Wisco
member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2013
- Messages
- 1,239
Or defined by laws made in pursuance of the Constitution.
2nd Amendment: For the militia, or because of the militia?
- Thread starter grampajack
- Start date
- Status
Or defined by laws made in pursuance of the Constitution.
caribou
Member
Would a Militia be a group of lawfully armed U.S. citizen protesting and resisting a precieved Government crime in progress??
Quack, quack, quack, quack....
Quack, quack, quack, quack....
CapnMac
Member
TSG has no Combat Arms, it's functionally a Support force. The Left Hand tape reads "Texas State Guard" and not "US ARMY" as the TNG troops wear. There's litle or no training but what the individuals bring to TSG.
They do solely answer to the Governor. State law allows for some "activation" of them, but only in the event TNG is federalized and called up out of state.
So, they are and they aren't.
Wisco
member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2013
- Messages
- 1,239
I think I understand what you mean, but it would have to be a pretty clear crime rising to the level of "tyrannical" for any assembled militia taking up arms against the government to be successful and not prosecuted later.
Also, whether organized or unorganized militia, all militia answers to the governor. And if they are organized militia, they can be federalized.
A armed group of men without a national or state commander is just a mob or military coup in waiting.
The strength of the militia as it was 200 years ago is that it was "unorganized" as we would now know it and would be more inclined to support their state than the federal government if there was a conflict between the two.
Both the Federal gov and the States are limited as to what they can regulate according to their specific jurisdictions. Jurisdiction is territorial - except to the extent that it has been expanded extra-territorial to allow the Federal gov to extend reach in it's fake "war on drugs" - another subject. It can only only operate within State jurisdictions where jurisdiction is concurrent with the State(s), i.e. with their agreement, or where the State(s) have ceded jurisdiction. So as to the regulation of firearms within the territorial jurisdiction of the States, it was extended under the commerce clause to regulate sales - a false premise, but it stuck regardless. However, at least for now, the Federal gov can not regulate the private possession of firearms outside it's territorial jurisdictions.I know what the militia was when 2A was written. I think I have explained that. It was primarily made up of civilians for the purpose of a nat'l defense. No such animal today except a few who cling to the concept thinking that it is relevant to keep the gov't in check. Cliven Bundy and his group would qualify. The militia was a para military group by modern definition and needed as I referenced the war of 1812.
http://www.npr.org/2017/07/11/53669...or-4-defendants-in-cliven-bundy-standoff-case
To that end militias have no bearing on 2A today other than maybe as a defense in court.
I support RKBA. What I don't support is peoples insistence that state legislators and congress can't pass laws to regulate firearms based on 2A. To do that would mean that states and congress have no power to regulate anything and everything has to remain static according to the old testament which is what the BOR is in effect when compared to everything that has passed since the country was founded.
NPR's story, in similar fashiion to their other Bolshevik News cronies, is false. Cliven Bundy, his family and supporters did not have an "armed standoff" with the little army of Feds also know as the BLM. A little research should put that straight. There were only a few of them that were armed at all, and mostly with holstered handguns carried openly. Besides, any and all citizens in this country between the ages of 18 and 45 are defacto part of the Unorganized Militia per the United States Code.
A better example would have been the Battle of Athens, Tennessee, 1946
caribou
Member
If there was a ''Like'' button, I'd push it.
Arms in the hands of citizens to resist Gov. tyranny is what its all about. Just exactly what that ''Tyranny'' is or could be, is a different debate, entirely
Once the frog is half boiled he or she does not know the difference between life and liberty - and tyranny.If there was a ''Like'' button, I'd push it.
Arms in the hands of citizens to resist Gov. tyranny is what its all about. Just exactly what that ''Tyranny'' is or could be, is a different debate, entirely
OP
OP
grampajack
AR Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2016
- Messages
- 1,714
Or what congress says it is. ^^^ More relevant information.
Why can't the unorganized militia be the group that rallied around Cliven Bundy? They were pretty unorganized. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it's probably a duck.
According to various quotes from our founders, many of which have been posted here, everyone is part of the unorganized militia, so yes, they would count in that capacity. But the militia of the Constitution is strictly the organized militia. The Bundies were simply "the people" rising up against a tyrannical government.
Well look who's back. I thought this thread wasn't worth your time Mr. high and mighty.
To answer your question, it depends. They certainly wouldn't be a "well regulated" militia. In respect to the 2nd Amendment, they would simply be "the people."
CapnMac
Member
That's not quite so.
The plutocrats in Congress felt they Had To Do Something About Crime. Rather specifically "organized" crime. (Just nothing that prevented aristos from hugely profiting from bootleg trade.) The chosen method was to outlaw all handguns and "readily concealable' weapons. (Once again, we see politicos as a group who will bandwagon around the wrong answer to the wrong question, then same as now.)
Enough grassroots still existed (1/3 of the US population still lived on farms, and their representatives were well aware of it), so, rather than disarm the law-abiding, the politicos demonized the highway bandits, and the weapons they used (which were usually stole from National Guard or Army Armories--so much for "centralized control" as a panacea).
The em0ployed 60% were too busy paying taxes to support the New Deal feel-good programs that lenghtened the Depression another 3-5 years to mount any court cases contesting the legality of the NFA. Then we were distracted by a world-wide war for a while. Then we had to survive the peace, and by the time that dust settled, we had hippies, yippies and undergrounds galore out shooting people. So we piled GCA 68 upon the ttavestiy f NFA, which, by then, was old hat, de rigeur. Mush as the way that no one much gives a second thought to filling out a 4472 anymore--"it's always been that way."
Sigh.
Wisco
member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2013
- Messages
- 1,239
The Bundy's were grazing their beef for free on federal land long after they stopped paying to do so and refused to stop. Their case is hardly a case of tyranny, but one of monetary self interest.
caribou
Member
Nothing high and mighty, I just dont find it worth an argument. The threads good, but you really deviate all over this subject, and no matter ow many times you repeat a lie, its still a lie.....and that holds back a real conversation .........Its your outright lies like ''But the militia of the Constitution is strictly the organized militia.'' You either havent read the 2nd amendment or your lying for argument. Thats lame as hell. You MUST know that the word ''Organized' simply does not exist in the wording of the 2nd Amendment.
As for the Bundy's, If the supporters were properly equipped and working in coordination, under a singular command, they were well regulated ......and They appeared so..... and yes, they were People. Quack Quack Quack Was it 'legal'...??.... May have been to them, but it wasnt to a Federal Judge......
Sooo, good luck, regardless, grandpajack.
Last edited:
CoalTrain49
Member
I disagree. The states have lost total control of the Nat'l Guard. Sure, the governor can call up the Nat'l Guard but so can the fed anytime it wants. The president can also use the Nat'l guard against the wishes of the governor. The governor has no say as to what the fed does with the Nat'l Guard.
http://www.csg.org/knowledgecenter/docs/National Guard Resolution.pdf
Of course the fed can regulate private possession of firearms to the full extent of NFA and CGA. Get caught with an unlicensed automatic weapon and see what happens. It won't matter what state you're in. Even if you're arrested by a state law dog they're just going to let the feds prosecute you because they have more money and more space in the federal pen.
Last edited:
CoalTrain49
Member
I guess the feds didn't see it that way.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/bundy-supporter-sentenced-to-68-years-in-bunkerville-case/
OP
OP
grampajack
AR Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2016
- Messages
- 1,714
The BLM is massively unconstitutional in the first place. The Constitution cites only a few specific instances where the federal government can own state land, and land management is not one of them. Furthermore, the federal government is prohibited from having an armed federal force operating outside of Washington DC. The BLM is an illegal federal standing army protecting illegal federal interests on state land. End of story.
The only one lying here is you. Or you're just too dense to comprehend it. I'm guessing the latter, considering you can't even understand the plain English of the Scalia quote you posted, which you erroneously thought supported your position for reasons I cannot even begin to guess at.
And no. Just no. The Bundies were not a militia as such is defined anywhere in the Constitution. They were not sanctioned by the state, they were not under the command of state officers, they were not federally armed and trained by their state according to federal military doctrine. They were "the people" rising up against an illegal federal takeover of state lands.
To put it in terms you can understand, it does not quack like duck, nor does it walk like a duck. Therefore it is not a duck.
Wisco
member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2013
- Messages
- 1,239
What way? The Feds see it how I described it - Bundy was unlawfully grazing.
Wisco
member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2013
- Messages
- 1,239
It's certainly not the "end of story"!
Standing armies aren't illegal. You keep saying they are. You're incorrect. Many of the Founders were wary of large standing armies, but they still have congress the power to raise armies gave congress the power of the purse to keep them or not.
Camfield v. United States (1897) ruled that the Congress can regulate access to public land, by preventing private landowners from placing fences limiting access to that land.
Constitutional law also includes the laws made in pursuance of the Constitution - it's not the just the Constitution and whatever YOU think it means, which, by the way, conflicts with almost every Supreme Court decision ever rendered.
CoalTrain49
Member
He wasn't recently charged with illegal grazing. You won't spend anytime in jail for that. I think Bundy and the courts already went down that road a long time before Bunkerville.
Ranchers illegally graze their cattle unlawfully all the time in the west. No big deal, the cattle just gets moved when they get caught. It's like renting a house and being evicted for not paying your rent. I think it might have had something to do with the confrontation with the BLM at Bunkerville. Note that originally they weren't going to arrest Bundy, just move his cattle off of federal land, basically evicting him. It all went downhill when the militia got there and the guns came out.
Think of it like this. Sheriff comes to evict you from property you don't own. You pull a gun on the sheriff and you tell him your stuff is staying right where it is. Any attempt to move your stuff and somebody gets shot. How do you think that's going to end? Do you think the sheriff is just going to go away and forget about the whole thing?
The charges he faces now are a little more serious than illegal grazing. Bundy was a squatter in every definition of the term. His time just ran out.
Last edited:
Or the Bonus Army march, or the Ludlow Massacre, or Waco, or Ruby Ridge or..........................
After only seven pages, someone should pontificate in how the means justified the ends, in each and every case.
The LSMs wildly successful pandering of violence by proxy makes it so. There's something for everyone not to like and big.gov can fix it.
But the modern Rubicon is about a bunch of cows?
seriously?
OP
OP
grampajack
AR Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2016
- Messages
- 1,714
Section 8: ...all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
7: To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
13: To provide and maintain a Navy;
15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
16: 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;
17: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;
10th Amendment:
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 more do you need to know? Is the BLM a post office? Do they erect forts, magazines, arsenals, dock yards, or other needful buildings? No, they do not. There is simply no room in the Constitution for the BLM to even exist. First of all, they're a standing army. Second of all, they should not be operating outside of Washington DC, or rightfully owned federal lands, like military bases, arsenals, and dock yards.
Has the supreme court said something different? Sure, but they sold their souls long ago. Do you honestly support all supreme court decisions, even when they're obviously self serving and in direct conflict with the Constitution?
OP
OP
grampajack
AR Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2016
- Messages
- 1,714
Strictly speaking, they aren't. But neither is the National Guard. Philosophically, I think they're closer to the real thing than the guard, but practically I think the guard is closer. The TSG does train with small arms; I've seen them doing it. Naturally they don't have tanks, grenade launchers, and all that jazz. I'm sure they would like to, but they're terribly under funded.
The Bundy s had disputed "changes in the rules" from the 1990s which were calculated to drive all the ranchers off the land for Harry Reid's sweetheart deal with a Chinese company to use the land for something else. Cliven Bundy was one of the last holdouts.
This WAS all about tyranny. For the gain of a few in political and corporate positions.
Left the tracks a while ago.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked