dumb enough to even ASK something like that?

  • “Divergent” sgthwjack ?

    Such is the nature of the “useful.”

  • diaspora

    Good point!

  • Paul

    Yup.

  • Paul

    I’m too old or the text is too small 🙁

  • williamdiamon

    Yes and what is the purpose of the State? To perform “the people’s business”, yes? They are there entirely to serve “the people’s interest”.

    We the People are America’s sovereign, not the State or a political entity.

    Remember “free State” also means “free state”. Although the Second refers to the State’s control of militia during times of emergency, militias can be formed for any legal purpose at anytime by anyone.

    Aren’t you just playing armchair warlord?

  • Howleyesque

    It IS small, BECAUSE it was difficult TOO save it at all! Adjust your monitor’s “zoom”

  • Howleyesque

    Oh I know, whom ELSE would live in a fantasy world believing that SIGNS are going STOP killers? Or that sprinkling an area with the fairy dust of political rhetoric will “ward them off” but over grown CHILDREN who cannot and WILL NOT face up to reality? https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/171fd15741371a947ccb54a009f3731b9c9ec3c3911030d940b90de7fba4145e.jpg
    The answer IS BLATANTLY obvious to anyone who ISN’T self blinded and intent upon imposing their will on everyone else!

  • Howleyesque

    LOL Friend there are TWO things for which there is NO known cure: WILLFUL ignorance and sheer stupidity… sadly the anti gun crew are afflicted with BOTH!

  • Howleyesque
  • Howleyesque

    ROFLMAO!! Here’s a thought, why don’t you go ask SUZIE RICE and Bathhouse Barry about that? BEFORE the investigation gets into full swing!

  • leeclayton

    You mean that inbred who charged law enforcement after warning them that he was armed, and that they’d never take him alive?

  • Howleyesque

    No I don’t mean Mikie THE THUG Brown thanks I’m talking about the man they shot at on the open road… ALONG WITH A CAR FULL OF OTHERS… and executed when he pulled over and came out with his hands raised in surrender (the video is EXTREMELY CLEAR!) But MR INBREED you just keep hurling out the BS as fast as you can.

  • GAU-8

    I’d agree that we should follow the Constitution, although I don’t see anywhere that the Constitution delegates broad legal authority to the “Militia of the several States.” I see where POTUS in named CIC when the militia is called into service; and specific powers given Congress regarding calling for the Militia and providing for the them when they are called into service.

  • GAU-8

    Which the State’s could do. Regardless, I retain my individual right.

  • The Constitution delegates the three security responsibilities to “the Militia of the several States”—specifically to “execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.” ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 15 The Militia are constitutional “homeland security” based upon “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms”—Second Amendment.

  • “a free State” #2A requires direct participation by the people #2A.

  • Referring to the only Militia then known for 150 plus years and recognized by the Constitution “well regulated Militia”.

  • The laws over generations define exactly how the Militia are created. You should read them.

  • AWinters

    Let’s read our Constitution first and learn what it says!

  • AWinters

    I refereed to the NRA, not Heller. Please read again. If you where the NRA has a video talking about the Militia as the main topic please provide it. I have not been able to find a single one and no one else has yet provided one.

  • AWinters

    Someone is suffering from ALL CAPS SYNDROME.

  • sox83cubs84

    You said it well, friend. BTW: Great Chuck Howley avatar. Dollars to doughnuts that the anti-gun troll doesn’t even know who Chuck Howley IS.

  • sox83cubs84

    A copy MIGHT come in handy, though…if you run out of toilet paper.

  • AWinters

    I refereed to the NRA. If you where the NRA has a video talking about the Militia as the main topic please provide it. I have not been able to find a single one and no one else has yet provided one.

  • Howleyesque

    LOL Yep those clowns are lucky to KNOW who THEY ARE!

  • John Crawford

    He’s merely a provacateur, here to throw bombs.
    Semper fi

  • Howleyesque

    And someone ELSE from OCD and an OBSESSIVE need to BE A CONTROLING TWIT! And, some of us REFUSE to BE dictated too.

  • AWinters

    If anyone in this discussion can provide a link to an NRA video (not court cases and websites) where the militia is the topic of discussion would they kindly do so? I have been unable to locate any and goodness knows I have tried. Thank you in advance.

  • OHJonesy

    For what purpose? I really couldn’t care less what the NRA thinks about the militia clause, they are not my voice, nor do I follow lock-step with what they say.

    I’ve seen you on this thread arguing that the militia clause somehow changes the meaning of “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. Do you believe that? If yes, is an NRA video really going to change your mind?

  • cargosquid

    Why should the NRA talk about the militia? It isn’t relevant to their organization. The unorganized militia is everyone.

  • cargosquid

    I already have.

  • cargosquid

    Women were not part of the organized militia. Period. Well regulated means well supplied and trained, in good working order. What is your point?

  • AWinters

    I have requested several times on this page that if anyone knows of an NRA video that addresses the militia as main the topic to please provide that link. I cannot find one and no one has yet to provide one. That is all I am asking. Thank you in advance.

  • AWinters

    Wonderful. Then you know there is no mention of an unorganized militia.

  • cargosquid

    No one has provided you one because A) not our job. Google is your friend. B) Not relevant to the NRA’s organization.

  • AWinters

    Well let’s see my dear. The NRA advocates the 2A. and the 2A mentions the militia. So if one advocates a certain cause they would cover that topic in its entirety.

  • John Crawford

    Main topic? You made no mention of it being a “main topic”. But the NRA speaks of the militia almost every time it refers to the 2d Amendment and our Right as citizens to keep and bear arms. If you haven’t seen it, then you aren’t watching their tv shows, listening to their radio programs, or reading their publications.
    Paragraph 2 of the linked article, https://www.nraila.org/second-amendment/, speaks of the militia. I suppose you missed this one in your extensive research.
    Semper fi

  • AWinters

    I never addressed you in the first place and have no interest. So please remove me as the subject of your commentary. Thank you.

  • cargosquid

    Why? What is there to cover?

    The militia clause is the subordinate, prefatory clause to the operative, active clause stating that the right should not be infringed.
    There is nothing for them to discuss.

    The right to keep and bear arms is an inalienable human right.

  • cargosquid

    Actually, there is.

    Article 1, Sec. 8:
    The Congress shall have Power
    To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia,

    Notice…it does not say…”create” a militia. The militia is already existing, but needs to be organized, armed, and disciplined….
    That is the ORGANIZED militia.

    Thanks.

  • AWinters

    Well my dear that was not a video. I am familiar with that page. I was referring to where the militia is actually discussed, as a topic, not just mentioned. If that offends you then do not direct any commentary toward me. Thank you.

  • Old Jarhead

    Pretty much all he ever does!

  • AWinters

    If you don’t know of any videos then no commentary on your part is required. Thank you.

  • sox83cubs84

    True, although the problem with libtards isn’t so much knowing who they are as what they THINK they are.

  • AWinters

    Well I see the word “organizing”, nothing about “unorganized”. Perhaps you should zoom in on it.

  • John Crawford

    A video? Not posting a video invalidates the claim? Sorry, do your own research. I posted a site wherein the NRA talks about the militia, which DOES invalidate your claim.
    Semper fi

  • AWinters

    If you feel that certain words in our Bill of Rights should not be discussed, that is your position. I do not see it that way and certainly do not take directions from you. Thank you.

  • cargosquid

    You really are a special snowflake.
    Information and discussion are not enough…you want video.
    Wow.

    Have fun waiting.

  • cargosquid

    Should not be discussed?
    No one said that they SHOULDN’T be discussed. The clause is discussed quite frequently, but usually the context is explaining to people like you how you have it wrong.

    You have had the evidence shown to you that the NRA does discuss it.
    You have been shown to be wrong.

    Furthermore, your reading comprehension is poor. I gave you no directions.

  • cargosquid

    Too bad.

    I will keep pointing out that you are trolling.

  • AWinters

    I have no interest in your opinion. Go elsewhere.

  • cargosquid

    OR… you can stop responding.

  • cargosquid

    Perhaps you should learn english, since to become organized, something must first be unorganized. If the order is to organize the militia, that makes the default state of the militia to be UNorganized.

    So…again, your word games have shown you up.

  • cargosquid

    Isn’t he just special? Now he’s told me to “go elsewhere” because he has no interest in my opinion.

  • goofy
  • AWinters

    Blocked and reported.

  • You are clearly long on opinion and questions. No interest in them here.

  • AWinters

    Your just a precious little sweet pea, There was no “claim”. I was asking if anyone could provide a video from the NRA discussing the subject of the militia, as I should like to see it. But that seems to upset your little sugar britches. No further communication from you is required. You have a wonderful day.

  • John Crawford

    I’m out, and found the article on my phone. Not being good at smartphone, I bypassed the NRA’S selection of videos from their site. But you can find them as I did.
    Semper fi

  • AWinters

    Well that is just wonderful for you sweetie. But your feelings are of no concern here. I was simply asking if anyone could direct me to a video where the NRA discusses the militia as a show topic. I would like to see it.

  • When THE PEOPLE incorporated “the Militia of the several States” into their new Constitution’s federal system, they knew full well that these were statutory institutions already in existence, separate in every State and each one the creature of its own State’s laws. When THE PEOPLE referred to “[a] well regulated Militia” in the Second Amendment, they knew exactly what the salient principles of “regulat[ion]” were, because those principles could be found, repeated again and again, in statute after statute the Colonies and then the independent States had enacted throughout the 1600s and 1700s. And when THE PEOPLE authorized Congress “[t]o provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia” (U.S. Constitution Article I, § 8, cl. 16.), they knew to the last detail what those activities entailed, because they were familiar with the “well regulated Militia” the Colonies’ and States’ statutes had produced in the past.

  • leeclayton

    That would be a “provocateur”, Gomer.

  • leeclayton

    That stupid hillbilly told cops they would have to shoot him to stop him, while reaching under his jacket for the 9mm they found when they searched him. He’s a hero to all you headcases, isn’t he?

  • cargosquid

    For what? Proving you wrong. Again.

  • John Crawford

    Thank you for the correction.
    Semper fi

  • GAU-8

    Which in no way conflicts with my individual right to keep and bear arms , in fact my individual rights and free exercise thereof help ensure a free state.

  • Paul

    Yes, there were militias. This has never been a point of contention.

    Article 1, Section 8 clause 16 does not read over the second amendment. If there is conflict, the second amendment reads over the entire Constitution. This is why people write and ratify amendments. They wouldn’t be any fun at all if they changed nothing.

    I have allocated a little bit of time for you today. Do you plan on refuting any of the points in my post with something that resembles reasoning? Time’s a wastin.

  • cargosquid

    He doesn’t actually care.

  • GAU-8

    No, it provides congress the specific, limited power to command the militias to do that.

    The constitution provides limited, specific power to the three designated branches.

  • cargosquid

    And that is all covered in Art 1, Sec. 8. The 2nd is a limit on government action. The 2nd protects the right to keep and bear arms and thus, protects both the populace and ensures that the militia has a source of arms and personnel regardless of gov’t action or inaction.

  • John Crawford

    Of course not. As I said, he is here only as a provocateur. If he cared, he would know something about the subject.
    Semper fi

  • williamdiamon

    Correct, the official militia, when organized by the State. However, you haven’t mentioned everyone else, the unofficial militia.
    The single woman holding a home invader at bay with her handgun is performing the same act, maintaining a secure state, as a 10,00 man muster called up by the Governor in times of invasion. Do you think she should wait for her Governor to arrive?

  • cargosquid

    Apparently he’s not good at that either. He “blocked and reported” me when I wouldn’t obey him and kept pointing out that he was wrong.

  • ? FIREBRED ?Vindicated
  • Paul

    Or a call center.
    Maybe the circus isn’t coming and they don’t have any tickets to sell for the poor orphans.

  • John Crawford

    Ooohh, you bad boy. I hope you felt suitably chastened?!!
    Semper fi

  • williamdiamon

    In this case I think someone else wrote the talking points, and they’re just the delivery system. They’re getting spanked, gloriously.

  • cwgf

    That was simply awesome. All it had left was “blocked and reported” when you defeated it with logic and facts.

  • goofy

    Yes they are! But Happy Easter anyway. I would be leery of the candy eggs under the cat, but others may be delicious.

  • williamdiamon

    Happy Easter Goofy ! haha, I’ve heard the yellow snow isn’t very good either.

  • The Constitution recognizes no “unofficial” militia, only “well regulated Miliitia”. There was no other type known in fact and law, when the Constitution was ratified and for 150 years before the Constitution was even a thought.

  • williamdiamon

    They’re diving their clown car full of talking points to the mechanic as we speak. Something about “nothing but hot air” and “no traction”, I think they know now, they bought a lemon.

  • Howleyesque

    BS you pathetic cowardly, quivering PILE and THE VIDEO SAYS SO! that brave man’s NAME is Lavoy Finicum, and he had more ACTUAL courage than YOU or that doped up moronic THUG Mikie Brown ever thought about having. WATCH THE VIDEO RATHER than sit there spoiuting slanderous LIES about him, maggot He pulled to the side KNOWING he was going to die but unwilling to have others killed BY Barry and LOWretta’s Boyz. When he LEFT THAT VEHICLE… he had BOTH HANDS RAISED IN SURRENDER… and was shot IN THE BACK!

  • leeclayton

    How much shit did he leave in that trench for taxpayers to clean up, I wonder?

  • Howleyesque

    I heard that, IF we could buy that trash for it’s actual worth to humanity and sell it for what it THINKS it’s worth we could zip past Bill Gates’ network in a heart beat! ONE sale is all it would take!! https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/81b59d2adb574f811829e56000c78e4150e5135f7ec1f202d37ac01f25c58217.jpg
    The better part being that shrieking half wits can’t figure out WHY we ignore them!

  • leeclayton

    Investigation: Investigators said that three times, Finicum had his hands up but lowered them and reached toward his concealed handgun. He was shot after he lowered his hands the third time.

  • Paul

    The nation we now find ourselves in began anew with the ratification of the Constitution. Article 6 is a clear indication of the dissolution of the Confederation of the states in favor of the United States and clearly limits the liabilities assumed by that new nation. Nothing from the articles of Confederation not expressly stated reads over nor is inherited by this new nation.

  • Howleyesque

    Oh but you did so… TOO LATE! You wanna get cute ok… all I’ll tell you is, DON’T HUJRL anything you don’t want to CATCH a face full of! (BTW the FACT that MY response was TOO your comment regarding MY post puts the lie to your CLAIM of innocence. )

  • Howleyesque

    BS! FOOL! WATCH THE VIDEO! They were liars and YOU are a LYING PARROT! He left the vehicle hands raised and was shot within seconds of doing so!

  • Howleyesque

    The only SHIT is the PILE I’m educating!

  • williamdiamon

    Correct, they didn’t write concerning the unorganized militia because they never imagined that anyone would question the right of the common man to arms.
    You’re missing the definition of militia being “of the people” by pretending the Second only grants the right to arms to the State. That concept would have been as as bizarre to them then as it is to us today.
    If you were as Constitutionally centered as you claim your point is, you would understand this.

    So tell me why they didn’t confiscate guns back then? Were they just waiting for you to come along and explain it to us?

    And again, what of women, who have always owned guns, but until recently never served in a militia?

  • Cletus B Neckbeard

    cargo isn’t the stupid one, here. Why would you do that? Why so anti-education?

  • cwgf

    Lol. Kato is warming up the Silver Hornet!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEFfISdA8LQ

  • williamdiamon

    Yeah sure. That’s like reading the NHRA’s rule book, then saying unless you’re drag racing you can’t drive your car. yer too cute

  • leeclayton

    I can only hope that you, too, will one day try to outrun law enforcement, and having told them you’re armed, you’ll reach under your jacket and dare them to shoot you.

  • Paul

    Nope. Not one iota.

  • Cletus B Neckbeard

    You’re not a taxpayer so why do you care?

    BTW, about what drives your anger and envy…

  • williamdiamon

    hahaha, And just like the mechanic, they’re left in the middle of the road. Hope he has triple A.

  • cwgf

    Lol!

  • cargosquid

    Thanks.

  • cargosquid

    Oh..yes. Chastened. THAT’s the word I was looking for….. 🙂

  • Cletus B Neckbeard

    Their awareness is phenomenal, isn’t it? Those darned anti-education righties gotta go!

  • cargosquid

    He has had this account for one year….and has a total 46 comments.
    Can we say….troll?

  • williamdiamon

    It must be hard to find people creative enough to argue a point that has no basis in fact or history. He’ll soon be replaced with a kiosk.

  • Paul

    Or a chalk board.
    Easier to re-program.

  • Cletus B Neckbeard

    I have to go to Bellmont again, Tuesday, Lee. You’re not gonna “git” me, are you?

  • cwgf

    Hahaha. Fingers in their ears singing “La laaa laaaa.” They got schooled today no doubt!

  • Incorrect. The militia of the independent Colonies were “execut[ing] the Laws *, suppress[ing] Insurrections and repel[ling] Invasions” (ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 15) from the early 1600s within each Colony as the statutes of that period reveal. When the Colonies became independent States, they continued to perform those functions as the statutes of that period reveal. When the Constitution was ratified in place of the Articles of Confederation the States no longer exercised exclusive control (regulation) over her militia and delegated Congress “Part” of that duty (ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 16) because the new office of the “President” (Article II) had been introduced. And now the President would be Commander in Chief * of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States” (ARTICLE II, SECTION 2, CLAUSE 1), whenever Congress would call the Militia forth (from their State) to employ[ ] [them] in the Service of the United States” (ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 16).

    So “the Militia of the several States” are State institutions in service of the State where those people reside, “execut[ing] the Laws *, suppress[ing] Insurrections and repel[ling] Invasions” (ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 15). In the event an “insurrection” (a riot) for example, Congress may “employ” the Militia from a neighboring State to help “suppress” it—the Militia having already been organiz[ed], arm[ed], and disciplin[ed] (ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 16) or “well regulated” for that purpose, because “the security of (the people’s) free State” depends upon it. In such case those militiamen who have crossed State lines are now in “Service of the United States”, because they have been called from their State of residence, because the security of another State requires their assistance. When the “insurrection” is quelled those militiamen would go back to their State of origin. As the Constitution recognizes the States reserved much of their original control of their Militia—“reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia” (ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 16), but they must do so “according to the discipline prescribed by Congress” (ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 16) because if and when Congress should call the Militia forth, both Congress and the President, who then becomes “Commender in Chief * of the Militia” (ARTICLE II, SECTION 2, CLAUSE 1) need to know what Arms and accoutrements the Militia possess and have been trained with in order to direct them accordingly. Therefore “A well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State” (Second Amendment), because any State could possibly need their neighboring militiamen from another State, because their very security is at risk, in this case by an insurrection that may be spiraling out of control causing injury, loss of life, property damage, and so forth. The Militia would also be effective in natural disasters, providing emergency food, medical, power and the like.

  • williamdiamon

    Garbage in, garbage out. It’s like they’re using Ouija boards to compile their code.

  • Militia were not the constructs of “imagination” but of law. Otherwise your rambling.

  • GAU-8

    Your mixing up State powers and Federal powers.

    Your original statement – ‘Constitution delegates the three security responsibilities to “the Militia of the several States” ‘ is wrong – the Constitution does no such thing – the Constitution provides specific, limited powers to the three branches of Federal government. The Constitution does not delegate anything to the militia – the Constitution provides Congress guidelines but not the Militia.

    My comment had nothing to do with State powers.

  • Not mixing anything up. The laws are clear. If one studies the Militia statutes from the Colonial period, through the Articles of Confederation, then post-Constitution they are in perfect continuity. Having never studied the subject you are drawing an opinion on limited information resulting in the wrong conclusion. That will never improve by way of social media.

  • Howleyesque

    the video is on youtube BUTTHEAD! he DID NOT “reach under his jacket” WITH BOTH HANDS RAISED!

  • Old Jarhead

    You too, my friend! Stay safe.

  • Not allocating any more time to what you said. Its nonsense. Perhaps your camp followers are interested in your opinion, I’m not. You addressed me first. Please refrain from doing so in the future.

  • Howleyesque

    Let us KNOW if and when you get to the BOR…

  • Howleyesque

    What WE KNOW is that the BOR is a listing of RIGHTS of the INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN and that to think the Founding Fathers would interject, willy nilly, some meaningless blather about a “collective right” or just pure NONSENSE is ridiculous.

  • Howleyesque

    Oh you’re the one playing that game.. FAIR ENOUGH lefty, TROLL ME ONE MORE TIME!

  • Cecillia

    No matter how many times you watch Inspector Clouseau, it’s still one hilarious second after another!

  • AWinters

    That’s like not understanding the Constitution and making up some juvenile analogy that a lll the other juveniles giggle at. You all go tickle each other silly now.

  • williamdiamon

    Yes, but there is no minimum size to militia, and a solitary act of defense,
    including self-defense, can be thought of as one person calling up
    himself to defend the community, represented by himself or others, and
    to enforce the law.
    Otherwise there would be no such thing as a citizen’s arrest or even the concept of armed self-defense. Do you think they had armed self-defense in 1791, or do you think I invented armed self-defense in my imagination?

  • AWinters

    Hmmm…Let’s see what this button does that says “Idiot Block”

  • You have never studied the legal history of the Militia. So you blather word salads that impress those even less informed.

  • Howleyesque

    REPORTED TROLL!

  • ELSEVAR

    Beautiful presentation, cwgf, and a thoroughly effective set of responses to “Const.Militia”. When corrected by 3 or 4 people, and being aware that he was lacking any riposte, he reverted to insult.

    It is the crass man’s form of surrender.

  • Paul

    Its a public forum. If you say something else incredibly dumb, I’ll feel free to point it out. I’m a giving kind of guy.

  • goofy
  • ELSEVAR

    Interesting that “Const.Militia” seems to be flagging so much in this conversation that he has lost his grammar.

  • Howleyesque

    Same to you my friend!

  • ELSEVAR

    “AWinters” and “Patriot” are blocked accounts with double-digit posts. It appears “Const.Militia” pulls them out to repeat his failed arguments when he has been beaten under his primary account name.

    “Const.Militia” is just a slightly better educated version of Guffie/WeeTony/LeeClayton. Fonts of frustrated ego.

  • GAU-8

    Having been wrong before, you continue to be wrong…the U.S. Constitution establishes the specific powers of the three branches…how you managed to misinterpret it is beyond me.

    Last I saw we aren’t a colony any more, the Articles of Confederation don’t pertain (and they only call out militia once – that every state must maintain one not what the duties of the militia are); thus leaving the Constitution –

    but tell me how you construe:

    “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;”

    Tell me how you misconstrue the Constitution as providing any delegation of responsibilities? I see power specifically enumerated to Congress and the guidelines for exercise of that power.

    Maybe next time you’d like to provide some citations to support your argument?

  • Of course you see it as “wrong”. If one never studies the legal history and tries to “intuit” what the Constitution means then any whimsical conclusion is possible. Citations are on the website with a small sampling of the actual Militia statutes. The Information is there for anyone to independently verify for themselves, with many more you can read through. If you want “proof” its all there and where to find more. It takes time and effort to educate yourself. Otherwise, stick to “shall not be infringed”, its much less effort.

  • Losers always are.

  • Minimun size of the militia were no less than 20 men as the statutes reveal. And no law ever designated individuals as “calling themselves up”. But of course if you’ve never studied those laws and just whimsically make it up as you go along, then you are correct.

  • ELSEVAR

    Stan, that is fake fake lee(guffie/weetony). There is also a fake lee and a just lee(guffie/weetony) who is more fake than the fakes.

    Wherever just lee(guffie/weetony) shows up, one of the fake lees soon follows. just lee abuses commenters with sarcasm. The fake lees do the same to just lee.

    It is tedious, but the best policy is to ignore all the lees. They aren’t here to discuss anything seriously.

  • Paul

    Did this exchange completely lock you up?

    Don’t be this way, I gave you every opportunity to demonstrate your superiority and you crashed and burned. Sure you don’t want a re-do?

  • cwgf

    Thank you, sir. I appreciate that.

  • I’ve been curious about this new browser feature. It sends out algorithms and pinpoints specific people of limited intelligence, who are completely unproductive, and who think they know everything. Its called “loser locate blocker”. Let’s see what happens…..

  • cwgf

    Ha. Yes, and the first two were created on the same day! I think you are right – sock puppet hand-clappers for the bruised ego.

  • GAU-8

    Thanks for playing…but not interested in perusing your self aggrandizing website any more Eddie…ever wonder why you don’t have any more followers in the real world or nobody seems interested in printed copies of your work….tell me do you get jealous of David Young, his book was worth the purchase price.

  • Then go share your deep thoughts and book reviews with people who are interested. Be gone.

  • GAU-8

    So share some statutes Professor Eddie detailing the well known activities.

    All you have managed to do is talk in circles. The world is rapidly awaiting your citations — read my website doesn’t cut it….

  • GAU-8

    I see…when actually forced to defend yourself with real facts you run. I’ll take that as your sign of surrender. I see you have already surrendered to a number of posters on this forum.

    It was the David E. Young comparison wasn’t it?

  • Being an uneducated fool on social media is perhaps the lowest the low. You have no website, no book, nothing. Yet you make demands as if you are somehow relevant. Try to be a productive member of society. Do something useful. Pick up cans on the street and recycle, its honorable.

  • Start a “Go Fund Me” page to further your education. I believe in charity, so I will even make a donation. There are free web site offers out there, like Square Space. So let’s get you goin!

  • williamdiamon

    You know nothing of me, now stop your chattering and answer my questions.

  • I know blather. You blather. Make it up as you go along. Then demand answers. Blatherer.

  • williamdiamon

    Halloween is over, take off the mask and put down the 5th grade joke book and address the points he’s made, or forever be known as a charlatan.

  • By an irrelevant blatherer on Disqus. Oh the humanity!

  • williamdiamon

    That’s it? That is your most considered response to the obvious holes in your position? A joke? Funny, I expected nothing less, and you have delivered nothing more.

    Why do you take this personally? The purpose of these threads is that they’re today’s soapbox, where new, and old, ideas are brought into the light of reason. Yet you have brought no reason to the subject and no enlightenment. In fact your fire only radiates the heat of ad hominen and personal insult but brings no light to the matter. You cannot even defend your position without falling to nonsense.
    I hope you have a day job.

  • Notice I have not asked you a single question? Because you blather. You consider your blather relevant. That your blather warrants a response. If blathering is a day job I’m you would be the “Blatherer in Chief” and excellent at your craft. Its not personal. Its blather.

  • cargosquid

    Try again.
    The Constitution recognizes the default unorganized militia. Art. 1, sec 8 authorizes Congress to ORGANIZE the militia.
    George Mason would disagree with you, naming the whole of the people as the militia.

  • williamdiamon

    Speak for yourself. I just can’t believe you’ve actually posted that thinking you were going to convince anyone of your points when you cannot even rationalize them yourself.
    The only thing anyone will ever take from these threads is any enlightenment gained. Joke book chatter (that would be you) is forgoten before the reader moves on to the next comment. That means, for all practical purposes to the conversation, you are invisible.
    And yet you wonder why you can’t sell slavery…The only difference between your position and the gun-con-trolls is that you haven’t exhibited signs of hoplophobia, yet.

  • cargosquid

    And yet, YOU consider your responses to be intelligent and knowledgeable.
    That’s hilarious.

  • cargosquid

    Who is this idiot?

  • ELSEVAR

    I “love” how you upvote yourself from your own sockpuppet accounts, Eddie. Are you really that lonely?

  • williamdiamon

    Thanks, we will, and at your expense, you’re too kind.
    Let me know when they change it to “the Bill of AWinters”.

  • Don’t take it personally at all. People like yourself think they are much more relevant than they are. Don’t take it personally.

  • Another genius. Was going to call you a “cargosquid” then realized its your handle.

  • cargosquid

    You still here?
    Your blathering has become nonsensical and boring.

  • Can’t believe your posting your drivel as if its relevant. Post it elsewhere.

  • cargosquid

    Smarter than you, apparently.

    You keep repeating incorrect information and criticizing others for correcting your mistakes.

  • I imagine that a cargosquid finds many things amusing.

  • cargosquid

    I do.
    Your failed attempts to appear intelligent and informed are some of those things.

  • williamdiamon

    It is, and certainly more honorable than lying about the intent of our Founding Fathers sentiment concerning the right arm of the sovereign of America – We the People.
    What is your aim? More arms in the hands of the people? We already regulate our arms all by ourselves quite well thank you. I have no need of the State in their control nor does anyone else. In fact gun-control played a part in the last election, and it’s proponent lost, bigly. Let that be your clue. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a79445e31009ee08274cd0a89b5ec5a701d9882962dd1f9a3dfd49c01cee4aaf.jpg

  • If you were productive in society you would not have time join in a feed to feel someone their boring,

  • cargosquid

    English….do you speak it?

  • Unproductive member of society.

  • williamdiamon

    “It stings, doesn’t it?”

  • cargosquid

    I notice that you are incapable of explaining why you think he is wrong.
    And you said you went to law school.

    Somehow, I don’t believe you.

    14 hours and still no reply.

  • Blather no one reads.

  • Blathering squid. Useless.

  • Drivel from a driveler who thinks his drivel is relevant.

  • cargosquid

    Seeing that you said you were a lawyer…. you should be quite familiar with being unproductive.

    But you really should not label yourself as an unproductive member of society.
    I mean…. you are a GREAT bad example of what children should NOT grow up to be.

  • cargosquid

    Please continue.
    You are funny.

    In a sad pathetic way.

  • Stale jokes that would bore a 3 year old. Go blather some place else.

  • Very relieved Gamerdude

    You still here?

  • cargosquid

    You should look up “projection.” You haz it.

  • cargosquid

    OR…you can go away.

  • williamdiamon

    Dude look at me, I’m not even a people, I’m a cat. The only reason you have tried to make it “personal” is because you cannot address the points that challenge your perspective. At this point in the conversation you have nothing to offer. Enjoy your irrelevance.

    haha, What a simpleton’s perspective. “Taking it personally” would require a prior personal relationship, by it’s very definition, don’t cha think?

  • cargosquid

    Didn’t he say that he was Harvard lawyer?

  • Blather.

  • cargosquid

    If he did, Harvard should sue.

  • williamdiamon

    Did he? I can imagine what his application looks like, “If it saves one life”, “who needs a gun like that to hunt deer”, or “Mr and Mrs America, turn them all in” – a hundred times…

  • williamdiamon

    You wish it was blather. What I and other on this thread have done is listen to your sentiment, examine them under the light of reason and history, and we see that your position is nothing more than mere propaganda commonly found in talking point handbooks of the failed gun-control movement.

    For all practical purposes your position is digitally pinned in a display box for all the world to see. Must be embarrassing for you.
    But that’s actually a good sign, it means you have a sense of shame (which means you know you did something wrong)…build on that why don’t ya.

  • B-l-a-t-h-e-r……

  • ELSEVAR

    Lol, you have “double-checked” yourself, AWinters/Patriot/ConstMilitia?

    And you were so impressed with yourself (or so desperate for approval) you had to give yourself selfie-upvotes.

    Wow. Isn’t that a little “childish”?

  • williamdiamon

    Please don’t drool on your keyboard. Isn’t there someone there to wipe your chin?

  • john

    cw, I have to disagree with part of this comment. The Bill of Rights is a set of limitations upon the Federal government, protecting the rights OF THE PEOPLE. Minor detail. Here is something to think about: Conspiring to deny gun owners of their civil rights, as protected by the 2d Amendment, is a violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. What do you think?

  • john

    Until about 1900, there were few restrictions on what a civilian could purchase: cannon, machine guns, and any military small arm. In fact ( please do not carve this in stone) but someone wrote early on, that any military weapon should be available to the citizenry, didn’t they? One of my minor irritations about gun laws in California was that before I retired, I was personally responsible for every one of the weapons in our arms room, (and we had some fun toys) and could pretty much do with them what I chose. The day after I retired, The state of California would not trust me to own a very large selection of weapons. Suddenly I was irresponsible, untrustworthy, and unpredictable. I have always taken that as a personal insult.

  • john

    Do I need to deconstruct your comments, or will you just take my word for it that you have made a number of mistakes in your comment? Tell me precisely when the militia acts were repealed please? The National Guard is NOT the militia, agreed. You choose to distort the definition of “well regulated”, which is only a display of fatuous bending of truth.

  • john

    Politicians who ignore their oath of office are no different from criminals who disobey laws.

  • john

    I suggest you look at the Oxford Unabridged Dictionary for the usage of “Well Regulated.” It has a fine section tracing antiquated usage. I do not doubt that you will not look it up.

  • goofy

    Oh, I’m afraid that he is currently indisposed. You see, he is hiding in his closet whilst secretly drinking a Big Gulp!

  • Jughead417

    Hi williamdiamon. I know that you know what I’m arguing below, but I’ve posted it for the benefit of Constitutional Militia whose futile attempt at 2nd Amendment revisionism is a great embarrassment despite myriad of Leftists who twerk the wording to suit their political agenda. There is nothing wrong with revisionism in history if the revision is predicated upon new primary sources, but to create an argument that was never part of the mindset of the Founding Fathers is an intellectual fallacy. Additionally, his understanding of how citizens lived in the 18th and early 19th century American does not support the splicing of the Amendment into clauses where the first clause is deemed more important than the other clauses that are separated by commas. It’s one frigging sentence, for gosh sakes, and even a linguist or historian with a rudimentary understanding of English would understand that the Amendment was intended to be one entire concept, not some cut-up, contorted jumble of ideas that anti-2nd Amendment proponents mangle and then hoist their favored portion as the intent of the Founding Fathers.

    The difference between an “unorganized militia” (whatever the heck that means…lol) and a well-regulated militia is entirely specious. ANY militia suggests that a person had the right to bear arms. If a problem arose, the person would assemble with his neighbors/countrymen at some meeting place toting the weapon that he had in his domicile. The assembled armed citizens would then be organized to eliminate the threat. It turns out, as far as I know, once the U.S. Constitution was ratified and the Bill of Rights Amendments were also approved, the need for such a militia rarely was necessary. This entire “well-organized militia” scenario was predicated upon the assumption that free citizens had arms available, as is the case in modern day Switzerland where each male has a military reserve requirement and is issued a gun which he is expected to keep in perfect operating condition should a call come for him to assemble for duty.

    You are exactly correct, williamdiamon, i.e. that the Founding Fathers
    never imagined that a man would not have access to a weapon to defend
    himself and his family. A “well-regulated militia” indeed refers to a
    militia organized by lawful authority since a proximate cause of the
    Constitutional Convention was the wake-up call of Shay’s Rebellion
    composed of a rag-tag group of ex-war veterans (led by Captain Shay) and
    angry citizens who were forced to pay a court-ordered tax to creditors.

    Every armchair Con Law “expert” uses 2nd Amendment verbiage alone to make an argument that citizens could only have weapons if they were part of a militia, ignoring the mindset of the Founding Fathers and contemporary citizens who took for granted they could own guns for personal use. Modern-day anti-2nd Amendment fools separate the “well-regulated militia” clause from the rest of the Amendment, then argue that the Amendment is about militias rather than the right to own weapons. The 2nd Amendment (enumerated as 2, second only to the 1st’s free speech, assembly, petition, religion, and press) was deemed by the FF as greatly important, more so than the judicial system Amendments (4 through 8). The reference to a well-regulated militia was considered the most important reason for a citizen to bear a weapon, but NOT THE ONLY REASON to bear one. There is not a whiff of exclusivity to owning a weapon in the wording of the Amendment; there is only one very compelling example of why citizens should be able to bear arms.

    EVERY able-bodied male citizen was assumed to be ready to join a “well-regulated militia” if necessary. Meanwhile, they kept weapons at home for the family to use for self-defense. Note that everyone in the family, especially very young boys and girls, knew how to operate the weapon and where it was located in case a threat arrived at the domicile and dad and mom were outside somewhere tending crops, livestock, or conducting business.

    These self-ordained word twisters forget that most Americans lived in outlying areas where there were small farms and local businesses. There were still hostile Native Americans around as well as thieves, psychopaths (read “A Mid-Wife’s Tale: the Life of Martha Ballard”–an awesome book based on primary sources) and other miscreants, just as we have today. In the Martha Ballard’s diary she records a number of unexplained murders in Massachusetts and Maine that had no explanation and for which there were no suspects–we now call such people psychopaths. They existed in the 18th century as well as the 21st. The citizens of early America did not have 9-1-1 and relied upon their families and neighbors to protect each other from threats. The 2nd Amendment does not refer to this; it refers to threats of a military nature.

    Point is: your statement that the Founding Fathers never entertained an idea that weapons should be regulated is THE only relevant argument. The 2nd Amendment was specifically designed to protect the citizens from having their weapons taken away because of the possible need for them to band together to reign in a corrupt government. It was NEVER meant to suggest that citizens could not own weapons or that weapons could be regulated by the State.

    Constitutional Militia rhetorically asks (somewhere above) “…Are you aware that up through 1900 Congress provided that Arms
    manufactured for the army be made available to civilians? Not for
    individual self-defense (separate issue), but to maintain their local
    Militia structures.” He’s right: if a citizen happened to be nearby or did not have access to a weapon, he would still assemble and a weapon would be issued to him. Others came with weapons in hand–ones they were familiar with and kept in operating shape. During Shay’s Rebellion, Capt. Shays and his rag-tag militia were headed to Springfield (MA) to raid the federal armory where weapons were stored for individuals who did not have a weapon but showed up for lawful duty. If Constitutional Militia’s historical analysis was brought to a logical conclusion, Shay’s rebellion was conducted by individuals who did not have weapons and were going to Springfield to get some. Actually, they all had weapons (though I’ve read accounts where some carried rakes and tools because they didn’t have a gun) and were on their way to get more. All of this happened in the months preceding the Constitutional Convention, so if the Founding Fathers did not want citizens to own weapons, they could very easily have expressed that. Instead, they elevated the right of a person to bear arms almost to the top of the list and gave the most compelling reason they could imagine that citizens should have that protection.

    OHJonsey (below) has the audacity to use primary sources for his argument. How dare he point out exactly what the Founding Fathers were thinking and articulating! The Enlightened Leftists of the 20th and 21st centuries don’t like it when posters like OHJonesy use the simplest statements to systematically debunk the contortions anti-2nd Amendment proponents use to make their absurd, intellectually dishonest, contorted arguments.

  • Jughead417

    These are all great quotes, OHJonesy. I’m sure the disoriented anti-2nd Amendment posters above will find something to argue about in my long-winded post, but it’s pretty damn hard to argue with the actual words and ideas expressed by those directly related to the Declaration of Independence and the U.S.Constitution that you’ve included above.

    I find it refreshing to read these statements: men said what they meant and meant what they said, which is perhaps the inverse of “fake news” that constantly annoys the hell outta us. Just reading their statements renders a sense of truth and wisdom which is entirely lacking in the myriad lies and narratives found in MSM whenever our attention is directed to the media.

    Nicely done.

  • Jughead417

    Don’t embarrass yourself, Constitutional Militia. Your juvenile attempt at humor directed at williamdiamon and the rest of us does not make us think you know what you are talking about; it makes us think you are a condescending moron.

  • Jughead417

    Why would arms manufactured for the army be made available for free to civilians? The government and military aren’t in the business of giving out free guns to citizens.

    What point are you making?

    Name even one “local militia structure” at any time or place in U.S.history after 1788 where the U.S. government banned or discouraged citizens from owning weapons for self-protection. There was no standing army–repeat: NO STANDING ARMY–until when? Citizens were expected to have arms ready in case they were called to duty. If they didn’t have a weapon, they were issued one. Read below to find the answer:

    “With respect to wartime mobilization, Hamilton and later John C. Calhoun
    envisioned the United States Army as an “expansible” force. A small
    peacetime establishment would serve as the foundation for a greatly
    expanded force in times of emergency. The emergency ended, the
    citizen-soldiers would demobilize and return to their civilian
    occupations. With modifications, this was essentially the model for
    mobilization from the Mexican War through World War II. DURING THE COLD WAR, THE UNITED STATES FOR THE FIRST TIME IN ITS HISTORY MAINTAINED A LARGE MILITARY ESTABLISHMENT DURING PEACETIME.” [Emphasis added]
    http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/1/essays/52/army-clause

  • Jughead417

    Men, women, and children during the 18th and 19th centuries were trained to use weapons kept in their home for self-defense. Women did not serve in active military ventures back then and they are just starting to be integrated into military operations in the 21st century.

    What do you mean that “women didn’t bear Arms?” Tell Annie Oakley and the typical woman living in Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, or Montana in the 19 century that she did not bear arms. Surely you’re kidding, right? Did everyone in isolated Nevada have to wait until dad got home in a situation where a wayward, drunk miner or angry Native American descended upon the domicile with the intent to steal or abduct? No, as soon as one of these people came onto the property, someone inside the house yelled to the trespasses to identify himself otherwise he’d be shot. That was the nature of the Wild West–people were responsible for their own safety and well-being.

  • Jughead417

    It’s a shame when the discussion chain has to start with you stating the obvious: women owned guns too, especially in the Western States. Women also voted in state and local elections by 1900 in Wyoming, and by 1920 in Nevada even though they could not vote in federal elections. While those pictures of suffragettes walking around holding signs in NYC, Philadelphia, and Chicago are cute, the women in WY, NV, ID, CO, CA, and MT already were voting, using guns, rustling livestock, harvesting crops and doing everything males did to maintain their homestead.

    Why is it so difficult for people to believe that women were active in maintaining their homes and homesteads in isolated areas of the large western states? The women’s suffrage movement to enact the 19th Amendment arose from citified women in the east eating their hearts out watching the women in the midwest and west doing all the things men were dong–including voting.

  • Steveglen

    I remember seeing The Pink Panther when it was released, shortly after reading 1984. Incongruity is a foundation of great humor, but it isn’t much of a contrast from obama’s government, is it?
    Happy Easter to you, Cecillia, your posts are often very comforting.

  • cwgf

    Hi John, I’m not sure I understand what part you are disagreeing with? The first sentence?

  • cwgf

    Haha, yes Peter Sellers was a genius wasn’t he. Happy Easter my friend. 🙂

  • Old Jarhead

    Hello, John! May you and yours have a blessed and peaceful and safe Easter!

  • GAU-8

    So no facts huh? Typical.

  • GAU-8

    Ah troll if you only knew. but still no exact statutes to cite?

    The insults are fun and all, but I was hoping a Harvard man would actually have more than just the typical keyboard commando taunts.

  • GAU-8

    Look at my website, look at my website. I’ve been their twice, probably doubled its traffic with that too.

    But please cite for us a statute that supports your conclusions. Heck, I’d settle for you to actually state conclusion.

  • GAU-8

    Gee Ed, if the laws are clear, you should be able to cite one that supports whatever your selling.

  • GAU-8

    CM? I think he is author of all the research he cited. Still waiting for him to stop talking in circles and actually state a position.

  • Paul

    Do as you wish.

  • cargosquid

    Does he actually have a link to his work?

  • Paul

    Yup.

    A very unsatisfying meal.
    Stringy, with gobs of fat and encrusted with random foreign substances.

  • GAU-8

    Mine points to Manassas VA.

  • Paul

    The militia act was law. The framers did not write or pass law. They didn’t even establish the highest law, they crafted limits, authorities and authorizations.

    Why do this? To guide the people? Nope. They wrote the contract between citizen and its servant, government. A contract that was ratified by a super majority of the citizen, attested to in the oath of every new servant. The Militia Act was enacted under the authorization of the Constitution within the limits of it. It does not inform anything about its preceding authorization.

  • OHJonesy

    Awww, did I touch a nerve? Sweetie? Is that all you can do – reply with condescension, yet you are too fearful to answer my simple question?

    Just another mindless concern troll, I see.

  • OHJonesy

    “Not allocating any more time to what you said.”

    Translation: I know when I’ve met my match, and before someone far smarter than me hands me my ass, I am turning tail and running like the coward I am.”

    No need to thank me, we all knew it.

  • goofy

    Hi Sarge, I had to reply to you on this thread because your latest comments are on sites that won’t take memes. Happy Easter to you! P.S. Tried to find a pic of peeps being incinerated with a flame thrower, but to no avail.

    http://favim.com/media/uploads/images/orig/140303/funny-animals-funny-images-funny-kids-funny-memes-Favim.com-1437571.jpg

  • GAU-8

    That’s what Harvard gets for handing out A’s like candy. Snowflakes get butthurt when faced with reality. Good Job!

  • GAU-8
  • OHJonesy

    Amen brother, but with good people like us here to help toughen them up, maybe they’ll wake up, grow a thicker hide, and face the music soon.

    Yeah, I know, who the hell am I kidding!!

  • “Divergent” sgthwjack ?

    Thanks and a Happy Easter to you as well! Here’s a Recon tip. 😉

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/15e84a348dc22f87ae91bf6f9f1d6576f4d2f185521db2195657981875122f15.jpg

  • “Divergent” sgthwjack ?
  • goofy

    Thanks, but I’d be suspicious of any little chocolate “eggs” behind a bunny! ROTFL!

  • GAU-8
  • “Divergent” sgthwjack ?
  • GAU-8

    Unfortunately, Eddie uses his own book as a citation when supporting himself – as opposed to actually citing the original source he is drawing his conclusions from.

    In other words, he is right because he says he is right.

    LOL

  • “Divergent” sgthwjack ?
  • GAU-8

    constitutionalmilitia.org

  • GAU-8
  • goofy

    I started laughing as soon as I saw your words…”A followup assessment” I knew you were up to something! LOL

  • GAU-8

    So…how have you participated?

    Well armed? Well trained?
    Direct participation in service? Active, Reserve, Guard, Guard Reserve, IRR?

    Or have you spent all your life in academia, comforted by the liberal halls of Harvard? Begging for donations so you can publish your book beyond just a PDF?

  • Ima Barber

    The code works. If something works don’t fix it.

  • “Divergent” sgthwjack ?

    I’ll just say that came from an “unknown”, but reliable source. Lol

  • OHJonesy

    Hello Jughead, great to hear from you my friend! Thank you for kind words, I appreciate your support and friendship. It truly is refreshing to reacquaint ourselves from time to time with the writings of our Founders. I’m always amazed at the intellectual strength and foresight these men had over 240 years ago. It’s a shame we’re in such short supply today.

    Thanks again, Brother, and Happy Easter to you and yours!

  • goofy

    LOL! I hope your source has this communication on a secure server!!

  • OHJonesy

    LMAO! I think so, Sarge. Even the crash test dummies in this thread know when they’ve been beaten. Happy Easter to you, Brother!

  • goofy

    Happy Easter Jonesy!! Remember, no stepping in bunny poop while on your Easter egg hunt today, okay?

  • cargosquid

    Thanks.

    The sad part is that he does have some good points and then ruins it with his complete and utter failure about Constitutionally protected rights.

  • cargosquid

    Well, of course. Otherwise, he would be proven wrong.

  • SeeThroughYou

    1. You haven’t a clue what “Regulated” meant regarding firearms in the 18th century
    2. You haven’t a clue about what constitutes a Militia or how it is implemented.
    3. Your ideology is a tacit rejection of the very concept of a “Free State”.

    If you cared one whit for a “Constitutional Militia” you would reject the Un-Constitutional, Ersatz “Militia Act” of 1903 which removed the actual purpose and hierarchy of the “Constitutional Militia” spoken of in the 2nd Amendment of the BOR and laid out in uncompromising detail in the Militia Act of 1792.

    Your first obligations would be”

    Purchase a 5.56 or 7.62 rifle of the type and caliber currently used by our armed forces

    Purchase load bearing equipment and a rucksack of the type and capability used by our armed forces.

    Purchase magazines and ammunition in the quantity issued to our armed forces.

    Attend Militia Drills on the Town Common where you would REGULATE the sights of your weapon(this is called ZEROING in modern English) to shoot at the same point of aim as the weapons used by our armed forces and every other member of your local CONSTITUTIONAL MILITIA.

    National Guard Units are part time, PAID military units, not MILITIA as defined by the founders and framers of the USC/BOR and do not serves as part of our system of checks and balances to offset the power of the “Standing Army” as intended by our founders who saw “Standing Armies” as the most likely source for DOMESTIC TYRANNY when directed by lawless Un-American freaks like the Clintons, Obama, Bush Sr, etc.

    Now, you can cease being a full of crap hypocrite today by buying yourself and AR15, 8 magazines and a set of Army surplus webgear and scheduling appointments for shooting clinics with the CMP or Appleseed where they will teach you how to safely handle your weapon, hit targets and REGULATE your fcuking sights, lol

  • gene

    men said what they meant and meant what they said,……………
    right ! that is the original meaning of conservative, remember ? when the meaning of the Constitution is/was in question the writers said what they meant and meant what they said

  • Desiree’ Sunshine

    Excellent comment.

  • OHJonesy

    Happy Easter to you too Goofy, and thank you for the sage advice, I’ll try not to slip on the small brown marbles!

  • SeeThroughYou

    The Militia Act of 1792, Passed May 8, 1792, providing federal standards for the organization of the Militia.

    An ACT more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States.

    I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.

  • Lian Renaud
  • OHJonesy

    Thank you Lian, Happy Easter to you as well!

  • goofy

    Hey! Baseball season starts in about 4 days. Get out those cleets…..no slipping on brown marbles!

  • Wishing you and your loved ones a most Blessed Easter, my Brother. 🙂

  • goofy

    Bwahahahahahaha! Damn! Another keyboard ruined. Now THAT was a laugh riot!

  • cwgf

    Thank you brother. May you and yours have a Blessed Easter too, my friend. 🙂

  • Cecillia

    Wishing you and your loved ones a Blessed and Happy Easter, CW!! 🙂

  • Wild_Bird

    Happy Easter OHJonesy!

  • Howleyesque

    LOL Well I can now ADD “News in Detroit” to the list of sites I’ve been banned from. WHY? Some airhead trolled and attacked ME cursing away at me but I’M the one who got banned! LOL

  • Cecillia

    The Pink Panther series were (and still are) an incredible art form. The originators were, indeed, Masters of Comedy.

  • Cecillia

    Thank you for the very kind words, Steve. I truly believe that we are all sojourners on this finite planet and the best that we can do is to help another wayfarer on the path. Your heartwarming note is a excellent illustration of how we can encourage each other on that very path.

    Wishing you and your loved ones a Blessed and Happy Easter Day!

  • Jughead417

    I appreciate your kind words, OHJonesy. I, too, wish you and yours a blessed Easter–a moment when my world stops and I enjoy the meaning of it all. Best regards, Jughead.

  • The laws that regulated the Militia legally define what the regulations were. Not your incoherent babble in 2017. Educate.

  • Jughead417

    Another excellent piece of info, OHJonesy. I will keep it around until I have the time to study it.

    Bottom line is the anti-2nd Amendment crowd wants to dissect a one-sentence Amendment in order to claim that a particular clause (delineated by the commas) is what the Amendment is all about. No, the Amendment in its entirety needs to be read and considered as a whole.

    Logic dictates there cannot be any militia or militia-like group of men now or then who are not presumed to bear their privately owned weapons. If they get upgrades once they assemble that’s great, but meantime, they are ready, locked and loaded at home (hopefully away from the reach of any children who haven’t yet been taught the purpose of weapons, the need for self-protection, how they operate, and the clear distinction between a weapon and a toy).

  • BREAKING: Disqus scholars declare historic victory. A national parade will be held to honor them and medals awarded by the President!.

  • John Crawford

    Yes, I’ve seen the quotation you mention. I agree, that every “terrible instrument of war” is our birthright. Of course, I can’t afford planes, ships, etc.
    Semper fi

  • mlentz

    Great research.

  • mlentz

    Or smart pills:)

  • OHJonesy

    Thank you Wild Bird, best wishes to you and your family for a Happy Easter too!

  • mlentz

    deleted because it was misplaced.

  • mlentz

    Can I quote you on that? It is wonderful! I can think of a whole lot more places it would apply equally well.

  • mlentz

    Excellent work! That answer puts the lie to the gun control crowd who have tried for years to delegitimize private ownership of firearms by twisting that very definition. It is ensconced in federal statute.

  • Howleyesque

    As far as I can tell, we’re on the same side of this fight to retain our liberties so feel; free to do so friend!

  • Is there an NRA Commentator Segment that is dedicated to analysis and discussion of a “A well regulated Militia” and why they are the only thing in the entire Constitution and Bill of Rights declared to be “necessary to the security of a free State” ? Cannot seem to locate any.

  • mlentz

    A while back, I was asked, “What’s the difference between a “tragedy” and a “cryin’ shame?” The way it was explained to me was, “A tragedy is when a bus load of NYT writers goes off a cliff and everyone on board is killed.” A cryin’ shame is when there are three empty seats on that bus.”

    Go get ’em, Dana!

  • Shep??????????
  • Shep??????????
  • mlentz

    We are, sir. And thank you. I’ve also lifted your “Tolerant Liberal” attachment. LOL, I just howled over that one. I will use it, too.

  • Howleyesque

    As I’ve said on numerous other occasions …ENJOY! 🙂

  • williamdiamon

    haha, Happy Easter Shep!

  • SeeThroughYou

    I just educated you, fool

    You don’t get to completely redefine the meaning, definitions and intentions of the 2nd Amendment just because it’s 2017.

    It is what it is and there are laws, legal opinions, parliamentary arguments contemporary to the creation of the Bill of Rights to prove MY assertions. Meanwhile you are wishing in one hand, sheeting in the other and swinging around the only hand that’s full demanding people believe your lies.

    There are mistakes in our modern interpretation of the 2nd Amendment but they are not even close to the type authoritarian leftists assert.

    The 2nd Amendment doesn’t protect recreational shooting/guns or antiquated shooting/guns or hunting type shooting/guns or tiny concealable guns..

    It only protects military weapons in military calibers for the purpose of combat like the Swiss Home Guard system.

    Men should have their arms “Regulated”(adjusted) and inspected for accuracy by a trained official AND men thusly armed and trained should be ready to come to the aid of their Sheriff, County Commissioner, Mayor, Governor, Senators, Congressmen, President, etc when called upon .

    Democrats have really screwed up the system and their constituents are responsible for 80% of all criminal misuse of firearms to boot.

    Meanwhile since the 2nd Amendment is foremost among our Civil Liberties any restriction must err on the side of leniency or risk oppression and tyranny against the republic.

    I am all for reopening the DCM(Dept of Civilian Marksmanship) and forcing men to either buy their own equipment between 18-21 or let them earn it by participating in DCM matches and giving them an older but serviceable military rifle like the DCM/CMP used to do until Clintard ruined it.

  • Post your rants somewhere else. Not interested.

  • SeeThroughYou

    You’ve been completely debunked and want to tuck your tail now? You knew you were spreading falsehoods from the beginning, didn’t you?

    You should really change your name, your ignorance and hypocrisy don’t help your argument one tiny bit.

  • Another self proclaimed intellectual on social media, Don’t see many of those. Go throw yourself a victory parade. Move along now.

  • jg collins

    Is it mere coincidence or a cosmic joke that “The New York Times” is a perfect anagram of “The Monkeys Write?”

  • jg collins

    Many people don’t know about “smart pills.”

  • jg collins

    Germany established gun control much earlier than stated. The previous Socialist administrations already had mandated registration of all firearms. It made it easy for the Nazis to subsequently use the registration lists to go house-to-house, demanding the guns be surrendered. Refusal resulted in arrest and a trip to a concentration camp.

  • Wild_Bird

    Happy Easter cwgf. Hope you’re doing well.

  • mlentz

    The last guy I met from Detroit had a very interesting job. He worked as a tail gunner on a beer truck. Enjoy!

  • mlentz

    Those are the Democrats who eat those rabbit droppings. Eventually, they get smart, stop eating them and become Republicans.

  • Old Jarhead

    All I see is someone who thinks his version of the 2A is the ONLY interpretation, yet he refuses to provide a single citation to any laws which he claims existed. Hint: The 2A is a restriction on the power of the federal government. Laws concerning the organization, arming, and training of the militia were issued by Congress. The states trained the militia according to those laws issued by Congress. Exactly how the Constitution demands. Congress DID fail in their duties in the very early 20th century. It still does not change the meaning of the 2A.

  • cargosquid

    Why are you so concerned about what the NRA does?

    The purpose of the NRA is not to promote the organization of the militia. They barely promote the right to keep and bear arms.

    Perhaps you should write to Congress and get them moving on that organization of the militia.

  • Old Jarhead

    Hey, it must be working! After all, you are here making a fool of yourself! Wear it with pride, you have earned it! https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d0f9c86f162786a7c356f300ead95481e1eeaed6c219475b0a8830dd66eb6986.jpg

  • cargosquid

    Who is his other sock?

  • Old Jarhead

    He calls that one “Patriot”. He and AWinters were created the exact same day.

  • cargosquid

    Aha…… Funny that.

  • GAU-8

    AWinter and Patriot, he totes them out ever now and then.

  • Don’t concern yourself with commenting on questions not directed to you.

  • GAU-8

    He is almost there sometimes and then makes a hard left into some other land…I’m still not sure what exactly he is trying prove.

  • I wasn’t interested his blather, just like I’m not interested in yours. Move along now.

  • GAU-8

    It’s like another little Steve Harvey. Why are lawyers so full of themselves?

  • GAU-8

    And yet we are still waiting for a single link to the supposed laws.

  • Educate yourself, don’t expect other people to do it for you.

  • tetse

    Hoping you and yours had a great holiday.

  • Recycled jokes. Recycled laughs. We the Sheeple.

  • Old Jarhead

    Yes, you are a Sheeple.

  • Old Jarhead

    You post at a public forum, I’ll respond any time I desire. You want your echo chamber, go back to your website that you have been spamming. That or grow up. Either one works for me, but do one or the other.

  • 2 year old level humor. Go share with your following. No interest. Thank you.

  • cargosquid

    His site shows that he’s some sort of….. well, actually, I can’t tell.

  • cargosquid

    It was directed at me. You asked an open question. I’m asking for clarification.

  • cargosquid

    I was just “discussing” things with AWinter. No wonder this guy doesn’t like me.

  • Old Jarhead

    Your comment was directed at anyone who desired to comment. If you want your echo chamber, you are in the WRONG place!

  • Will do.

  • Directed to the posters of the video. Now you know,

  • Question directed to the posters of the video. Now you know,

  • Old Jarhead

    2 year old, maybe. It was in direct response to your infantile comment above. Act like a 2 y/o, you will be treated like a 2 y/o.

  • Very interesting. Move along now.

  • Old Jarhead

    From the story? You realize, those people rarely comment on Disqus. And your comment was NOT clear as to whom it was directed. So, nope, I think you are simply telling a fib so you don’t look like a loon. Too late.

  • Question was not directed toward you. Move along now.

  • Old Jarhead

    Aww, the snowflake can’t handle it when he is shown to be an infantile dweeb! But I’ll “move along” when I’m ready, and not before. If you need to take a break, you can go to “constitutionalmilitia.org”. I here that is an echo chamber for those who imagine themselves Constitutional experts. You know what an expert is, right? Ex is a has been. Spurt is a drip under pressure.

  • Old Jarhead

    sigh. We have been over this. YOU posted a comment, and foolishly did it on a PUBLIC forum. That comment was NOT directed at anyone in particular, and you are simply backpedaling like Lance Armstrong trying to extricate yourself from your own mess. Hint: Don’t respond, and I won’t call you on your mendacity.

  • Old Jarhead

    Isn’t it great to be despised by the despicable?

  • cargosquid

    Wow… then you are really lost.
    Because you should be emailing the NRA. Or you should post on one of their forums.

    THIS is a public forum and your questions are to everyone reading them.

    In fact, you are now changing your story because your questions now and earlier have been open questions.

    Thanks for playing.
    You should move along and play elsewhere.

  • OK. Your blocked.

  • No story was given to you, because I have no interest in what you think or feel about anything. Your dismissed.

  • Ron Pekkala, Sr.

    Seems as tho you sampled one of those “Smart Pills”.

  • tetse

    Thirty Spokes join in one hub
    In its emptiness , there is the function of a vehicle
    Mix clay to create a container
    In its emptiness , there is the function of a container
    Cut open doors and windows and create a room
    In its emptiness , there is the function of a room

    Therefore, that which exists is used to create benefit
    That which is empty is used to create functionality

    We tend to associate substance with usefulness and dismiss the lack of substance as useless . Lao Tzu goes against this thinking and points out the very opposite. The hole in the hub of the wheel allows the axle to go through . Therefore it is the emptiness that gives the wheel its crucial functionality as part of its carriage. There is more to emptiness than meets the eye.

    Tao Te Ching. By Derek Lin

  • cargosquid

    I didn’t ask for a story.
    You really are lost.
    You are worth only mockery now.
    Haven’t you realized yet that you haven’t been “dismissed” because we don’t even think you are worth that.
    You can’t even troll well.
    I’ve been to your site.
    Its ….okay…but you get a lot wrong.

    You should go. You apparently don’t understand how open forums work.

  • Howleyesque

    I heard alla that Brother! LOL

  • Old Jarhead

    Cool! Now, I am free to show the world the silliness you are spouting, and since you can’t see me, you won’t be able to respond! What, afraid your argument is so weak?

  • ? Firebred ?Vindicated

    Happy Easter, OHJonesy!

  • ? Firebred ?Vindicated

    Wishing you peaceful and blessed Easter, Jughead.

  • T G Quinn
  • T G Quinn
  • goofy

    Thank you my friend! Happy Easter to you as well. I trust your day went well, and will continue! How are you doing today? Guess what? He is Risen!!

  • T G Quinn

    I am well goofy. Thank you for asking. We had a great Easter weekend. And yes, our souls are blessed with eternity because he is Risen! Have a good one my friend.

  • goofy
  • OHJonesy

    Thank you TGQ, I hope you had a very Happy Easter as well!

  • OHJonesy

    Thank you Firebred, I hope your Easter was a happy one too!

  • OHJonesy

    Thank you kindly Tetse, I hope you and your family had an awesome Easter as well!

  • OHJonesy

    Thank you kindly, I appreciate the hat-tip. Please feel free to copy those off and save them for future use.

    Here’s a few more for your tool chest too –

    “Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American…the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” – Tench Coxe

    “The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.” — Zachariah Johnson

    “Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense 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

    “And that the said Constitution be never 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

    “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 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 the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.” – Thomas Paine

    “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.” – Richard Henry Lee

  • goofy
  • Jughead417

    I return the same to you and yours, Firebred. I am thankful for your support while we all do what we can to fight those who would ruin our blessed nation.

  • OHJonesy

    Honest (hic!) Occifer, I just dropped my Easter eggs down there, I’m just laying here trying to figure out how to get them back. 😀

  • OHJonesy

    The word is “you’re”, not “your“. I thought you were a Harvard-trained lawyer. Or did you just make that up, like all the other B.S. you’re spreading around?

  • OHJonesy

    LOL, you block those you are unable to compete with? You elect to ignore those whose arguments debunk, point-by-point, every silly untruth you post? The only loser here is you, child.

    I found your picture on your ridiculous web site:

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/5280faff8f4d3874dd10079186b874d739fba31f36892cfe751f99f1e7ef70ad.jpg

  • OHJonesy

    Judge Thomas Cooley, one of the most influential 19th century constitutional commentators, said that the state might call into its official militia only “a small number” of the eligible citizenry.

    Cooley wrote that “if the right [to keep and bear arms] were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of this guaranty might be defeated altogether by the action or neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check.”

    I’m sure that will go over your head, but others will understand.

  • top secret
  • Not a lawyer never claimed to be. But you would have to read what was written, which you don’t. Congratulations on finding a typo.

  • Recyled sheeple jokes. And the herd moves on.

  • “[i]n the ordinary use of language it will hardly be contended that the decisions of Courts constitute laws. They are, at most, only evidence of what the laws are; and are not of themselves laws. They are often re-examined, reversed, and qualified by the Courts themselves, whenever they are found to be either defective, or ill-founded, or otherwise incorrect.”

    Swift v. Tyson, 41 U.S. (16 Peters) 1, 18 (1842)

  • Block those who cannot think for themselves, so the copy/paste statements from other people. The most impotent thinkers use childish graphics, because the other children will giggle along with them.

  • “Doubtless, the intention of the Congress which framed and of the States which adopted [a constitutional] Amendment must be sought in the words of the Amendment; and the debates in Congress are not admissible as evidence to control the meaning of those words.”

    United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 698 (1898)

  • OHJonesy

    I’ve seen you make that “typo” several times in this thread. You’re about as Harvard educated as my dog.

  • Appreciate you following my comments so closely. No interest in yours. Best you move along now.

  • goofy

    Bad Monday??? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

  • goofy

    Mr. Jones.
    Do you have any idea how many times we, in law enforcement, hear that one on Easter? C’mon, let’s get you some coffee! The eggs or ducklings are probably toast by now anyway.

  • “Doubtless, the intention of the Congress which framed and of the States which adopted [a constitutional] Amendment must be sought in the words of the Amendment; and the debates in Congress are not admissible as evidence to control the meaning of those words.”

    United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 698 (1898).

  • leeclayton

    I hate hillbillies. Blacks and Jews too.

  • leeclayton

    Everyone knows the blacks are not too bright. It’s not their fault.

  • top secret

    My duck was disappeared! 🙁

  • Howleyesque

    THERE is a comment I would NEVER MAKE!

  • leeclayton

    What’s this? A gun nut, who is, additionally, a racist Breitbart reader? What a shock.

  • Howleyesque

    RACIST???? As you’re clearly too twisted to SEE your own hypocrisy… I’ll leave THAT for the world to see for itself!

  • diaspora

    Well stated cwgf!

  • cwgf

    🙂 Thanks Miss D! I only summarized all the amazing evidence shown by OHJonesy, Old Jarhead, Cargosquid, Williamdiamon, Paul, GAU-8, Stan, John Crawford, Jughead and others. They are the “big guns” on this thread! Lots of keepers for the “best posts” file!

  • leeclayton

    Stormfront called. They want their talking point back

  • Howleyesque
  • diaspora

    Very well presented!

  • diaspora

    Agree!

  • diaspora

    This picture is worth 10000 words! The EU is a case in point! The Founders were very wise!

  • Howleyesque

    Thanks my friend!, inspite of what some arrogant, self impressed leftist garbage think, I AGREE!

  • diaspora

    The abuse and suffering being endured by the Europeans is directly related to the fact that their Constitutions were lacking the 2nd Amendment! The arselifters are fully aware that the Europeans aren’t armed like the Americans! For several decades, Soros and his Leftist/Marxist/Dem Party, have been unsuccessful in dismantling the 2nd Amendment! The Dem Party is the Party of Treason!

  • Howleyesque

    That is one of MANY factors, another huge one is that far too many of them have been gullible enough to fall for the line of utter BS Bathhouse Barry and Swillary TRIED to push here regarding the “religion of peace” and are starting to pay the price.

  • diaspora

    Job well done my friend! Please note that I am a Mr. not a Miss.
    Cheers.

  • diaspora

    True.

  • williamdiamon

    I Thank you kindly diaspora!

  • diaspora

    You’re welcome my friend!

  • cwgf

    omg….my most sincere apology! I did not know! I better go back and edit this embarrassing error!

  • OHJonesy

    That’s really cute, child. You told me to “run along now” when you could not refute my points, yet now reply twice to my post, with quotes from a SCotUS case about citizenship of a child born in the United States, a case that had nothing at all to do with the 2nd Amendment or the right to keep and bear arms.

    You bore me – if you wish to discuss your silly contentions further, unblock Paul. You blocked him out of fear he would trounce you, and you know it.

    Now run along, and don’t come back until you grow up.

    United States v. Cruikshank (1875): The Justices ruled that the Second Amendment only restricts the power of the national government in taking away rights and that the right to keep and bear arms exists apart from the Constitution, not because of it, stating “This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence”.

    Presser v. Illinois (1886): This second post-Civil War era case related to the meaning of the Second Amendment rights relating to militias and individuals. The court ruled the Second Amendment right was a right of individuals, not militias, and was not a right to form or belong to a militia, but related to an individual right to bear arms for the good of the United States, who could serve as members of a militia upon being called up by the Government in time of collective need.

  • Americans were not so childish in the pre-constitutional period—and neither should you be —as to need or to seek your education from the very public officials whom you had or have selected, particularly judges. As William Blackstone the Founding Fathers’ preëminent legal mentor pointed out, “the law, and the opinion of the judge are not always convertible terms, or one and the same thing; since it sometimes may happen that the judge may mistake the law”.

    1.) Sir William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Robert Bell, American Edition, 4 Volumes & Appendix, 1771-1773), Volume 1, at 71.

  • diaspora

    No problem my friend!

  • goofy

    MISOGYNIST!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Please turn in your pussyhat now!

  • diaspora

    Calm down goofy!

  • goofy

    Diaspora, I truly hope you realize that I’m only teasing you.

  • Howleyesque

    Oh and IF anyone sees my friend John, please inform him that I’m NOT ignoring him I’ve simply be banned from “News In Detroit”.

  • diaspora

    I know goofy! I like you too!

  • goofy

    😉

  • diaspora
  • goofy
  • Jason Maddowx

    You’re forgiven this time.:)

  • Drake_Burrwood

    The Constitution’s authority given by the People, is limited by the Bill of Rights also given by the People, including the one that reminds everyone that not all rights are listed. How is the Militia “regulated”.

    The Constitution.. not the Bill of Rights, gives the Union Congress the power to.. if I may paraphrase; Create the SOP systems of organization, training, and discipline, that the States are to use to Train the Militia. [note it does say Militia, not organized or unorganized]

    In such times as are listed; insurrection, invasion, and enforcing the Laws of the Union, the States are empowered by the People through the Bill of Rights to enroll a Militia. [the Constitution only provided that The States do the Training, and training was not listed as requiring an enrollment under military discipline.] as well as the Union to take such into Federal Service.

    Using the Authority granted to it by the People through the Constitution the Union Congress passed Fed. Stat. #311; [this creates the legal concept of the “organized militia” versus the “unorganized militia” [in some ways it allows them to not SAY “enrolled militia”] By creating these two catagories the Federalist Government has been very careful to create a system where I as a member of the “Unorganized Militia” have no need of ANY training to be prepared to carry out my civic duty.. and be ready if the situations listed for enrollment arise. That the RIGHT of Access to [Bill of Rights; remember] a State Militia fully trained, authorized and proficiently lead, is covered with No training on my part.

    Now with all this regulation of the Organized, unorganized, enrolled, unenrolled, trained, State, Federal, and of the people; militia- The Bill of Rights is very careful to say, none of these regulations in any way are CAUSED or may Infringe on a Personal right of ownership or Bearing of individual use weapons of any kind.

    Now at one time the States Could use various Stately methods and systems to require weapons training based on the public Good/Safety; until the 14th amendment placed the Bill of Rights as the unified model of Good Governace.
    Which would now require any such Well regulated”Training to follow as possible the established model linked to the Bill of Rights.

    The one enrollment situation of Enforcing the Laws of the Union [one aspect of posse Comitatus], unlike the others which are spread between the State and Union Authorities. Which would mean that you might find even in States the State Congress required to come up with the SOP systems of training, organization, and discipline, for the Counties, and chartered Municipalities to use to train Posse; to enforce the Laws of the State. With once again no allowable link between ownership, bearing, and such required training.

  • Drake_Burrwood

    But when Enrolled, enrolled under military discipline.
    The SOP of such created By the Union Congress, But Trained* and Carried out by the States.

    * Which is why I presume the Federal active duty military is no longer listed on federal statute #311 that includes the list of those groups that make up the “organized militia”.

  • Drake_Burrwood

    Err.. There is no Right to have others carry for you.
    That is why in many places the professional security officer is often times not only Regulated in the old style but even licenced or Shall issue permitted.

    It is an individual right and not a group right.

  • Howleyesque

    Exactly, ENOUGH of the “class system” BS! The funny part being that DUMOCRAT voters are too stupid to see them for what they are… a self styled aristocracy like SWILLARY who THINK they are above the laws we MERE “normals” are held accountable too.

  • Drake_Burrwood

    Actually if you talk about the British.. Their was at one time an argument put forth about the Bill of rights being unnecessary since “all educated Englishmen know their rights.’

    Sadly all Educated Englishmen Died out..

  • Most people are unaware that the Constitution recognizes no “unorganized’ Militia because the only “Militia” known in fact and law for 150 plus years before the Constitution in every Colony, then State, were “well regulated Militia”. Every State maintained only “well regulated Militia” for 100 years after the Constitution. Which causes a lot of confusion.

  • Were close attention paid to what the original Constitution actually provided, the Second Amendment would be recognized as something of a redundancy. The Second Amendment is one of the ten “further declaratory and restrictive clauses” that, compiled in the Bill of Rights, were “added” to the original Constitution “in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its [then existing] powers”. (footnote 1) Not at detracting from exorbitant powers that had been carelessly delegated to the General Government, but instead at ensuring that no error would occur in the application of the already properly limited powers that had been delegated.

    1.) RESOLUTION OF THE FIRST CONGRESS SUBMITTING TWELVE AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION (4 March 1789), in Documents Illustrative of the Formation of the Union of the American States, House Document No. 938, 69th Congress, 1st Session (Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1927), at 1063.

  • diaspora

    … which explains LondonStan!

  • Drake_Burrwood

    Maybe you could look for their historical background videos and documents. The gentlemen who started the NRA did so because of the demonstrated lack of skill most recruits and units showed. Since that lack of training something the Union Congress is explicitly responsible for, they decided of course to deal with the lack of the militias “well regulated” status by attempting to make sure the skills, for hunting, target shooting, and other legal uses were not lost. Because of the cowardice of the Congress caused the legislators to leave yellow puddles at the idea of a trained populous.

    So you see the NRAs teaching the use of fire arms and creating places for those uses is actually directly involved in dealing with Congresses refusal to create a non-enrolled well regulated militia.

    The NRA-ILA is responsible for Making sure that the moral cowardice of the Congress doesn’t allow them to ignore the fact that even with all the power the Constitution gives the Union and the States; in dealing with organization, training and discipline, the second amendment is explict that none may have anything to do with or affect the private ownership, possession or carry of individual weapons.

  • Drake_Burrwood

    Which has nothing to do with an enrolled militia. The recognition that private individuals need arms training to be an asset to the militia is long standing.

    The legal status of the Unorganized Militia in Statute is because the Union Congress had to create the catagory then allow it no training to make sure it was understood that they believed and prayed that none were needed.

  • The Constitution is the supreme Law, nothing to do with whether the NRA, which is a 501(c)(4) organization.

    No such thing as a “non-enrolled Militia” exists constitutionally, no such thing ever known in fact and law. Only “well regulated Militia” existed in fact & law 150+ years before and at the time of the ratification of the Constitution.

    Veterans Col. William C. Church and Gen. George Wingate formed the National Rifle Association in 1871. The primary goal of the association would be to “promote and encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis,” according to a magazine editorial written by Church, which the NRA has published on its website.

  • “Congress shall have Power To …provide for organizing * the Militia” ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 16. Not “unorganizing”—but “ORGANIZING”. Congress has no authority whatsoever to “re-write”, “ignore”, or disregard their enumerated, and therefore limited powers.

  • Drake_Burrwood

    Then I suggest you check out the history of the creation of the NRA, and the issues the Officers who created it had with the Union Congresses duty to set up training so that any enrolled militias could be considered well regulated in the classic sense. And the activities they sponcer to keep the necessary training as high as they could without direct constitutional authority.

  • Drake_Burrwood

    So You agree that they wanted the individuals to regulate be able to their weapons use in a sound and consistent manner using such scientific principles as could be found.
    Though you might note the founding fathers almost forgot to use the term “well regulated” even though the Militia clauses in the body of the constitution defined how such well regulated militia was to be achieved who did what, the term was only added when it was realized there was no power given to the States to actually use such well trained by them militia when legally enrolled. While restricting such times or situations when the militia can actually be taken into enrollment.

  • The Framers did not “almost forget” to use the term “well regulated Militia”. The only “Militia” known in fact and law then in 1791 and 150 plus years before were “well regulated Militia”. The Framers merely borrowed the term “well regulated Militia” that had been used in the titles and bodies of Militia statutes from the early 1600s. Even the precursor to the Constitution, the Articles of Confederation, expressly mandated that “every state shall always keep up a well regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutred” (Arts. of Confed’n art. VI, ¶ 4.)

  • Drake_Burrwood

    But the Constitution did not

  • Drake_Burrwood

    so we agree that they do not have the option of ignoring the part of the militia that is not enrolled.

  • Every “able-bodied” adult was required—BY LAW— to be part of a “well regulated Militia”, then in 1791 and 150 plus years prior unless otherwise exempted through the local legislature. No formal enrollment was required. Unless you study the actual laws of the American Colonies, then independent States that regulated the Militia (of which there are hundreds dating from the early 1600s) you will continue to be confused as to how it worked according to law as opposed to what you “believe”.

  • goofy

    Done.

  • John Bolton ?

  • Drake_Burrwood

    So you agree.. then.
    There is no enrolment at all to be Militia. By Tradition of the natural Rights of Man AND Law.

    There is enrollment to join a unit in service to one of the States, or the Union itself.

    As the Constitution militia clause says, such enrolment is only empowered in times of insurrection, invasion, or enforcing the Laws of the Union.
    So yes.. there is an enrolled militia but it is not the Militia. Since the Union congress can define such training as would be used by the cavalry or infantry or an “Unorganized Militia”. So it is quite possible by law to call a part of the Militia.. Anything and decides what training required for that part.

    So what does it mean to me, as a member of the section of the militia that the law calls the “unorganized militia”?
    – It means that my CCW training, and firearms training as a licenced security officers plus EMI Incident command training, over qualifies but does not disqualify me for being “WELL REGULATED” per Congresses definition of that particular section of the militia. no matter how much we both I suspect agree it smells like ‘masculine bovine post digested grass’.

  • OHJonesy

    Thanks Drake, I think you may have misunderstood my post. I’ve been an NRA member for many years, and am well acquainted with their history.

    Many people don’t realize that one of the founders of the NRA, Captain George Wood Wingate, and their first President, General Ambrose Burnside, were both Union Army soldiers who were appalled at the lack of rifle skills exhibited by Union soldiers.

    While Union soldiers were better equipped in almost every way, the Southern soldiers were far better marksmen, and that was often the difference in battle.

    Keep up the good fight for our 2nd Amendment rights, my friend, you do good work here.

  • If you don’t know the legal definition of “A well regulated Militia” is as the Constitution uses that term any whimsical “conclusion” is possible no matter how nonsensical.

  • Drake_Burrwood

    What I love about this place is I can usually put out my position and get in an argument with every/anyone on the details.
    In a way I do believe that “well regulated” and “militia” do affect Infringeless Keeping and Bearing.

    But in the reverse of what most anti-defence activists see the phrase as causing.

    The first item is that the Bill of Rights, are individual rights.. so as military activity which is by nature a team business, could go the way of “crew served” cannon and NOT be covered by ‘Right’. Yes.. I know I can own a black powder cannon, but the Law allows that.

    Unlike the other “keep and bear” Unenumerated” Traditional rights like self defense, hunting, sport shooting [it has to be a right or where do you practice]. The “Well Regulated Militia” Directly links the types of weapons that the Militia Clause of the Constitution gives the States the power to train, and the Union the power to create such systems of training, units and tactics, for the States.

    BUT.. then proceeds to rip any excuse of denying the right to carry or own such military weapons, in spite of the team nature of the armed activity. it is leader ship of such that is restricted. In both the aspects of Posse Comitatus [“Follow the Count”/”follow the great-one/leader”] Militia [“Enforce the Laws of the Union”] and “Posse” enforcement of Local [county and municipality] and State laws.

    What it means if The Union Congress was doing their ‘well regulated” job I would already have by my majority, the training in the use of burst-fire assault and battle rifles, and well as rifle carried grenade and rocket launchers as well as other weapons and equipment of war. And if I chose, ownership of said weapons.

    and if the Militia is given “ratings” as I believe necessary “Teamster” ?, “utilitiesman”, “Air traffic controller”, “hospital corpsmen”, “culinary specialist”, “legalman”, etc. that way you as militia not only learn your tactical skills but learn how the other skills in your life fit into the team.

  • Drake_Burrwood

    Oh.. even though the Constitution doesn’t use the word, until the bill of rights was started and the second amendment was passed. The militia clauses are clear how it was to be achieved. and You did what.

  • Your confused as to the basic fundamentals of the Constitution. That will not be corrected on social media. Time to move on.

  • ELSEVAR

    What about John Bolton is on your mind, opit?

  • Drake_Burrwood

    That would be green eggs, unless they are eating from a bag.

  • Drake_Burrwood

    What would be necessary to a free Union that is the basis of the “Laws of the Union.”?

  • Drake_Burrwood

    errr.. they actually have been fixing it over the years.
    When I first saw #311 it had the active duty federal military included, but I noticed no females though we had females in the military.
    That was corrected after some years.
    Some years after I started complaining that the Federal Military couldn’t be Militia because the Constitution explicitly REQUIRES the Militia to be trained by the States. That was finally corrected..
    — Though maybe that was simply Obama not wanting the military thinking about Enforcing the “Laws of the Union” when He had Hillary Running the Federal government and the assorted Freshly armed and equiped “bearocratic” regulatory bossinesses, while he took care of Unifying the power of the United Nation.

    To avoid the Military’s “silly” promise/oath to protect the Constitution.

  • Drake_Burrwood

    Actually the organized Militia as used is the Enrolled Militia.

    They.. since the Civil War have it seems been careful to equate “Well Regulated” of Unorganized [not enrolled under military discipline] Militia to untrained.

  • Just as a fine example of a jerk. Washington Note did a character reference of him up one side and down the other at the time of his nomination to represent the US at the UN. He had been cited as thinking the building would be improved by destroying it.

  • ELSEVAR

    Ah, I understand, opit … and agree completely, but I admire your restraint in describing the utterly noxious Bolton. Why he is not in prison is a mystery to me.

  • Given the company he has kept – war criminals – you would have to check out the dual tier nature of the Just Us system to explain a lack of harassment charges.

  • cargosquid

    I was using the terms as they appeared in the Constitution to refute his idiotic idea that there is no mention or reference to “unorganized” militia.

  • cargosquid

    Except that a “non-enrolled militia” would be the unorganized militia.

    You really need to keep up.

  • cargosquid

    So…which is the sock?

    AWinters or Constitutional Militia?

  • cargosquid

    Constitutional Militia, AWinters – same
    I haven’t seen “Patriot.”