A Forum for Grinches and Ho-Ho-Hoes

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Don't get too far ahead. We haven't gotten to ask him yet what the term "militia" meant at a point in time when the permanent army numbered 80 men, with no plan of exceeding 700 outside of wartime.

I suspect that those numbers and the current numbers are fairly close as a percentage of the population.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Has it been challenged in DC?

I believe yes, recently, after some holding in another circuit. all the crim. defendants challenged it as a sentencing issue or something.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I'm not sure I understand this. If the right to bear arms is a right that should be regulated based on furthering the militia, why would anyone not eligible for call-up need a right to bear an arm?

My point is that you need not be an active militia member in order to exercise the right. You only need be available.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
No, I tend to agree with Ty that it should be viewed with reference to what would be in furtherance of the militia. But that really isn't much of a limit, is it? Point is, it is a right granted to the people, and I thought Ty's initial post suggested only militia members had the right.

You seem to think the contours of the "right" are self-evident, while I think -- according to the actual language of the amendment -- that it has something to do with militia service.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
No, I think intent is hog wash. I just look at the words on the page.

OK, the word is "arm." Does that refer to an upper-body limb? A flintlock rifle? Whatever Webster wants it to?

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by sgtclub
No, I tend to agree with Ty that it should be viewed with reference to what would be in furtherance of the militia. But that really isn't much of a limit, is it? Point is, it is a right granted to the people, and I thought Ty's initial post suggested only militia members had the right.

Actually, I think it is. Remember, rights have concomitant obligations, so people should expect to get their induction notices soon.

I like this idea the more I think about it. With the millions of NRA members and other licensed gun owners added to service, we can instantly solve the personnel shortages in Iraq, and have ample army forces with which to threaten Iran AND North Korea, AND any other piss-ant country that decides they want to fuck with us!*

I will miss Bilmore and his pre-pubescent band of vigilantes, though. [sniff]

Gattigap

* The resulting, rather drastic shortages of equipment and materiel will be disappointing, of course, but as the Bush Administration tells us, you go to war with the Army you have. It is indeed a soothing thought.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
My point is that you need not be an active militia member in order to exercise the right. You only need be available.

Which words on the page say that?

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
Which words on the page say that?

Since when do the actual words matter?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You seem to think the contours of the "right" are self-evident, while I think -- according to the actual language of the amendment -- that it has something to do with militia service.

It doesn't make sense any other way. The people need the right to form an armed militia in order to defend their rights. What good is it to only allow militia members to bear arms? What happens if you need additional members andl, because of the circumstances requiring the militias, there are no guns to be found?

If they only wouldn't have left out the defined terms section, this would all be much clearer.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Since when do the actual words matter?

For club, at least since 12 minutes ago, and probably earlier.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Which words on the page say that?

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms." Not the right of those people that are members of the militia.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
It doesn't make sense any other way. The people need the right to form an armed militia in order to defend their rights. What good is it to only allow militia members to bear arms? What happens if you need additional members andl, because of the circumstances requiring the militias, there are no guns to be found?

It makes plenty of sense unless you have been immersed in NRA propaganda for too long. A "well-regulated" militia isn't just a gathering of a bunch of angry libertarians. It's "regulated" by the state. This, in fact, is what happened in colonial times, and examples of such state laws are collected in the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Miller, which rejected the sort of argument you are making. If "you need additional members" and they join up, they then have a right to arms. If there are no guns to be found, someone had better appropriate some money, or go ask France for help until the British burn down Washington D.C. and leave.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
It makes plenty of sense unless you have been immersed in NRA propaganda for too long. A "well-regulated" militia isn't just a gathering of a bunch of angry libertarians. It's "regulated" by the state. This, in fact, is what happened in colonial times, and examples of such state laws are collected in the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Miller, which rejected the sort of argument you are making. If "you need additional members" and they join up, they then have a right to arms. If there are no guns to be found, someone had better appropriate some money, or go ask France for help until the British burn down Washington D.C. and leave.

1. I've never read any NRA propaganda.

2. I don't own a gun. I've never shot a gun.

3. Courts are wrong sometimes.

ETA: I'm sure the Miller case covers it, but does the application of the 2nd amendment to the States jive with this? If the militias are regulated by the states, how do the states regulate militias and at the same time not infringe the right to bear arms?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
1. I've never read any NRA propaganda.

OK.

2. I don't own a gun. I've never shot a gun.

Your loss. I have, and it's fun. I recommend it.

3. Courts are wrong sometimes.

Well, my point is that there were plenty of state laws regulating the militias that you seem to think were the colonial equivalents of flashmobs, or whatever, and I was trying to tell you that the Miller decision is a fine place to go to find out more about this. That the Supreme Court agreed with me on the law is just gravy.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
OK.

He may not have read primary-source NRA propaganda, but I think reading it regurgitated in secondary and tertiary and so on sources counts.