All Gun Owners need to join the militia, as the 2nd requires...

page: 1
7
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 04:49 PM
link   
The second amendment states "well regulated militia". So if you want to do real gun regulation/control, make gun owners, or those that want to own guns, go to the local sheriff and join the militia. The militia will only be called up for natural disasters, like river floods or whatever, and fill sand bags or patrol with police to keep looting down.

All guns will be registered and reported if lost or stolen with the sheriff. Background checks will be done at the sheriffs office and youre given a card, good for one year, to allow you to buy a gun (waiting periods still apply if thats your state law).

Remember that the militia was citizen volunteers to assist the army and/or sheriff in times of need. The second was not a "carte blanche" to own weapons, but a requirement to support the local and state govs by being a part of the militia.

If you think the second was written to protect us from our own gov, well youre wrong. It was written so that if the states were invaded (at the time by the French, Spanish, Brittish, Natives) the people could defend themselves and support the U.S. gov in the form of militias.

What do you think?




posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 04:51 PM
link   
I prefer to remain anonymous and my guns unregistered until I am needed.

Nice try, though.



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 04:55 PM
link   
Just by being an American I am part of the well regulated militia.



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by stormson
 





What do you think?


I think that it is the same old conflict of interest that somehow manages to coexist in everyone. People want to make lots and lots of money, but the systems and machines that they set up to make that happen ultimately kill them and their children and everything that they love.

The most efficient versions of these systems and machines in our society, that we put in to place, operate on a versus mentaility.

You know, Us vs.Drugs, Us vs. Them and so on, those things are the systems and machines.

And it is just not physical currency that is created, but social currency, there is tremendous power in social currency.

So, what you are suggesting is perfectly reasonable. But if that is the way we wanted it, keeping in mind that it is definitely we that create these systems, that's the way we would have it.

If you asked me I would say that there would be mandatory military service, but you didn't.

So you have to ask yourself who profits in social and physical currency by maintaining these systems.

I can only guess that it must be all of us, and that we are trying to solve some problem, and this is the insane way that we go about it.

I'm guessin' anyway.




posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 05:05 PM
link   
I dont see the war going like that of old. This will be far more a covert war. It will be thousands of small groups of individuals who already know who thier targets are.



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by stormson
 


If one agreed to that logic, then military and law enforcement would have no right to carry guns either, unless they happen to be militia members as well. Then, the militia could kick them out. That would certainly cut down on the number of people killed by SWAT teams in wrong door raids.



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 05:08 PM
link   
Ah yes, the "militia" argument.

No deader a horse has been beaten.



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by VictorVonDoom
 


military and law enforcement are already the militia. consider them "active militia", while the rest would be on reserve status with no requirements other than registering and reporting lost/stolen guns, and to assist the police in times of disaster.



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by stormson
The second amendment states "well regulated militia". So if you want to do real gun regulation/control, make gun owners, or those that want to own guns, go to the local sheriff and join the militia. The militia will only be called up for natural disasters, like river floods or whatever, and fill sand bags or patrol with police to keep looting down.



I think it doesn't say that in the context you're reading it and that's what was recently decided.


In a 5-4 decision, the Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self- defense within the home. The Court based its holding on the text of the Second Amendment, as well as applicable language in state constitutions adopted soon after the Second Amendment. Justice Antonin Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court.
Source - D.C. vs Heller / 2009

As it happens, Missouri does have a Militia organization. At least one. They do work with law enforcement on an ongoing basis in many cases for support in search/rescue or other unusual events that require manpower on short notice with basic skills in the woods or such. I think that's a great thing to support too, in concept anyway. Not require though.



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by stormson
 


"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."

You avoid the portion that states that the right is remanded to the people. Your own ambiguos interpretation fails to recognize who is protected by any of the ammendments- the people!



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


im just saying you cant pick and choose what the amendment says, and it states clearly "well regulated militia".

mi·li·tia (m-lsh)
n.
1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by onthedownlow
reply to post by stormson
 


"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."

You avoid the portion that states that the right is remanded to the people. Your own ambiguos interpretation fails to recognize who is protected by any of the ammendments- the people!


mi·li·tia (m-lsh)
n.
1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.

so the people must be part of the militia, and to be part of the militia you need a weapon.



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by AwakeinNM
 


You do know that you have just admitted to having unregistered guns on ATS don't you lol.
You can bet ATS is one of the first sites they will look for to find domestic terrorists don't you?


Oh and "Until Iam needed" lol Hooray here comes AwakeinNM to save the day oh how I laughed.
edit on 9-1-2013 by boymonkey74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000

Originally posted by stormson
The second amendment states "well regulated militia". So if you want to do real gun regulation/control, make gun owners, or those that want to own guns, go to the local sheriff and join the militia. The militia will only be called up for natural disasters, like river floods or whatever, and fill sand bags or patrol with police to keep looting down.



I think it doesn't say that in the context you're reading it and that's what was recently decided.


In a 5-4 decision, the Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self- defense within the home. The Court based its holding on the text of the Second Amendment, as well as applicable language in state constitutions adopted soon after the Second Amendment. Justice Antonin Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court.
Source - D.C. vs Heller / 2009

As it happens, Missouri does have a Militia organization. At least one. They do work with law enforcement on an ongoing basis in many cases for support in search/rescue or other unusual events that require manpower on short notice with basic skills in the woods or such. I think that's a great thing to support too, in concept anyway. Not require though.


i didnt know about the supreme court decision, so my idea is moot. the supreme court is the final say, and if they say no militia is needed, then it cant be required. basically the missouri idea is what i had in mind.



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 05:21 PM
link   
"well regulated" means "working well," as in a "well regulated clock" which keeps accurate time. In otehr words, "well regulated" means being capable of shooting straight. "Militia" originally meant every able-bodied male. Expand that definition as you will. A "well regulated militia" exists in Switzerland now where every male has a government furnished "assault" weapon and ammunition. They don't give these back, either.

In other words, a "well regulated militia" has nothing to do with the national Guard or registering with police or military authorities.



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by stormson
 


I wish you all would this way people like me will remain un-targeted because all eyes will be on you.

So please.......that is a PERFECT idea. PLEASE do join a militia. Use the paypal option because I'll even donate!
In the meantime, I'll go hug a tree!
edit on 9-1-2013 by Human_Alien because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 05:25 PM
link   
A county in Tennesse had a rogue government, one that tried to steal the election, and terrorize everyone in the county.

The citizens didn't go to the corrupt politicians in that county and ASK for their guns to defend their rights. You know what the answer would have been?

They pulled the guns off their walls and surrounded the courthouse where the SHERIFF, his DEPUTIES, and MAYOR had taken up hold.

After a few exchanges of gun-fire the mayor thought maybe stealing the election wasn't worth his life and he surrendered.

Nice try though. This idea of liberty is REALLY REALLY difficult for people to understand though. He who has ears to hear....



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by stormson

Originally posted by onthedownlow
reply to post by stormson
 


"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."

You avoid the portion that states that the right is remanded to the people. Your own ambiguos interpretation fails to recognize who is protected by any of the ammendments- the people!


mi·li·tia (m-lsh)
n.
1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.

so the people must be part of the militia, and to be part of the militia you need a weapon.

Fine! If you would like to use the term collectively, meaning 'the people' and 'well regulated militia' are interchangeable, isn't this requirement being met as the people are already well regulated? The high court has gone through extensive trouble to point out that the rights included in the 'Bill of Rights' are there to protect the people, not government actors. In essence, forcing the people to be militia would create a situation where all peoples were to become government actors, thusly excluding them from the protections of civil rights. Refer to 42 USC ~1983
edit on 9-1-2013 by onthedownlow because: type-o


Furthermore, your own definition shows that anybody that has registered for selective service is currently part of an active militia. "3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service."
edit on 9-1-2013 by onthedownlow because: additional info



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by boymonkey74
reply to post by AwakeinNM
 


You do know that you have just admitted to having unregistered guns on ATS don't you lol.


If NM is like TX there is no registry of guns or gun owners, so your point about unregistered guns is not well taken.
If, on the other hand, you're referring to BATFE 4373 forms required for the transfer of firearms from Federal Firearms Licensees please be reminded that under current statute no such form is required for the transfer of firearms between non-FFL holders (aka private individuals). As these forms are held by the individual dealers themselves and are NOT required to be forwarded to any authority - merely available for inspection - even this does not constitute "registration".

ganjoa



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by boymonkey74
reply to post by AwakeinNM
 


You do know that you have just admitted to having unregistered guns on ATS don't you lol.
You can bet ATS is one of the first sites they will look for to find domestic terrorists don't you?



Amazing...!

You just epitomized our nation's fiscal budget, with your statement....

There is alot coming out, there just wasn't enough going in, to cover it....





new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join