Has The U.S Government Overstepped its Boundries on Anti-Gun

[Genivaria]

See it's these gun toting Alex Jones listeners that I find concerning.

I might identify as libertarian, but Alex Jones is a quack. Take your assumption and stick it. Thank you.

Then enlighten me as to what the purpose of a militia is in this age of volunteer, professional militaries?
Because when I hear the word nowadays I think either the historical militia, or right-wing, Christian extremists who think the End of Days is upon us.

[Farnhamia]

Not a real militia. Militias are state-sponsored.

Incorrect. Private militias are legal, and regulated in all fifty states except Wyoming. And I am talking about the "state-sponsored" militia of Iowa. The fact that i'm a member of the unorganized one is irrelevant, given the law.

Apparently so.

http://coolice.legis.iowa.gov/cool-ice/ ... =29A#29A.6

[Death Metal]

Not a real militia. Militias are state-sponsored.

Incorrect. Private militias are legal, and regulated in all fifty states except Wyoming. And I am talking about the "state-sponsored" militia of Iowa. The fact that i'm a member of the unorganized one is irrelevant, given the law.

False. Only Congress can approve militias.

Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution:

Congress shall have the power to

...

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Amendment X of the Bill of RIghts:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

[Mushet]

How have they over stepped their boundaries?

As to the right to bare arms? Well the INJUN problem, the British Empire, and the French are gone. Not sure if we need the militias anymore.

No we're still here, feel free to let down your defenses though

[Genivaria]

How have they over stepped their boundaries?

As to the right to bare arms? Well the INJUN problem, the British Empire, and the French are gone. Not sure if we need the militias anymore.

No we're still here, feel free to let down your defenses though

Connor passed down his Assassin training to all the Native people's. They're just waiting for the opportune moment.

[Communist republic of altorus]

What about the right to free speech?

[Genivaria]

What about the right to free speech?

What about it?

[Qahadim]

I might identify as libertarian, but Alex Jones is a quack. Take your assumption and stick it. Thank you.

Then enlighten me as to what the purpose of a militia is in this age of volunteer, professional militaries?
Because when I hear the word nowadays I think either the historical militia, or right-wing, Christian extremists who think the End of Days is upon us.

The same as it was historically? Maintain law and order, suppress insurrection, repel invasions. To maintain the security and liberty of the people and state in which one is a resident.

Btw, from a historical perspective the militia can, and has been, private and state backed. The American revolution being the best example.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Incorrect. Private militias are legal, and regulated in all fifty states except Wyoming. And I am talking about the "state-sponsored" militia of Iowa. The fact that i'm a member of the unorganized one is irrelevant, given the law.

False. Only Congress can approve militias.

Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution:

Congress shall have the power to

...

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Amendment X of the Bill of RIghts:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

...
What the fuck are you reading, because it can't be what I am.

Calling forth the militia and a clause explaining Congressional duties post-call-up has nothing to do with approving militias.

[Mushet]

No we're still here, feel free to let down your defenses though

Connor passed down his Assassin training to all the Native people's. They're just waiting for the opportune moment.

Look at a pow wow map, we're everywhere, hiding in the shadows, waiting to strike

And that's Ratonhnhaké:ton to you

[Genivaria]

Then enlighten me as to what the purpose of a militia is in this age of volunteer, professional militaries?
Because when I hear the word nowadays I think either the historical militia, or right-wing, Christian extremists who think the End of Days is upon us.

The same as it was historically? Maintain law and order, suppress insurrection, repel invasions. To maintain the security and liberty of the people and state in which one is a resident.

Btw, from a historical perspective the militia can, and has been, private and state backed. The American revolution being the best example.

Historically the militias existed because there were active threats and a lack of professional volunteers.
Who are you protecting their liberty FROM exactly? The government?

[Occupied Deutschland]

I might identify as libertarian, but Alex Jones is a quack. Take your assumption and stick it. Thank you.

Then enlighten me as to what the purpose of a militia is in this age of volunteer, professional militaries?
Because when I hear the word nowadays I think either the historical militia, or right-wing, Christian extremists who think the End of Days is upon us.

Training in firearms, self-defense, emergency preparedness, law enforcement assistance, resisting tyranny. The usual.

[Qahadim]

Incorrect. Private militias are legal, and regulated in all fifty states except Wyoming. And I am talking about the "state-sponsored" militia of Iowa. The fact that i'm a member of the unorganized one is irrelevant, given the law.

False. Only Congress can approve militias.

Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution:

Congress shall have the power to

...

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Amendment X of the Bill of RIghts:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Not false, though I misspoke about all fifty:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictiona ... +Amendment

PRIVATE MILITIAS

Private militias are armed military groups that are composed of private citizens and not recognized by federal or state governments. Private militias have been formed by individuals in America since the colonial period. In fact, the Revolutionary War against England was fought in part by armies comprising not professional soldiers but ordinary male citizens.

Approximately half the states maintain laws regulating private militias. Generally, these laws prohibit the parading and exercising of armed private militias in public, but do not forbid the formation of private militias. In Wyoming, however, state law forbids the very formation of private militias. Under section 19-1-106 of the Wyoming Statutes, "No body of men other than the regularly organized national guard or the troops of the United States shall associate themselves together as a military company or organization, or parade in public with arms without license of the governor." The Wyoming law also prohibits the public funding of private militias. Anyone convicted of violating the provisions of the law is subject to a fine of not more than $1,000, imprisonment of six months, or both, for each offense.

In states that do not outlaw them, private militias are limited only by the criminal laws applicable to all of society. Thus, if an armed private militia seeks to parade and exercise in a public area, its members will be subject to arrest on a variety of laws, including disturbing-the-peace, firearms, or even riot statutes.

[Death Metal]

Calling forth the militia and a clause explaining Congressional duties post-call-up has nothing to do with approving militias.

I just outlined the specific Congressional clauses that grants Congress the sole right to organize militias. Those are the only real militias. You can get drunk at your clubhouse all you want and talk about how the world is going to be overrun by Commies or whatever all you want, but that doesn't make you a militia. It makes you a Wannabe Soldier Club For Men.

[Alien Space Bats]

Has The U.S Government Overstepped its Boundries on Anti-Gun laws. Forom waht I can tell the second amendment says the government can not restrict gun ownership and what we can and cannot own. It clearly states "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." So I say they have way over stepped their boundaries.

You need to get your facts right:

• Taken by itself, the 2nd Amendment does nothing more (and nothing less) than constrain the Federal government from taking steps to eliminate the Militia by restricting gun ownership. In its original, unamended form, it did not apply to the States (as witnessed by the fact that virtually every Southern State banned gun ownership by free blacks in the antebellum era).
  
  
• Noting the way in which the foregoing Southern States abused their authority under the 2nd and 10th Amendments to ban gun ownership by free blacks (among other things), the 39th U.S. Congress enacted the 14th Amendment, which sought to extend the 2nd Amendment's constraint on laws and regulations prohibiting gun ownership to the States. Thanks to the way in which the 14th Amendment was subsequently interpreted by the Supreme Court ("The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." [cf. United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)]), this intention on the part of Congress was not achieved. Much, much later, however, the U.S. Supreme Court came to recognize the 14th Amendment as partially incorporating the Bill of Rights through its Due Process Clause; this eventually led the Court to recognize an individual right to bear arms in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010) (although the Court admittedly [and hypocritically] did this in a very roundabout way).
  
  
• The individual right to bear arms recognized in McDonald is by no means unconditional or absolute. As of yet, the limits of this right have yet to be tested by the court (McDonald having been heard only three years ago). In particular, McDonald made reference to portions of an earlier opinion (i.e., District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), from which McDonald was in part derived) regarding the limitations on the 2nd Amendment's protection of firearm rights ("Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those 'in common use at the time' finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons." [District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), pp 54-56]). Consequently, bans such as the bill now sitting on New Jersey Governor Chris Christie's desk (to ban private ownership of .50 caliber sniper rifles) are probably Constitutional.
  
  
• In similar fashion, neither McDonald nor its predecessor, Heller provide any basis for overturning reasonable behavioral limitations on the use, carriage, or display of arms in public places. The strict purpose of the 2nd Amendment, after all, is nothing more (and nothing less) than the preservation of the ancient institution of the Militia; the strict purpose of the 14th Amendment (as applied to the 2nd Amendment) was nothing more (and nothing less) than the preservation of the traditional right to defend one's person, possessions, home, family, and community from danger; yet in both cases these rights are construed to exist within well-defined bounds. These bounds cover more than just the sort of weaponry a person may "keep and bear"; they also apply to the fashion in which such weapons may be "kept" and "borne".
  
  IOW, if a State has a reasonable limit on who can carry firearms and on when and where those firearms can be carried, then the 2nd Amendment cannot be used to overturn those limits. Michigan (for instance) does not allow individuals to carry long arms at the ready in public places, or on public lands when not engaged in legal hunting; at all other times, they must be unloaded and secured in either a case or weapons rack. You'd be hard pressed to get that limitation overturned, given that it has a strong rational basis in the public safety and a general desire to let people live free of fear. Thus, you can't just use the 2nd Amendment as a justification for taking your gun wherever you want and doing whatever you want with it; it just doesn't work that way.

So on the whole I would say that your answer is "No, the government has not overstepped its bounds." People enjoy broad freedoms when it comes to the purchase, ownership, carriage, and use of firearms, and nothing the government is doing or has doing is placing those freedoms in jeopardy.

[Qahadim]

The same as it was historically? Maintain law and order, suppress insurrection, repel invasions. To maintain the security and liberty of the people and state in which one is a resident.

Btw, from a historical perspective the militia can, and has been, private and state backed. The American revolution being the best example.

Historically the militias existed because there were active threats and a lack of professional volunteers.
Who are you protecting their liberty FROM exactly? The government?

That's one of the possibilities, yes. As a citizen I am obligated by duty to protect my fellow citizens from our own government, if it becomes necessary for me to do so. If a small sect of people rebel, i'm obligated to put it down. If we are invaded by a foreign power, the same thing.

Are you trying to get me to admit something?

[Occupied Deutschland]

Calling forth the militia and a clause explaining Congressional duties post-call-up has nothing to do with approving militias.

I just outlined the specific Congressional clauses that grants Congress the sole right to organize militias. Those are the only real militias. You can get drunk at your clubhouse all you want and talk about how the world is going to be overrun by Commies or whatever all you want, but that doesn't make you a militia. It makes you a Wannabe Soldier Club For Men.

Organize does not mean approval. It means organization. Similar to the organization that is required when a group of people is called forth to service of the national government from their former status as members of a federally 'unorganized' militia.

There is nothing in what you cited that prohibits private militias. In fact, what you posted really just emphasizes their viability as the power of regulation or formation of such militias is reserved to the states or the people. Wyoming seems to be the glaring exception, but most other states provide for the presence of private federally 'unorganized' militias.

[Qahadim]

Calling forth the militia and a clause explaining Congressional duties post-call-up has nothing to do with approving militias.

I just outlined the specific Congressional clauses that grants Congress the sole right to organize militias. Those are the only real militias. You can get drunk at your clubhouse all you want and talk about how the world is going to be overrun by Commies or whatever all you want, but that doesn't make you a militia. It makes you a Wannabe Soldier Club For Men.

And I posted a refutation that shows you're incorrect.

[Genivaria]

Then enlighten me as to what the purpose of a militia is in this age of volunteer, professional militaries?
Because when I hear the word nowadays I think either the historical militia, or right-wing, Christian extremists who think the End of Days is upon us.

Training in firearms, self-defense, emergency preparedness, law enforcement assistance, resisting tyranny. The usual.

Ok those are all good I admit. The Oath Keepers are a particularly respectful group from what I know of them.
But what about those 'militias' that are borderline terrorist groups?
Would you be adverse to them being investigated and/or forcibly disbanded?

[Myrensis]

Has The U.S Government Overstepped its Boundries on Anti-Gun laws. Forom waht I can tell the second amendment says the government can not restrict gun ownership and what we can and cannot own. It clearly states "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." So I say they have way over stepped their boundaries.

Also for the people who say "Guns kill people!":

(Image)

I like how they always ignore the first part.

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.

And yet the same gun nuts who are forever blubbering about 'guns don't kill people, people do!" kill background checks and waiting periods and reporting requirements for states meant to keep guns out of the hands of people with violent histories and mental problems

Gun nuts seem to operate under the assumption that 'Putting as many guns as possible, into as many hands as possible, with as few questions asked as possible, will make us all safe and happy!"

[Chernoslavia]

"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."

1787: No standing army. Hunting was the best way to put food on the table. Frontier.

2013: Most funded standing military in the world. Go to the supermarket. Militia ain't needed.

Yes, the average person should have at least a pistol to defend themselves, a shotgun to defend their family and a rifle to hunt. How in the world do you justify Joe Shmoe selling an AK-47 and RPG to John Doe, just so that Doe can show off his arsenal to John Smith?

Well, if Joe and John arent doing anything wrong, then whats the problem with owning an RPG or an AK?

[Occupied Deutschland]

Training in firearms, self-defense, emergency preparedness, law enforcement assistance, resisting tyranny. The usual.

Ok those are all good I admit. The Oath Keepers are a particularly respectful group from what I know of them.
But what about those 'militias' that are borderline terrorist groups?
Would you be adverse to them being investigated and/or forcibly disbanded?

If there is some suggestion of wrongdoing that warrants a probable cause, certainly.

If it's just goobers with crazy ideas who run through the woods in camo...Well, it's dumb but I don't see the criminality really.

[Genivaria]

Historically the militias existed because there were active threats and a lack of professional volunteers.
Who are you protecting their liberty FROM exactly? The government?

That's one of the possibilities, yes. As a citizen I am obligated by duty to protect my fellow citizens from our own government, if it becomes necessary for me to do so. If a small sect of people rebel, i'm obligated to put it down. If we are invaded by a foreign power, the same thing.

Are you trying to get me to admit something?

No, no, no, not at all. I'm just trying to understand the militia motivation from someone who's NOT an Alex Jones nut.
Sorry if I offended I certainly didn't mean to.

[Death Metal]

I just outlined the specific Congressional clauses that grants Congress the sole right to organize militias. Those are the only real militias. You can get drunk at your clubhouse all you want and talk about how the world is going to be overrun by Commies or whatever all you want, but that doesn't make you a militia. It makes you a Wannabe Soldier Club For Men.

And I posted a refutation that shows you're incorrect.

No it doesn't. In fact, it shows that Congress is actually against private militias.

Also, Supremacy Clause.

[Genivaria]

Ok those are all good I admit. The Oath Keepers are a particularly respectful group from what I know of them.
But what about those 'militias' that are borderline terrorist groups?
Would you be adverse to them being investigated and/or forcibly disbanded?

If there is some suggestion of wrongdoing that warrants a probable cause, certainly.

If it's just goobers with crazy ideas who run through the woods in camo...Well, it's dumb but I don't see the criminality really.

Fair enough.