The People Have A Right To Organize As A Militia, Regardless of Government Approval or Endorsement

a reply to: Gryphon66

See my reply to rocker 2013 for my main argument.

Noted and agreed, as I am sure you will argue, that there are likely laws and case law that contradict that simple interpretation. Throw those links up here too, please. Quotes are fine too, if you want to. I'm okay with being contested in my argument from that point of view.

The simple interpretation that is my main argument is still just as obvious today as it would have been the moment the first American laid eyes on it. It is plainly stated in the wording, as I've argued. It is a self evident argument, to anyone who reads and understands it. It is clearly defined in the wording, whether there are present laws or case law to the contrary or not.

a reply to: TheBadCabbieI agree with your article as it is written. It sounds to me as if a militia as stated in the Articles has morphed into the National Guard. I do not argue that we need to stand up against those that try to oppress are rights. The heavy handed actions of a few agents is wrong. But I can bet you they thought that because they are the sworn in agents of a law enforcement branch of government that they could do what ever they wanted to.

The document seems to support the idea of official state militias, as it reads, not gang-style militias. However, I am pro-gun.

The obvious question would be, why would an official "army" needst be authorised in the Constitution anyway?

Plainly, in context, this was a document dealing with the rights of The People.

a reply to: FlyingFox

As I said in an earlier reply:

Not at all, both reasons are equally important, of course. The necessity to be able to repel and defeat domestic standing armies, however, naturally would require the people to organize without sanction. Thus is the point of contention I am arguing here. Not only is the wording of the second amendment clear on this, the implications of its wording are as well.

There are militias. There is a federal militia, the Reserves, and state militias, the Guard. They operate exactly as described in the constitution.

a reply to: Sublimecraft

How do we know who, where, when the militia's have meetings?

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie
a reply to: Gryphon66

See my reply to rocker 2013 for my main argument.

Noted and agreed, as I am sure you will argue, that there are likely laws and case law that contradict that simple interpretation. Throw those links up here too, please. Quotes are fine too, if you want to. I'm okay with being contested in my argument from that point of view.

The simple interpretation that is my main argument is still just as obvious today as it would have been the moment the first American laid eyes on it. It is plainly stated in the wording, as I've argued. It is a self evident argument, to anyone who reads and understands it. It is clearly defined in the wording, whether there are present laws or case law to the contrary or not.

No, it isn't. You're making one of the most blatant appeals to authority I've ever witnessed ... your own.

Bon appetit.

a reply to: Gryphon66

No, it isn't. You're making one of the most blatant appeals to authority I've ever witnessed ... your own.

Bon appetit.

Yet you offer no refutation, while suggesting that my argument is a fanciful one. You seemed to have no reservation to arguing this topic when it was an off topic argument in another thread. Curious...