NATION

PASSWORD

Gun Control 2020 (IV) - Year of the Boogaloo?

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

With the state government of Virigina increasingly cracking down on the 2nd Amendment, what say you?

The Virginian Government is 100% in the right, seize the scary boomsticks!
20
11%
The Virginian Government is 100% in the right, but shouldn't take away the peoples pew pews.
14
8%
I'm indecisive so I'll just take this nice little middle choice...
5
3%
The Virginian Government is 100% wrong and should be removed from power peacefully.
52
29%
The Virginian Government is 100% wrong and should be removed from power Forcibly.
24
13%
The Tree of Liberty... *straps on plate carrier* / Fuck it, Boogaloo time!
64
36%
 
Total votes : 179

User avatar
Bombadil
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11905
Founded: Oct 13, 2011
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Bombadil » Mon Sep 16, 2019 7:35 pm

LiberNovusAmericae wrote:
Bombadil wrote:Here's my genuine question..

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.

As I understood it the interpretation rests in the commas, but my question is..

..if 'a well regulated militia' is essentially redundant then why include it at all? If the amendment meant to give the right to everyone regardless then why have those words in it at all. Seems clear to me that the inclusion means it has significance, that the purpose was to allow guns as part of a well regulated militia, not just willy-nilly for everyone.

Why is about commas?

I interpret it as the common people making up the militia, and the government is able to regulate it to a degree, but not completely ban it.

Richard Henry Lee wrote:A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, and render regular troops in a great measure unnecessary.


Sure, but 'well-regulated', or from your example, 'when properly formed', which indicate there needs to be at least some form of structure to any group as opposed to just any individual regardless. If you want it to be for anyone then..

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

Clear.

A militia are in fact the people themselves, and render regular troops in a great measure unnecessary.

Clear.
Eldest, that's what I am...Tom remembers the first raindrop and the first acorn...he knew the dark under the stars when it was fearless — before the Dark Lord came from Outside..

User avatar
Chernoslavia
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9519
Founded: Jun 13, 2011
Corporate Bordello

Postby Chernoslavia » Mon Sep 16, 2019 7:42 pm

Bombadil wrote:
LiberNovusAmericae wrote:I interpret it as the common people making up the militia, and the government is able to regulate it to a degree, but not completely ban it.



Sure, but 'well-regulated', or from your example, 'when properly formed', which indicate there needs to be at least some form of structure to any group as opposed to just any individual regardless. If you want it to be for anyone then..

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

Clear.

A militia are in fact the people themselves, and render regular troops in a great measure unnecessary.

Clear.


It really couldn't be clear enough already.
What would things have been like if every security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive? Or if during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand? The Organs would quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!

- Alexander Solzhenitsyn

User avatar
Bombadil
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11905
Founded: Oct 13, 2011
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Bombadil » Mon Sep 16, 2019 7:43 pm

Chernoslavia wrote:
Bombadil wrote:
Sure, but 'well-regulated', or from your example, 'when properly formed', which indicate there needs to be at least some form of structure to any group as opposed to just any individual regardless. If you want it to be for anyone then..

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

Clear.

A militia are in fact the people themselves, and render regular troops in a great measure unnecessary.

Clear.


It really couldn't be clear enough already.


It really isn't otherwise there wouldn't be constant debate and even court cases on what those commas mean. Yet for me that is beside the point given under the current interpretation then 'well regulated militia' is redundant, which it clearly isn't or it wouldn't be in there.
Eldest, that's what I am...Tom remembers the first raindrop and the first acorn...he knew the dark under the stars when it was fearless — before the Dark Lord came from Outside..

User avatar
Telconi
Post Czar
 
Posts: 30778
Founded: Oct 08, 2016
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Telconi » Mon Sep 16, 2019 7:45 pm

Bombadil wrote:Here's my genuine question..

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.

As I understood it the interpretation rests in the commas, but my question is..

..if 'a well regulated militia' is essentially redundant then why include it at all? If the amendment meant to give the right to everyone regardless then why have those words in it at all. Seems clear to me that the inclusion means it has significance, that the purpose was to allow guns as part of a well regulated militia, not just willy-nilly for everyone.

Why is about commas?


It's an explanation, the right is given to everyone because a militia is important.
-2.25 LEFT
-3.23 LIBERTARIAN

PRO:
-Weapons Rights
-Gender Equality
-LGBTQ Rights
-Racial Equality
-Religious Freedom
-Freedom of Speech
-Freedom of Association
-Life
-Limited Government
-Non Interventionism
-Labor Unions
-Environmental Protections
ANTI:
-Racism
-Sexism
-Bigotry In All Forms
-Government Overreach
-Government Surveillance
-Freedom For Security Social Transactions
-Unnecessary Taxes
-Excessively Specific Government Programs
-Foreign Entanglements
-Religious Extremism
-Fascists Masquerading as "Social Justice Warriors"

"The Constitution is NOT an instrument for the government to restrain the people,it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government-- lest it come to dominate our lives and interests." ~ Patrick Henry

User avatar
Chernoslavia
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9519
Founded: Jun 13, 2011
Corporate Bordello

Postby Chernoslavia » Mon Sep 16, 2019 7:45 pm

Bombadil wrote:
Chernoslavia wrote:
It really couldn't be clear enough already.


It really isn't otherwise there wouldn't be constant debate and even court cases on what those commas mean. Yet for me that is beside the point given under the current interpretation then 'well regulated militia' is redundant, which it clearly isn't or it wouldn't be in there.


There's constant debate about it because some people choose to play semantics.
What would things have been like if every security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive? Or if during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand? The Organs would quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!

- Alexander Solzhenitsyn

User avatar
The Chuck
Minister
 
Posts: 2589
Founded: Apr 18, 2018
Capitalist Paradise

Postby The Chuck » Mon Sep 16, 2019 7:47 pm

Bombadil wrote:Here's my genuine question..

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.

As I understood it the interpretation rests in the commas, but my question is..

..if 'a well regulated militia' is essentially redundant then why include it at all? If the amendment meant to give the right to everyone regardless then why have those words in it at all. Seems clear to me that the inclusion means it has significance, that the purpose was to allow guns as part of a well regulated militia, not just willy-nilly for everyone.

Why is about commas?


My two cents on this is that with the original wording, it was common wording of the time and arms applies to all weaponry of the era from swords, muskets, early rifles, and cannons. Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution clearly covers the issuance of letters of Marque and Reprisal which allows privateering so privately owned cannons aboard privateer ships was definitely a thing of the era. As the English language and specifically the Americanized version has grown and changed with time, many people are confused/interpret this differently but for the time, militias meant citizenry and arms meant any weapon of the era. Just my two cents Bombadil :)
I use NS Stats. - Yes, a majority of my people die at 24...
Advertisement Space:
The Chuck wholly endorses Wolf Armaments and
Silverport Dockyards Ltd.

{>==╦╦=ʖ> Put this in your signature if you're a war profiteer
Sycar correctly guessed the rifles on my flag. As such, Sycar is the all knowing God of guns!
Proud leader of the Fuster Cluck Coalition of N-Day 4. #5 Baby!
"An armed man is a Citizen. An unarmed man is a subject."
Want to discuss guns and other stuff in a relaxed Discord? click here.
"I'm not a bad man but in certain situations I have to ask myself, "What would a bad man do?" -War Dogs
What the O.F. originally intended...
Quotes from others.

User avatar
Bombadil
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11905
Founded: Oct 13, 2011
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Bombadil » Mon Sep 16, 2019 7:48 pm

Telconi wrote:
Bombadil wrote:Here's my genuine question..

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.

As I understood it the interpretation rests in the commas, but my question is..

..if 'a well regulated militia' is essentially redundant then why include it at all? If the amendment meant to give the right to everyone regardless then why have those words in it at all. Seems clear to me that the inclusion means it has significance, that the purpose was to allow guns as part of a well regulated militia, not just willy-nilly for everyone.

Why is about commas?


It's an explanation, the right is given to everyone because a militia is important.


Except it's 'well regulated militia', not just militia.

Chernoslavia wrote:There's constant debate about it because some people choose to play semantics.


Obviously both sides are playing semantics.. but again, your interpretation makes 'well regulated militia' redundant, so why did they include it?
Eldest, that's what I am...Tom remembers the first raindrop and the first acorn...he knew the dark under the stars when it was fearless — before the Dark Lord came from Outside..

User avatar
Narland
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1083
Founded: Apr 19, 2013
Anarchy

Postby Narland » Mon Sep 16, 2019 7:50 pm

Bombadil wrote:Here's my genuine question..

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.

As I understood it the interpretation rests in the commas, but my question is..

..if 'a well regulated militia' is essentially redundant then why include it at all? If the amendment meant to give the right to everyone regardless then why have those words in it at all. Seems clear to me that the inclusion means it has significance, that the purpose was to allow guns as part of a well regulated militia, not just willy-nilly for everyone.

Why is about commas?

Compare the Virginia Declaration of Rights which the Federal Bill of Rights is largely based:

"That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power." Virginia Declaration of Rights, 1776 - Section 13

It looks like they started to quote Section 13 word for word, and then went succinct.

Notice that they used commas and semi-colons that would be grammatically incorrect today. Also, that a citizen militia is considered safe, while a standing army is considered dangerous.

Federal law throughout our history has defined the Militia as all (draft) capable men between the years of age 18 to 35-45. An organization can be regular (meeting on a regular basis) like many counties used to do or irregular (no set meeting times if any), regulated (like the ones that used to meet at the county armories (and some still do, and largely usurped by the National Guard Act). The Federal law defining these change often as America changes from a limited government federal republic to an ever expanding bureaucratic administrative state.

When I was a teenager my county still required me to join the bucket list as part of an organize militia -- report to the sheriff for deputation training, join the volunteer fire department, become an EMT (paid for by the county), join the National Guard, and there were some other options like clerking for the courthouse. If someone owned a weapon of war like a tank or bazooka they were required to keep it at the Country Armory and only use it when authorized (like for training with the National Guard). States and Counties that stopped doing so can be considered unorganized. As the US drifts further from its roots, few jurisdictions even have memory of what it means to fulfill the 2nd Amendment.
Last edited by Narland on Mon Sep 16, 2019 7:54 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Telconi
Post Czar
 
Posts: 30778
Founded: Oct 08, 2016
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Telconi » Mon Sep 16, 2019 7:51 pm

Bombadil wrote:
Telconi wrote:
It's an explanation, the right is given to everyone because a militia is important.


Except it's 'well regulated militia', not just militia.

Chernoslavia wrote:There's constant debate about it because some people choose to play semantics.


Obviously both sides are playing semantics.. but again, your interpretation makes 'well regulated militia' redundant, so why did they include it?


Well a well regulated militia is better than a shittily regulated militia. Yes?
-2.25 LEFT
-3.23 LIBERTARIAN

PRO:
-Weapons Rights
-Gender Equality
-LGBTQ Rights
-Racial Equality
-Religious Freedom
-Freedom of Speech
-Freedom of Association
-Life
-Limited Government
-Non Interventionism
-Labor Unions
-Environmental Protections
ANTI:
-Racism
-Sexism
-Bigotry In All Forms
-Government Overreach
-Government Surveillance
-Freedom For Security Social Transactions
-Unnecessary Taxes
-Excessively Specific Government Programs
-Foreign Entanglements
-Religious Extremism
-Fascists Masquerading as "Social Justice Warriors"

"The Constitution is NOT an instrument for the government to restrain the people,it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government-- lest it come to dominate our lives and interests." ~ Patrick Henry

User avatar
Chernoslavia
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9519
Founded: Jun 13, 2011
Corporate Bordello

Postby Chernoslavia » Mon Sep 16, 2019 7:53 pm

Bombadil wrote:
Telconi wrote:
It's an explanation, the right is given to everyone because a militia is important.


Except it's 'well regulated militia', not just militia.

Chernoslavia wrote:There's constant debate about it because some people choose to play semantics.


Obviously both sides are playing semantics.. but again, your interpretation makes 'well regulated militia' redundant, so why did they include it?


No, just the left.

Simple. To specify a need for non-federally controlled armed forces to protect the state from enemies both foreign and domestic.
What would things have been like if every security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive? Or if during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand? The Organs would quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!

- Alexander Solzhenitsyn

User avatar
Chernoslavia
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9519
Founded: Jun 13, 2011
Corporate Bordello

Postby Chernoslavia » Mon Sep 16, 2019 7:53 pm

Telconi wrote:
Bombadil wrote:
Except it's 'well regulated militia', not just militia.



Obviously both sides are playing semantics.. but again, your interpretation makes 'well regulated militia' redundant, so why did they include it?


Well a well regulated militia is better than a shittily regulated militia. Yes?


*nods* :(

Sometimes I feel like we're the only ones with quotas...
Last edited by Chernoslavia on Mon Sep 16, 2019 7:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
What would things have been like if every security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive? Or if during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand? The Organs would quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!

- Alexander Solzhenitsyn

User avatar
Grinning Dragon
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6931
Founded: May 16, 2011
Anarchy

Postby Grinning Dragon » Mon Sep 16, 2019 7:58 pm

Bombadil wrote:Here's my genuine question..

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.

As I understood it the interpretation rests in the commas, but my question is..

..if 'a well regulated militia' is essentially redundant then why include it at all? If the amendment meant to give the right to everyone regardless then why have those words in it at all. Seems clear to me that the inclusion means it has significance, that the purpose was to allow guns as part of a well regulated militia, not just willy-nilly for everyone.

Why is about commas?


This should explain the usage of the prefatory clause in the 2nd Amendment much better than I, to try to recall from memory.
I prefer Dangerous Freedom over peaceful slavery! Sic Semper Tyrannis!
Gun-Control is the belief that declawing the cat will protect it against other animals; also why are anti-gun people so violent?
Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery!
Socialism- the herpes of economic systems.
My Constitutional Rights trump your dead. Proud American infidel since the 1970's-Deus Vult
The made up term "toxic masculinity" is founded on nonsense psychologism

User avatar
Bombadil
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11905
Founded: Oct 13, 2011
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Bombadil » Mon Sep 16, 2019 7:59 pm

Narland wrote:
Bombadil wrote:Here's my genuine question..

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.

As I understood it the interpretation rests in the commas, but my question is..

..if 'a well regulated militia' is essentially redundant then why include it at all? If the amendment meant to give the right to everyone regardless then why have those words in it at all. Seems clear to me that the inclusion means it has significance, that the purpose was to allow guns as part of a well regulated militia, not just willy-nilly for everyone.

Why is about commas?

Compare the Virginia Declaration of Rights which the Federal Bill of Rights is largely based:

"That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power." Virginia Declaration of Rights, 1776 - Section 13

It looks like they started to quote Section 13 word for word, and then went succinct.

Notice that they used commas and semi-colons that would be grammatically incorrect today. Also, that a citizen militia is considered safe, while a standing army is considered dangerous.

Federal law throughout our history has defined the Militia as all (draft) capable men between the years of age 18 to 35-45. An organization can be regular (meeting on a regular basis) like many counties used to do or irregular (no set meeting times if any), regulated (like the ones that used to meet at the county armories (and some still do, and largely usurped by the National Guard Act). The Federal law defining these change often as America changes from a limited government federal republic to an ever expanding bureaucratic administrative state.

When I was a teenager my county still required me to join the bucket list as part of an organize militia -- report to the sheriff for deputation training, join the volunteer fire department, become an EMT (paid for by the county), join the National Guard, and there were some other options like clerking for the courthouse. If someone owned a weapon of war like a tank or bazooka they were required to keep it at the Country Armory and only use it when authorized (like for training with the National Guard). Those that stopped doing so can be considered unorganized. As the US drifts further from its roots, few jurisdictions even have memory of what it means to fulfill the 2nd Amendment.


Thanks, yeah I had noticed that various states have slightly clearer interpretations. Seems to me the US was supposed to be more like the Swiss canton system but the federal government has way over reached its power. I can certainly understand why in terms of civil rights but this has clearly seeped into all areas.

Seems to me that gun rights could act as a framing point to simply review the US as a whole if there was a candidate brave enough and able to cut through the noise of partisan rhetoric.

For myself I don't mind guns, I hunted when young and had shotguns but they were licensed, had to be locked separate from the key and I certainly couldn't just walk around town with them.
Eldest, that's what I am...Tom remembers the first raindrop and the first acorn...he knew the dark under the stars when it was fearless — before the Dark Lord came from Outside..

User avatar
Chernoslavia
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9519
Founded: Jun 13, 2011
Corporate Bordello

Postby Chernoslavia » Mon Sep 16, 2019 8:00 pm

Bombadil wrote:
Narland wrote:Compare the Virginia Declaration of Rights which the Federal Bill of Rights is largely based:

"That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power." Virginia Declaration of Rights, 1776 - Section 13

It looks like they started to quote Section 13 word for word, and then went succinct.

Notice that they used commas and semi-colons that would be grammatically incorrect today. Also, that a citizen militia is considered safe, while a standing army is considered dangerous.

Federal law throughout our history has defined the Militia as all (draft) capable men between the years of age 18 to 35-45. An organization can be regular (meeting on a regular basis) like many counties used to do or irregular (no set meeting times if any), regulated (like the ones that used to meet at the county armories (and some still do, and largely usurped by the National Guard Act). The Federal law defining these change often as America changes from a limited government federal republic to an ever expanding bureaucratic administrative state.

When I was a teenager my county still required me to join the bucket list as part of an organize militia -- report to the sheriff for deputation training, join the volunteer fire department, become an EMT (paid for by the county), join the National Guard, and there were some other options like clerking for the courthouse. If someone owned a weapon of war like a tank or bazooka they were required to keep it at the Country Armory and only use it when authorized (like for training with the National Guard). Those that stopped doing so can be considered unorganized. As the US drifts further from its roots, few jurisdictions even have memory of what it means to fulfill the 2nd Amendment.


Thanks, yeah I had noticed that various states have slightly clearer interpretations. Seems to me the US was supposed to be more like the Swiss canton system but the federal government has way over reached its power. I can certainly understand why in terms of civil rights but this has clearly seeped into all areas.

Seems to me that gun rights could act as a framing point to simply review the US as a whole if there was a candidate brave enough and able to cut through the noise of partisan rhetoric.

For myself I don't mind guns, I hunted when young and had shotguns but they were licensed, had to be locked separate from the key and I certainly couldn't just walk around town with them.


Now that I think of it, I think the Swiss were the absolute first to do something like that.
What would things have been like if every security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive? Or if during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand? The Organs would quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!

- Alexander Solzhenitsyn

User avatar
Slavakino
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 186
Founded: Sep 25, 2017
Father Knows Best State

Postby Slavakino » Mon Sep 16, 2019 8:02 pm

More gunpowder epic
Military Titoist Republic of Slavakino
A great nation built on socialism, science & unity. Come visit us for a holiday
Australian-Serb attempting to finish in Surgery or Engineering. Fanatic about weapons, science and history from 1800-2000
Pro: Titosim, Firearms, WMD, Science, Industrialization, Militarism, Nuclear, Federalism

Neutral: Libertarianism, Unitary State, Religon, Conservativism, Abortion Laws, Renewable Energy

Anti: LGBT, Green Politics, Fascism, Anarchism, Primitivism, Islam, ANTIFA, Totalitarianism
- Mosin-Nagant 1891/30
- Lee-Enfield No 5. Mk 1
- FN Model 1949
- FN FAL
- H&K G3
- Martini-Henry
- Swed Mauser m/38
- CAR-15
- Mossberg 500
- SPAS-12
- S&W Model 15
- Zastava M57
- M9 Beretta
- FN Five-Seven

User avatar
Telconi
Post Czar
 
Posts: 30778
Founded: Oct 08, 2016
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Telconi » Mon Sep 16, 2019 8:04 pm

Bombadil wrote:
Narland wrote:Compare the Virginia Declaration of Rights which the Federal Bill of Rights is largely based:

"That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power." Virginia Declaration of Rights, 1776 - Section 13

It looks like they started to quote Section 13 word for word, and then went succinct.

Notice that they used commas and semi-colons that would be grammatically incorrect today. Also, that a citizen militia is considered safe, while a standing army is considered dangerous.

Federal law throughout our history has defined the Militia as all (draft) capable men between the years of age 18 to 35-45. An organization can be regular (meeting on a regular basis) like many counties used to do or irregular (no set meeting times if any), regulated (like the ones that used to meet at the county armories (and some still do, and largely usurped by the National Guard Act). The Federal law defining these change often as America changes from a limited government federal republic to an ever expanding bureaucratic administrative state.

When I was a teenager my county still required me to join the bucket list as part of an organize militia -- report to the sheriff for deputation training, join the volunteer fire department, become an EMT (paid for by the county), join the National Guard, and there were some other options like clerking for the courthouse. If someone owned a weapon of war like a tank or bazooka they were required to keep it at the Country Armory and only use it when authorized (like for training with the National Guard). Those that stopped doing so can be considered unorganized. As the US drifts further from its roots, few jurisdictions even have memory of what it means to fulfill the 2nd Amendment.


Thanks, yeah I had noticed that various states have slightly clearer interpretations. Seems to me the US was supposed to be more like the Swiss canton system but the federal government has way over reached its power. I can certainly understand why in terms of civil rights but this has clearly seeped into all areas.

Seems to me that gun rights could act as a framing point to simply review the US as a whole if there was a candidate brave enough and able to cut through the noise of partisan rhetoric.

For myself I don't mind guns, I hunted when young and had shotguns but they were licensed, had to be locked separate from the key and I certainly couldn't just walk around town with them.


Would you mind if someone did just walk around town with one, why or why not?
-2.25 LEFT
-3.23 LIBERTARIAN

PRO:
-Weapons Rights
-Gender Equality
-LGBTQ Rights
-Racial Equality
-Religious Freedom
-Freedom of Speech
-Freedom of Association
-Life
-Limited Government
-Non Interventionism
-Labor Unions
-Environmental Protections
ANTI:
-Racism
-Sexism
-Bigotry In All Forms
-Government Overreach
-Government Surveillance
-Freedom For Security Social Transactions
-Unnecessary Taxes
-Excessively Specific Government Programs
-Foreign Entanglements
-Religious Extremism
-Fascists Masquerading as "Social Justice Warriors"

"The Constitution is NOT an instrument for the government to restrain the people,it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government-- lest it come to dominate our lives and interests." ~ Patrick Henry

User avatar
Bombadil
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11905
Founded: Oct 13, 2011
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Bombadil » Mon Sep 16, 2019 8:15 pm

Telconi wrote:Would you mind if someone did just walk around town with one, why or why not?


Considering what's occurring in my city at the moment I thank god it's essentially a gun free state.
Eldest, that's what I am...Tom remembers the first raindrop and the first acorn...he knew the dark under the stars when it was fearless — before the Dark Lord came from Outside..

User avatar
Chernoslavia
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9519
Founded: Jun 13, 2011
Corporate Bordello

Postby Chernoslavia » Mon Sep 16, 2019 8:15 pm

Bombadil wrote:
Telconi wrote:Would you mind if someone did just walk around town with one, why or why not?


Considering what's occurring in my city at the moment I thank god it's essentially a gun free state.


...Aren't you in South Africa?
What would things have been like if every security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive? Or if during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand? The Organs would quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!

- Alexander Solzhenitsyn

User avatar
Bombadil
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11905
Founded: Oct 13, 2011
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Bombadil » Mon Sep 16, 2019 8:16 pm

Chernoslavia wrote:
Bombadil wrote:
Considering what's occurring in my city at the moment I thank god it's essentially a gun free state.


...Aren't you in South Africa?


HK.
Eldest, that's what I am...Tom remembers the first raindrop and the first acorn...he knew the dark under the stars when it was fearless — before the Dark Lord came from Outside..

User avatar
Chernoslavia
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9519
Founded: Jun 13, 2011
Corporate Bordello

Postby Chernoslavia » Mon Sep 16, 2019 8:18 pm

Bombadil wrote:
Chernoslavia wrote:
...Aren't you in South Africa?


HK.


Heckler and Koch? :D
What would things have been like if every security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive? Or if during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand? The Organs would quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!

- Alexander Solzhenitsyn

User avatar
Telconi
Post Czar
 
Posts: 30778
Founded: Oct 08, 2016
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Telconi » Mon Sep 16, 2019 8:18 pm

Bombadil wrote:
Telconi wrote:Would you mind if someone did just walk around town with one, why or why not?


Considering what's occurring in my city at the moment I thank god it's essentially a gun free state.


Which is interesting, because you said you didn't have a problem with guns. I find it odd that you say you don't have a problem with guns, and yet you "thank God" that there aren't any around.
-2.25 LEFT
-3.23 LIBERTARIAN

PRO:
-Weapons Rights
-Gender Equality
-LGBTQ Rights
-Racial Equality
-Religious Freedom
-Freedom of Speech
-Freedom of Association
-Life
-Limited Government
-Non Interventionism
-Labor Unions
-Environmental Protections
ANTI:
-Racism
-Sexism
-Bigotry In All Forms
-Government Overreach
-Government Surveillance
-Freedom For Security Social Transactions
-Unnecessary Taxes
-Excessively Specific Government Programs
-Foreign Entanglements
-Religious Extremism
-Fascists Masquerading as "Social Justice Warriors"

"The Constitution is NOT an instrument for the government to restrain the people,it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government-- lest it come to dominate our lives and interests." ~ Patrick Henry

User avatar
Bombadil
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11905
Founded: Oct 13, 2011
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Bombadil » Mon Sep 16, 2019 8:22 pm

Chernoslavia wrote:
Bombadil wrote:
HK.


Heckler and Koch? :D


Even in airports, where I can see their use, I still find it odd when I see those.. I was in Paris a couple of years ago over Christmas and there was a terrorist scare in the airport when I was checking in. All these armed police with H+K's came running in and ordered us out onto the pavement.. if you're really unused to seeing guns it's unnerving to be faced with them.

Telconi wrote:Which is interesting, because you said you didn't have a problem with guns. I find it odd that you say you don't have a problem with guns, and yet you "thank God" that there aren't any around.


I don't have a problem with guns given their proper and responsible use. There simply isn't much hunting here.. but then I think the idea of everyone owning a gun, or walking around town with them, is in theory a fine idea until you see society breaking down.

I mean civil wars are perpetuated by the global gun trade, there was a flow map of where guns come from and go to and it's depressing, flowing from the UK, France, US and Russia into economically and societally divided regions.

It's easy to support gun ownership in a statistically safe place.
Last edited by Bombadil on Mon Sep 16, 2019 8:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Eldest, that's what I am...Tom remembers the first raindrop and the first acorn...he knew the dark under the stars when it was fearless — before the Dark Lord came from Outside..

User avatar
LiberNovusAmericae
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6363
Founded: Mar 10, 2018
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby LiberNovusAmericae » Mon Sep 16, 2019 8:22 pm

Bombadil wrote:
Chernoslavia wrote:
...Aren't you in South Africa?


HK.

That won't stop the PLA from firing their guns.
Call me Liber or LNA for short so there is no confusion between me and others with similar names.
Not to be confused with Novus America. We are different people with very different political opinions.
Tarsonis wrote:No. You disagree with Gauth therefore he will take every opportunity to report you to the mods, no matter how trivial. Welcome to NS.
Death to North Korea!

User avatar
Chernoslavia
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9519
Founded: Jun 13, 2011
Corporate Bordello

Postby Chernoslavia » Mon Sep 16, 2019 8:22 pm

Telconi wrote:
Bombadil wrote:
Considering what's occurring in my city at the moment I thank god it's essentially a gun free state.


Which is interesting, because you said you didn't have a problem with guns. I find it odd that you say you don't have a problem with guns, and yet you "thank God" that there aren't any around.


Considering Hong Kong is being strong armed by the PRC, I'd rather people have easier access to guns.
What would things have been like if every security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive? Or if during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand? The Organs would quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!

- Alexander Solzhenitsyn

User avatar
LiberNovusAmericae
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6363
Founded: Mar 10, 2018
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby LiberNovusAmericae » Mon Sep 16, 2019 8:23 pm

Chernoslavia wrote:
Telconi wrote:
Which is interesting, because you said you didn't have a problem with guns. I find it odd that you say you don't have a problem with guns, and yet you "thank God" that there aren't any around.


Considering Hong Kong is being strong armed by the PRC, I'd rather people have easier access to guns.

He might be in the pro-China political camp.
Last edited by LiberNovusAmericae on Mon Sep 16, 2019 8:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Call me Liber or LNA for short so there is no confusion between me and others with similar names.
Not to be confused with Novus America. We are different people with very different political opinions.
Tarsonis wrote:No. You disagree with Gauth therefore he will take every opportunity to report you to the mods, no matter how trivial. Welcome to NS.
Death to North Korea!

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Andsed, Cannot think of a name, Catsfern, Celritannia, Druing, Dumb Ideologies, Duvniask, Ethel mermania, Fahran, Fartsniffage, Gonville and Caius, Google Adsense [Bot], Gormwood, Ifreann, Juristonia, Kargintina the Third, Mundane, Nanatsu no Tsuki, Newne Carriebean7, Nobel Hobos 2, Ostroeuropa, Proctopeo, Shrillland, Tarsonis, The Biggles Syndicate, The Black Forrest, The Chuck, The East Marches II, The Empire of Pretantia, Thermodolia, United Muscovite Nations

Advertisement

Remove ads