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.
Also, during this century, when the militia was called up to fight the War of 1812, the Civil War, and the Spanish-American War, militia units were sometimes found to be unprepared, ill supplied, and at first unwilling. [38][39][40]
The Militia Act of 1903 divided what had been the militia into what it termed the "organized" militia, created from portions of the former state guards to become state National Guard units, and the "unorganized" militia consisting of all males from ages 17 to 45, with the exception of certain officials and others, which is codified in 10 USC 311. Some states, such as Texas and California, created separate State Defense Forces for assistance in local emergencies. Congress later established [41] a system of "dual enlistment" for the National Guard, so that anyone who enlisted in the National Guard also enlisted in the U.S. Army. [42]
Privately organized citizen militia-related groups blossomed in the mid 1990s, which collectively became known as the constitutional militia movement. The supporters have not been affiliated with any government organization, although most of them have been military and law enforcement veterans.[Quotation needed from source] They support a restoration of the militia system as envisioned by the Founding Fathers, and enforcement of a strict construction of the U.S. Constitution, especially the Second Amendment, according to their understanding of it. They assert that the right to keep and bear arms is not just a right, but that the people have a duty to be armed as a deterrence against crime and governmental tyranny. These militia units train in the proper and safe use of firearms, so that they may be effective if called upon by the sheriff of their county, governor of their state, or the president of the United States, to uphold liberty, protect the people in times of crisis (i.e. disasters such as Hurricane Katrina), or to defend against invasion and terrorism.[Quotation needed from source] U.S. Constitution, Art. I Sec. 8 Cl. 15 & 16.[43]
In its original sense, militia meant "the state, quality, condition, or activity of being a fighter or warrior." It can be thought of as "combatant activity", "the fighter frame of mind", "the militant mode", "the soldierly status", or "the warrior way".[44]
In this latter usage, a militia is a body of private persons who respond to an emergency threat to public safety, usually one that requires an armed response, but which can also include ordinary law enforcement or disaster responses. The act of bringing to bear arms contextually changes the status of the person, from peaceful citizen, to warrior citizen. The militia is the sum total of persons undergoing this change of state.[45]
Persons have been said to engage in militia in response to a "call up" by any person aware of the threat requiring the response, and thence to be in "called up" status until the emergency is past.[46] 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.[Quotation needed from source][47] See citizen's arrest and hue and cry.
21st century: Federally-organized or Not
Following the 2008 decision of the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, the de jure defintion of "militia" as used in United Statesjurisprudence broadened once again. The court's opinion made explicit, in it's obiter dicta, that the term "militia", as used in colonial times, and still today in this originalist decision, included both the Federally-organized militia and the citizen-organized militias of the several States. "... the 'militia' in colonial America consisted of a subset of 'the people'—those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range" (7) ... Although the militia consists of all ablebodied men, the federally organized militia may consist of a subset of them"(23). [48]
Sorry, that's not relevant to the topic in my opinion.
Good thing you added the 'in my opinion' part. By any rational basis, it's entirely relevant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbkaren
If someone wants to kill themself, they'll do it. I'm sure the parents would feel bad regardless of how the kid kills himself. "Oh, I made my family unsafe by keeping those sleeping pills in the house" or the carbon-monoxide spouting car, or whatever.
Sophomoric, and you knew it when you typed it. What percentage of those who ingest an overdose survives? What percentage of those who put a bullet in the brain survives? Guns reliably convert a moment of despair into a fatal moment. Nothing else comes close.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbkaren
See statistics, above. Still a far greater chance of my daughter dying at the hands of assailant than at the hands of me.
If you shoot her, you ARE the assailant. Such a dreadful event would not be classified under Accidental Discharges of a Firearm.
Those who find the callous acceptance of every one of hundreds of thousands of needless casualties per year to be unwarranted are here to stay as well. Why do you choose war with them rather than a negotiated peace? Why do you do the ostrich-impression by pretending that there is not a legitimate problem? Children dead in the streets (among other things) are a legitimate problem...
One other thing that needs to be mentioned. Gun grabbers frequently mention "children" but how "child" is defined is significant. According to DC's anti-gun pamphlet on firearms registration:
"Between 1994 and 1998, 6,287 children committed
suicide with a firearm and an additional 1,896 children
were killed by unintentional gun injuries in the
United States. All together, 23,776 children under age
19 died from a gun related injury during these years,
which is equal to 13 children a day."
So "children" includes many 16/17/18 year-olds, including gang members shot by the police/etc. Nice way to twist definitions to sway those who don't read carefully...
http://mpdc.dc.gov/mpdc/lib/mpdc/info/pdf/registering_firearm_dc.pdf (broken link)
Sophomoric, and you knew it when you typed it. What percentage of those who ingest an overdose survives? What percentage of those who put a bullet in the brain survives? Guns reliably convert a moment of despair into a fatal moment. Nothing else comes close.
A person hanging from a rope noose will die sooner or later. People who stab themselves are quite likely to die too.
I am talking about your abject refusal to grant any tolerance at all to those who wish to take any steps at all to ameliorate the widespread and needless gun-related carnage that we witness in this country every day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reads2MUCH
And as far as the first Amendment goes, I believe in absolute freedom of speech.
This would stand then as another indicator of the degree of your personal disconnect from the rest of society. Accept the benefits, deny the obligations?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reads2MUCH
Man, now you are really grasping at straws. I don't need to have a Constitutional right to hunt. Nature provided that from the beginning of time. All I need is the right to own and use a gun for that purpose if I so desire! I also own a bow and arrow.
You either do not hunt or do so illegally. Got a license? Know what the word 'season' means? Hunting is a heavily regulated activity. You don't have a right to it at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reads2MUCH
Why don't you answer the question I asked right after the single line you chose to comment on! Here is the question you should have answered but I guess you didn't because it made a little to much sense! And asking me if my home has been invaded lately is rather ridiculous. If this was about the frequency of rape would you be asking if anyone had been raped lately in my home.
In response to my pointing out that breaking-and-entering's are a trivial part of the problem that guns represent in an urban environment, it was claimed that I was way off base...that 'home invasions' happen all the time. Well, apparently that is a highly flexible term. Had you claimed that rapes happen all the time, I might well have asked, not how many had occurred in your home, but how many had occurred in which the victim was someone that you knew. This would be merely one means of gauging the degree of honesty included in the claim, and as far as the 'home invasion' claim goes, I think we already have our answer on that score.
Good thing you added the 'in my opinion' part. By any rational basis, it's entirely relevant.
So say you, but the people most knowledgable about the subject think differently.
Quote:
Sophomoric, and you knew it when you typed it. What percentage of those who ingest an overdose survives? What percentage of those who put a bullet in the brain survives? Guns reliably convert a moment of despair into a fatal moment. Nothing else comes close.
Why the need to sacrifice essential liberties to prevent suicide? I question your right to interfere at all. People ought mind their own business.
Quote:
If you shoot her, you ARE the assailant. Such a dreadful event would not be classified under Accidental Discharges of a Firearm.
Its much more likely that your kid will drown in your pool or end up under your car than it is he/she will be shot by a parent.
I know dozens of people with guns. I know none that have shot their children or anybody else accidentally. I know noone who's child took & used a gun improperly save for one, the child of a cop that decided to kill himself.
On the other hand I knew a man that hung himself in the closet & another that drove into a lake. None are deader than the others & all methods seem to work very well.
I know a guy that ran his toddler over & its very common for kids to take their parents cars to joy ride in.
You are not interested in public saftey, just gun control.
I'd be happy to wage war in defense of liberty if necessary.
Judging by the number of annual gun-related casualties in this country, you already are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arctichomesteader
I won't sign away my rights to tyrants. The gun grabbers will not make peace, they frequently "compromise" on some law and say they would be satisfied with that, only to seek more restrictions soon thereafter. Such as in the 1960's with the gun control act of 1968, "just keepo guns out of felons' hands and we'll solve the problem blah blah blah" and they didn't stop there did they).
You favor giving guns to felons then? As such a supporter of their rights, could they maybe vote then, as well?
All you are doing here is reinforcing an image that has been previously and repeatedly painted -- that of gun people as no more than a bunch of hard-headed ideological intransigents.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arctichomesteader
Those of us who support freedom are not blind to the fact that the gun grabbers are trying to take away our rights in increments.
But are quite blind and uncaring when it comes to the matter of the carnage that is caused.
lots of anti gun posts.
FYI approx 40% of all annual american homocides are puncture wounds. nothing to do with firearms whatsoever.
911--- puncture wounds 100% no guns.
why millions spent on disarming the populous of firearms?
Your arguments have been based on the number of people killed each year with firearms. I gave examples of other items that are involved with far more deaths each year. I think any thinking person could see that in fact my points were quite logical. So again I will ask you, if the reason you dislike firearms is because they play some role in many deaths each year, given that pools and cars bring about more deaths, are you for putting the same restrictions on cars that you want on firearms?
A dumb argument is not improved by repeating it. But for the sake of argument, let us assume that I am a whiz at multi-tasking, and that when not posting at C-D, I am engaged as a pool safety inspector while regularly doing reasearch for the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Now could we deal a little more realistically with the actual topic at hand?
The Constitution of the United States is very ambiguous about individual rights to own and have guns in their private residence and about the states rights to regulate the ownership of fire arms. The Supreme Court was divided because of that ambiguity that gives individual justices interpretation lots of latitude. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the courts decision, there is ample room for divergence and difference of opinion. As far as it being "ludicrous" for the Supreme Court to have authority to determine what the Constitution of the United States means?????????????that authority is specifically given to them by that document. Three Branches of Government, Balance of Power and Seperation of Power: Freshman civics!!
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.
