Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sirrah! Desist in your foolish prattle.
A citizen, by definition is a subject.
That depends on whether you at talking about a citizen under the 14th amendment which created the freed slave, a subject of the United States, and derives their rights from the government, Or a Sovereign Citizen of the State in which you have acquired "bona fide" residence, in which case you are a Sovereign protected under the first 12 amendments to the Constitution, and your rights are unalienable and derived from God. There is a difference, and that is clearly stated in The Slaughterhouse Case.
According to the legal definitions, ANY CITIZEN is a subject, whether state or federal or U.S. citizen.
Title 10 USC Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, CITIZENS of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Title 50 USC Sec. 453. Registration (Selective Service)
(a)...it shall be the duty of every male CITIZEN of the United States, and every other male person RESIDING in the United States, who, on the day or days fixed for the first or any subsequent registration, is between the ages of eighteen and twenty-six, to present himself for and submit to registration at such time or times and place or places, and in such manner, as shall be determined by proclamation of the President and by rules and regulations prescribed hereunder. ...
Remember, pursuant to the Declaration of Independence, all men are endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights to life, liberty and absolute ownership. Governments are instituted to SECURE said rights to life, liberty, etc. But since CITIZENS are militia, and are subject to activation by the Commander in Chief or State governor, ordered to fight, and if necessary, die, I believe I have proven my point that a CITIZEN is a subject, not a sovereign, from 1789 onward. He does NOT have inalienable rights to life, liberty and property.
(Don't confuse an inhabitant with a domicile, with resident residing at a residence.)
Quote:
Would a gun free USA be possible for the USA or just a ideal of pacifists, and religous types or would this mark the US becoming a moral and decent society if this were to occur
Morality has NOTHING to do with gun ownership or lack thereof.
Morality is based upon the law in force and effect.
Example: Under the law of the jungle, a predator is moral when he hunts prey. Under the law of love, a predator is not moral, when he preys on other men.
Disarmed people are not raised in morality, but become victims of those who can prey upon them with impunity.
That is a highly specific law, with a highly specific application, that limits both the rights and obligations of "the people" to certain individuals, and "citizen" is one of the criteria. More broadly, nothing in the Constitution itself differentiates between "citizens" and "the people". Yes, every citizen is a subject, but No, not every subject is a citizen. The parameters are not congruent.
True to form, your posts always fall out of topic, and into the realm of crass insult and irrelevancies..
Its not my fault that a fetishist only focuses on his fetish and nothing else, or that they treat their gun exactly like a security blanket.
Besidez, if I catch a liar telling a lie should I then not call him a liar because he might feel insulted?
Originally Posted by ChrisC
Quote:
Is that the sort of world you live in, Tricky? Or do people cause crimes in your world like they do in the real world?
In order to live in a gun free society you have to do more than just change a law.
A law only works if the majority of a society agrees with it.
If other countries can exist without paranoid citizens who feel the need to carry guns to be free, a gun free US certainly is possible. That many people don't like this notion is not my problem.
I'm curious.... there are a number of countries where firearms ownership of any sort is very restricted. Certainly the dread handgun is v. hard to obtain in, say, China or Russia or Mexico. Or Canada or Britain or Australia or Lithuania. So there certainly are some examples of gun-free (or nearly so) countries out there.
And yet....
...when I last checked the FBI's Uniform Report on Crime, they listed the US as a distant number 10 in the world's ranking of gun-violent countries. All of the countries that approached the OP's gun-free status had significantly higher violent gun-related crime than we do.
And BTW, despite the relentless media drumbeat to paint the NRA as a hand-wringing, overwrought "special interest group", or "the gun lobby", I believe the current enrollment is about 5 million and climbing.
Hardly a splinter group like the ACLU with only 500,000, or the League of Women Voters, who proclaim themselves "one of the most prolific and effective grassroots organizations in America". All 150,000 of them. and yet, you never hear Barbara Boxer or Chuckie Schummer or Ms. Nancy calling them a special interest group. Wonder why? Biases? Nahhh.....
So... 5M+ people from all walks of life; professionals, actors, politicians, lawyers, truck-drivers, biologists, dentists, seamstresses, etc. etc. who share a common interest in their gun rights and the Constitution of this country, are dismissed as an over-active loud-mounthed splinter / special interest group?
I can smell the fear from a long ways off, boys. The liberal politicians' rightful fears of a powerful, effective and well-organized group of honest and passionate patriots. No wonder the liberal mindset recoils at the thought of a freedom-based society with no tolerance for being "handled".
A gun-free America? Impossible because it's fundamentally undesirable.
And you are so ignorant to believe that the American citizens aren't herded by their amendment?
LoL American citizens, like the medieval Christians, make the exact same mistake: they believe that their (holy) text / amendment is perfect and therefore does not need to change…ever.
Christians claim to be free by not wanting the freedom to choose (God already chose for them).
I guess American citizens want exactly the same; all they have to do is (blindly) follow their amendment?
Quote:
A gun-free America? Impossible because it's fundamentally undesirable.
But it may be a necessity.
I've always found it peculiar that a democratic nation like the US can be conservative.
Sure, religious nations generally are conservative but democratic nations have always been more progressive than conservative.
We have always been progressive & followed our own path.
Your ignorance is showing again.
When it comes to gun laws, gay rights, abortion & euthanasia America is largely conservative.
Heck, your Christian right in America is conservative isn’t it?
Do you even have a Christian left? BTW aren't the conservative American Christians not the same people who wanna replace science in education with Christian pseudo science (science that does not contradict the bible)?
If that isn't being conservative then nothing is conservative.
FYI following your own path?
How can you maintain that America is following its own path when it is clear that it has copied the legislature from other countries? Modern America is simply doing what many European countries did during the Middle Ages, so America isn’t as original as many American patriots believe it to be.
Hardly a splinter group like the ACLU with only 500,000, or the League of Women Voters, .
There are a few differences that need to be taken into account. First, compare NRA's membership with AAA or AARP. They are all tied together with a very widely held special interest. AAA is rapidly losing membership, because it is no longer the only game in town, but NRA has no competition for members. Also, NRA has no obligations and tangible benefits (Magazine subscription) and very low membership fees, all of which significantly contribute to wide membership. A lot like the National Audubon Society, which costs almost nothing to join, includes a glossy magazine, and has a huge membership of people who are barely aware that they are members and only a passing interest in the society's works. The NRA is even offering free one-year trial memberships.
By contrast, members of League of Women Voters or ACLU provide almost no "popular" benefits to their members, they expect members to be "active", in that they contribute their time and money to the organization's objectives.
If you want to make unfounded comparisons, the NRA is laughably small and feeble compared to the AARP. They are both doing aggressive marketing, AARP is doing it better, and it is ludicrous to evaluate any other attribute of the two on that basis alone. How much credibility do you give the AARP?
Another perfect example of a qualitative distinction being made between two entities, using only a single criterion upon which to judge them in a vacuum. The stock in trade of forum discussions.
...when I last checked the FBI's Uniform Report on Crime, they listed the US as a distant number 10 in the world's ranking of gun-violent countries. All of the countries that approached the OP's gun-free status had significantly higher violent gun-related crime than we do..
I think in most of the countries at the top of this list, handguns are pretty easy to get. If you select your statistics carefully enough, you can find one that will say just about anything you want to validate:
Location: Visitation between Wal-Mart & Home Depot
8,309 posts, read 38,784,973 times
Reputation: 7185
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88
By the way, I didn't catch the name of that liberal who wants to take all the guns away from all civilians. What was his name again?
Eric Holder.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Its not my fault that a fetishist only focuses on his fetish and nothing else, or that they treat their gun exactly like a security blanket.
That many people don't like this notion is not my problem.
Bbbbahhhhhhhhh haa aaa aaaaa!!!
And you are so ignorant to believe that the American citizens aren't herded by their amendment?