Jump to content

what should we do next?


Recommended Posts

On 5/11/2023 at 2:47 PM, davel501 said:

Here is the full quote:

 

Were blacks part of the militia when that was authored?  Where native Americans part of the militia when that was authored?  Were women part of the militia when that was authored?  Were the elderly part of the militia when that was authored?  Were the disbabled part of the militia when that was authored?

 

And it still isn't here is modern law

 

Quote

§246. 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.

 

The militia as I said has never been the whole of the people, but it's irrelavent as the 2nd is an individual right, not a militia right.

 

So again, I repeat, the right enumerated in the 2nd is "unconnected" from the militia, and I'm not going to entertain those that continue to try and connect the two, they are as "unconnected" as "unconnected" as it is for one to be required to work a day job where they wear a shinny star on their uniform to exercise the enumerated individual right.

 

Your continued insistance to connect the militia with the right enumerated in the 2nd is simply flawed, no other right requires 'training' and thus the 2nd should be no different!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having a militia to defend the peoples freedoms, the States, and the Union was deemed necessary to the protection of the country.  The right of the people to keep and bear arms meant that a militia did not have to be standing and could be raised at any time, because the people who would step forward to form the militia would be well armed and ready.  The eventual implementation of the National Guard at the state level and the Military at the Federal level did not replace, or subvert, the people's need to be able to defend their individual freedoms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/11/2023 at 8:37 PM, DoYouFeelLucky said:

Having a militia to defend the peoples freedoms, the States, and the Union was deemed necessary to the protection of the country.  The right of the people to keep and bear arms meant that a militia did not have to be standing and could be raised at any time, because the people who would step forward to form the militia would be well armed and ready.  The eventual implementation of the National Guard at the state level and the Military at the Federal level did not replace, or subvert, the people's need to be able to defend their individual freedoms.

It is just as relevant today as at the beginning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/11/2023 at 2:40 PM, Flynn said:

The militia is not and has never been the whole of the people, one can argue it should have been or be but the fact remains it never was.

 

Agreed.  When written, the "militia" that the Second refers to was meant to mean those "able bodied men".  Too young or too old was excluded for a variety of reasons, but mostly for age and physical fitness.  Women were denied as that was "appropriate" for that time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

On 5/11/2023 at 10:42 PM, JTHunter said:

 

Agreed.  When written, the "militia" that the Second refers to was meant to mean those "able bodied men".  Too young or too old was excluded for a variety of reasons, but mostly for age and physical fitness.  Women were denied as that was "appropriate" for that time.

 

It still is that way, I quoted the current US code above, basically the only thing that has changed is they lowered the age to 17, and eliminated "free" & "white" from those males that qualify and we now allow women to join the "organized militia" aka the National Guard.  Still a lot of society that is excluded from the militia, thus even today (even if essentially non-existant) the militia only represents a small portion of "the whole people"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/11/2023 at 11:43 PM, Flynn said:

 

 

It still is that way, I quoted the current US code above, basically the only thing that has changed is they lowered the age to 17, and eliminated "free" & "white" from those males that qualify and we now allow women to join the "organized militia" aka the National Guard.  Still a lot of society that is excluded from the militia, thus even today (even if essentially non-existant) the militia only represents a small portion of "the whole people"

What about Illinois militia law? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/11/2023 at 6:39 PM, Flynn said:

 

Were blacks part of the militia when that was authored?  Where native Americans part of the militia when that was authored?  Were women part of the militia when that was authored?  Were the elderly part of the militia when that was authored?  Were the disbabled part of the militia when that was authored?

 

And it still isn't here is modern law

 

 

The militia as I said has never been the whole of the people, but it's irrelavent as the 2nd is an individual right, not a militia right.

 

So again, I repeat, the right enumerated in the 2nd is "unconnected" from the militia, and I'm not going to entertain those that continue to try and connect the two, they are as "unconnected" as "unconnected" as it is for one to be required to work a day job where they wear a shinny star on their uniform to exercise the enumerated individual right.

 

Your continued insistance to connect the militia with the right enumerated in the 2nd is simply flawed, no other right requires 'training' and thus the 2nd should be no different!

 

I mean, Samuel Whittemore was 78 years old. 

 

Your continued insistence on alternative facts is interesting. Maybe all the spelling errors are a clue that I'm wasting my time here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/12/2023 at 9:50 AM, davel501 said:

 

I mean, Samuel Whittemore was 78 years old. 

 

Your continued insistence on alternative facts is interesting. Maybe all the spelling errors are a clue that I'm wasting my time here.

 

Ah, the old spelling deflection 🙄 I have fat fingers when I type on a phone/tablet do you need help reading something I posted?  Plus, yep, I'm not the best speller, never have been, I excel in math and science, I push numbers and equations far better than I push letters.  All that said I still managed to understand you when you had a spelling error, and I didn't go all ad hominem over a spelling error 🤣

 

On 5/11/2023 at 9:17 AM, davel501 said:

The milita is the whole of the people. 

 

What about Samuel Whittemore? Are you suggesting his age somehow means everyone is part of the militia even though the law(s) says otherwise?

 

I'm stating facts, the militia is not and never has been "the whole of the people" some may insist it is, claim it's supposed to be, argue that it should be, but the fact remains the militia has never been "the whole of the people"

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/14/2023 at 7:39 AM, starwatcher said:

To be fair the constitution codified that people weren't even whole people.

 

The definition of people(equal rights) has greatly expanded since then and thus the definition of militia.

A recent LTE:

 

This is in response to several letters opining that the Second Amendment to the Constitution only applies to the Militia.  I refer to those people as The Comma Challenged.  They read the amendment and then stop at a comma without reading the rest of the text.

"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 "people" referred to are the same "people" referred to in the 1st, 4th,, 5th, 9th and 10th Amendments, also know as the Bill Of Rights.   Simply put, the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.
 

I am not a lawyer nor a legal scholar but there is a group called The Supreme Court Of  The US that is.  They are the final arbiters of what the Constitution says and what the meaning is.  In the 2008 case of District Of Columbia V. Heller they ruled that "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia..."  The Comma Challenged can disagree with the ruling if they wish but until they are nominated and confirmed as justices of the Supreme Court in sufficient numbers to overturn the Heller decision, the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right not connected to military service and  is the law of the land.  
 
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/14/2023 at 9:06 AM, Lou said:

A recent LTE:

 

This is in response to several letters opining that the Second Amendment to the Constitution only applies to the Militia.  I refer to those people as The Comma Challenged.  They read the amendment and then stop at a comma without reading the rest of the text.

"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 "people" referred to are the same "people" referred to in the 1st, 4th,, 5th, 9th and 10th Amendments, also know as the Bill Of Rights.   Simply put, the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.
 

I am not a lawyer nor a legal scholar but there is a group called The Supreme Court Of  The US that is.  They are the final arbiters of what the Constitution says and what the meaning is.  In the 2008 case of District Of Columbia V. Heller they ruled that "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia..."  The Comma Challenged can disagree with the ruling if they wish but until they are nominated and confirmed as justices of the Supreme Court in sufficient numbers to overturn the Heller decision, the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right not connected to military service and  is the law of the land.  
 
 

 

 

Preaching to the choir...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back to the main topic, gun rights movements will never move forward if its always playing defense. My thoughts on going on the offensive are going after old entrenched gun control laws. For Illinois FOID, nationally NFA. You attack and punch holes in the old established current gun control law base you put the antis on defense, they will start passing more outlandish laws that are less and less constitutional and makes their position look untenable in public perception.

Edited by starwatcher
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's pull this back to the original statement:

 

On 5/10/2023 at 7:33 PM, davel501 said:

 

The Founding Fathers believed that Americans would take their responsibility as citizens seriously. Firearm training is as important as voting and jury duty.

 

What the 2nd protects is not what we are debating here. Flynn is arguing that it is not your responsibility to be proficient with the firearms you own. I argue that it is, right alongside casting a ballot in every election and showing up for jury duty.

 

If you read up on the topic you will find that the two primary uses of an armed populace at the time the 2nd was ratified were the Militia and the Posse Comitatus. There's a great tangent on Castle Doctrine that I am going to pass on that makes every home a fortress capable of repelling all enemies foreign and domestic. The net result of this is you've got a bunch of armed volunteers running around as extensions of the government. Anyone who has been involved in any sort of volunteer organization, like youth sports or church groups, can tell you how quickly people start to figure out how to have power over others - I'll bet the church security folks have some good stories here. At the end of the day, the ultimate equalizer is being armed and able to defend yourself from other armed people. For the 2nd to righteous and just it must protect being armed for defensive purposes.

 

Maybe that helps a bit with why we have a responsibility to take a training class every so often and go to the range at least a few times a year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/3/2023 at 8:57 AM, BobPistol said:

Can we do something radical and challenge the constitutionality of part of the Illinois Constitution, the beginning part of section 22?

 

SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

Challenge in Federal Court this red part of the Illinois Constitution.      This cannot stand under Bruen.   Eliminate the first part and it is far easier to fight these ridiculous commie laws. 

 

OK, looks like we got off track in this discussion.   We're not talking about what we can do next.

What can we do next?   How about using the courts to strike down this red part of the Illinois constitution. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/14/2023 at 1:09 PM, mauserme said:

While that responsibility may exist as a matter of individual choice, the Second Amendment protects us from those who would make it a requirement.  

 

Getting back to topic, if a training requirement did exist, I would add ridding ourselves of that requirement as one of the items to do next..

 

 

 

Nobody here is suggesting making it a requirement. 

Edited by davel501
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/14/2023 at 11:35 AM, starwatcher said:

Preaching to the choir...

 

Agreed.  But an occasional reminder doesn't hurt.

 

On 5/14/2023 at 12:07 PM, starwatcher said:

Back to the main topic, gun rights movements will never move forward if its always playing defense. My thoughts on going on the offensive are going after old entrenched gun control laws. For Illinois FOID, nationally NFA. You attack and punch holes in the old established current gun control law base you put the antis on defense, they will start passing more outlandish laws that are less and less constitutional and makes their position look untenable in public perception.

 

The problem is that they have nearly all of the media (TV, radio, "social garbage", etc.) either on their side or actually in their pocket.  They also have greater financial resources to use for their deceptions.  Between the likes of Soros, Bloomberg, and their hostage taxpayer base, they can out-spend our side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once again, I advocate fighting them on battlefields they don't own.  How many initiatives from the local level up to the state level go virtually unchallenged?  I am talking about initiatives that have nothing to do with 2A rights.  They don't expect these initiatives to be challenged, and they usually are not prepared for the challenges.  As we learned in KS, and we have used successfully here in IA, challenge everything.  Whip up public opinion.  Use the media, because while they know not to highlight specific topics, when you go outside of those topics they are all over it so they have a story.  Pick certain elected officials and make everything they support more challenging.  You will find that you start getting those who just like to protest stuff, and those who are moderates or even left-leaning to join in because they don't see it as 2A related.  You don't need lawyers and you don't need the courts, you need intel and communications.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...