2nd Amendment

Thread Tools
  #61  
Old 12-11-2006, 08:57 AM
Board Regular
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Greenville SC
Posts: 300
Default

[quote="golfhobo"]Reedeemed said:

The "militia" our forefathers write about is a completely different group than the National Guard (For one thing the National Guard came to being after the Spanish American War. That is a long time before the writing of the the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.).
Um... Reedeemed.... you need to re-read the links. The Spanish-American war was 1898. The Constitution was written in 1787. The Bill of Rights in 1791. And the "first" Militia Act in 1792.

oops. ops:

would you believe I meant to put after.
 
  #62  
Old 12-11-2006, 09:07 AM
golfhobo's Avatar
Board Icon
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: the 19th hole / NC
Posts: 9,647
Default

[quote="Redeemed"]
Originally Posted by golfhobo
Reedeemed said:

The "militia" our forefathers write about is a completely different group than the National Guard (For one thing the National Guard came to being after the Spanish American War. That is a long time before the writing of the the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.).
Um... Reedeemed.... you need to re-read the links. The Spanish-American war was 1898. The Constitution was written in 1787. The Bill of Rights in 1791. And the "first" Militia Act in 1792.

oops. ops:

would you believe I meant to put after.
I assumed as much, but it doesn't help your argument. :lol:

It only helps to "isolate" what the forefathers intended during a completely different time, from what became the reality in our country.

In one of the links I provided, even the spokesperson for the N.G. says that the term is a "misnomer." It is the State's Guard.... organized, administrated, funded, disciplined and subject to call up by the Federal Military. But.... it IS commanded by the Governor, and any use of it must be acquiesced to, or instigated by, the STATE Legislature. It IS the State Militia. It IS staffed by officers of its own choosing. And, it does NOT include YOU unless you sign up - voluntarily. :wink:

It is ALSO "intended" for the protection of, and service to, the citizens of its OWN state.
 
__________________
Remember... friends are few and far between.

TRUCKIN' AIN'T FOR WUSSES!!!

"I am willing to admit that I was wrong." The Rev.
  #63  
Old 12-11-2006, 11:40 AM
golfhobo's Avatar
Board Icon
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: the 19th hole / NC
Posts: 9,647
Default

Redeemed:

I almost missed your response at the bottom of the last page. I think we agree on many points, and I'm not here to beat you to death over the differences. Even "I" wasn't aware of some of the legislation that has "modified" the Guard through the years until I started the research for this debate. However, If you'll revisit my original contentions, you will find that they are pretty much ALL supported by the following link.

http://www.answers.com/topic/united-...national-guard

Please read the ENTIRE page... all the way to the bottom. You will find some support for parts of YOUR argument, as well as enough to support MINE.

Please pay attention to such words as "in times of emergency." This delineates the times when the President is CIC as opposed to Governor command.

My point is... and always has been.... that the Nat Guard IS the evolution of the MILITIA. And therefore, any reference to the militia in the 2nd Ammendment would NOW refer to the National Guard. (yes, the terms are interchangeable by today's definitions and legal scholars.)

If, as a result, that changes your understanding of the 2nd Ammendment, then MY job is done.

Here is just an excerpt that covers SOME of the major points for those who won't read the entire link:

Encyclopedia > National Guard:

U.S. militia. The militia is authorized by the Constitution of the United States, which also defines the militia's functions and the federal and state role. Article 1, Section 8 provides that Congress shall have the power to call forth “the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions.” Congress was entrusted with organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, but the appointment of officers and the training of the militia were reserved to the states. Further provisions were made in the Second Amendment. In peacetime the National Guard is placed under state jurisdiction and can be used by governors to quell local disturbances, as in Newark and Detroit riots in 1967, and to help in times of local disasters, such as floods and hurricanes. In times of war or other emergencies the National Guard is absorbed into the active service of the United States and the president is commander in chief. The National Guard has been partially mobilized during the Korean War, the Berlin crisis of 1961, and the Persian Gulf War and for peacekeeping in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The National Guard's equipment and personnel are standardized to conform with U.S. army regulations. Enlistment is voluntary; compensation, paid by the federal government, is given for periods of drill and field training. The Air National Guard was formed in 1947.

.............[next section]

...After the American Revolution, the First Congress of the United States did not consider the formation of a militia a top priority, and it disbanded the Continental Army. Congress did not officially debate the notion of a militia until the Constitutional Convention in 1787. The Constitution authorized a standing army in its Army Clause (art. I, § 8, cl. 12) and provided for a militia under the Militia Clauses (U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cls. 15-16). Under the Constitution, the militia is to be available for federal service for three distinct purposes: "to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions." Congress is to organize and discipline the militia, and the states are to appoint officers and train the soldiers.

The National Guard, whose main responsibility since its inception had been the protection of colonial settlements, faced its first significant challenge when it tried to defend the settlements from Native American domination. In 1789, the federal government formed a War Department of approximately seven hundred men for the purpose of defending U.S. soil and its settlements from Native American attack. These small armies failed, and Congress responded to the failure of its small armies to fight off Native Americans in the West by enacting the Militia Act of 1792 (May 8, 1792, ch. 33, I Stat. 271 [repealed 1903]); this act was the militia's only permanent organizing legislation for more than one hundred years. While the act governed the militia, the United States endured three wars—the War of 1812, the Civil War, and the Spanish-American War—and the militia was ineffective in all three. Congress replaced the act with the Dick Act of 1903 (32 Stat. 775) to transform "a frontier police force into a respected and modern fighting machine."

The Dick Act provided for an organized militia—to be named the National Guard—that would conform to the organization of the Army, be equipped through federal funds, and be trained by Army instructors. The act consisted of twenty-six sections and set forth new provisions that had previously only applied to the Army, but now also applied to the newly formed National Guard, including a nine-month limit for reservists' service on active duty, a provision that when on active duty, the reservists would be guided by Army rules and regulations and would receive the same pay as that given to Army soldiers, and a new requirement for the performance of twenty-four drills per year and a five-day summer camp. The act also gave states' governors certain powers over their Guard units, such as the power to excuse their troops from any of the drills or summer camp.
 
__________________
Remember... friends are few and far between.

TRUCKIN' AIN'T FOR WUSSES!!!

"I am willing to admit that I was wrong." The Rev.
  #64  
Old 12-14-2006, 12:14 PM
Board Regular
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Greenville SC
Posts: 300
Default

golfhobo,

Sorry I have not responded sooner. Freight is up the last week to 10 days and they have been running me pretty hard. So when I get home I have my 10 hrs to eat and sleep then get back for another 14.

I think we do agree on many points about the current status of the National Guard and its function. Where we differ is how it should affect the definition in regards to the Second Amendment. I still believe that the forefathers original intention in writing the 2nd Amendment, and its original definition of militia, should still play the major role in defining the right.

Thanks for doing the research and posting the links. I have enjoyed reading the little bit of information I have had time to read so far. As you can probably tell, the 2nd Amendment, the Constitution, and US History is a favorite subject of mine.
 
  #65  
Old 12-16-2006, 03:08 PM
Rookie
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 24
Default Re: 2nd Amendment

Originally Posted by golfhobo
Originally Posted by terrylamar
" I've never killed an animal for sport.... and I don't need an UZI to do so. "

I couldn't let this go, and I didn't want to hijack the other thread. The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting or any type of sport shooting. It has everything to do with protecting ourselves from our government and other outside forces. To own or not to own a firearms is a personal decision. By not owning and training with one you are avoiding your responsibility as a citizen to protect the great nation of ours. Whether you desire it or not you are the Militia.
Sorry, but you are mistaken. The second ammendment was written at a time when the "settlers" were responsible for their own security from foreign governments that owned territories bordering the original colonies, Indians, and marauders. Also, the government couldn't and didn't equip the people with arms.

The National Guard replaced these "colonial" militias, and became the de facto MILITIA for each state. THEY are trained, armed, and sworn to the protection of their respective states and the U.S. Government.

Now, I agree that the Constitution gives us the right to bear "arms" but it is NOT a blanket proviso to own "assault weapons." If you want to own guns for hunting, OR for personal protection, that is fine with ME and the government. But, NO government is going to allow its people to own MORE firepower than its established military.

This is a touchy subject, and I DO see both sides to the story, but to help prevent and avoid mass shootings by unstable citizens, I see no reason to NOT register your weapons, nor do I see the need to own assault weapons. There are "clubs" where you can go to shoot them if that gets your rocks off.

But, the fact is.... that the "militia" as you refer to it.... is now the National Guard, established, armed, trained, and commanded by the State's Governor. They ARE the "people" as they are citizen soldiers. So the right of the "people" to bear arms, for the purpose of a well armed militia, is satisfied and authorized in the entity of the Guard.

As for "ME" being the milita.... there is no law saying I HAVE to own a gun. If the s##t hits the fan, I will be there. I'm sure I will be issued a gun. I know how to use it, and I will not shrink from my duty.
You're wrong. The militia and the N.G. are to different things entirely. This difference is born out in the laws of our states. My state has statutes that reference various forms of the state militia as differentiated from the N.G.

Simply put, the militia is every able bodied man.

God gives us our rights and not government. Therefore government has no standing when it comes to defining what is proper about self defense and what is not.

If you don't like that, there is nothing you can do about it.
 
__________________
Keep The Shiny Side Up
  #66  
Old 12-22-2006, 12:11 PM
Senior Board Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Dancing with the bright Pixies at University of Edinburgh
Posts: 2,575
Default

I have followed this thread with interest, and as it seems to be a debate on textual analysis, I would appreciate it if someone could post the enitirity of the second amendment of your constitution here so that I could give my unbiased opinion based purely upon the grammar, context, ambiguity of the piece. It would also help me to form basis of persuasion for a forthcoming assignment in my work. I am studying for an HND in legal practices which will hopefully lead on to an LLB. Thanks, Wot...
 
__________________


Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
  #67  
Old 12-22-2006, 01:08 PM
Member
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: "The Shoals" Alabama
Posts: 108
Default

Originally Posted by wot i life
I have followed this thread with interest, and as it seems to be a debate on textual analysis, I would appreciate it if someone could post the enitirity of the second amendment of your constitution here so that I could give my unbiased opinion based purely upon the grammar, context, ambiguity of the piece. It would also help me to form basis of persuasion for a forthcoming assignment in my work. I am studying for an HND in legal practices which will hopefully lead on to an LLB. Thanks, Wot...
Here ya go Wot...some interesting reading here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_...s_Constitution
 
  #68  
Old 12-22-2006, 10:55 PM
Senior Board Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Dancing with the bright Pixies at University of Edinburgh
Posts: 2,575
Default

[edit] Commas in the Second Amendment
There is some question as to whether the Second Amendment contains a comma after the word "militia," and a parallel debate as to whether the presence or lack of this comma influences the overall meaning of the Amendment.

On March 4, 1789, the completed, hand-written Bill of Rights was approved by the first Federal Congress, and attested to (signed) by Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg, the Speaker of the House of Representatives and John Adams, the Vice-President of the United States and President of the Senate, as well as the Clerk of the House and the Secretary of the Senate. [4]. In this original signed document, now held by the National Archives, the commas were present. Some of the later type-cast printings of the Constitution, such as those in the National Annals, delete the commas from the Second Amendment.

The U.S. Government is inconsistent in the use of the comma in publications. The Statutes at Large (the official permanent record of all laws enacted) does not include the comma.[22] The Government Printing Office (GPO) has produced versions both with and without this comma.



The above is an extract from the link you gave me dpatt mate, I won,t even go there.

The above is an extract from the link you gave, me, dpatt mate, I won,t even go there

The above is an extract from the link you gave me dpatt, mate, I won,t even go there
.

I very much doubt whether this debate can be resolved on text alone. I know absolutely nothing of common law in America or your entire legal system, to be perfectly honest. So I,ll sit on the sidelines and keep my mouth shut.
 
__________________


Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
  #69  
Old 12-23-2006, 03:49 AM
golfhobo's Avatar
Board Icon
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: the 19th hole / NC
Posts: 9,647
Default

Wot: I realize you are only quoting Wikipedia, so I'm not arguing with you, but there should be no debate about whether a comma was there or not. The Ammendment is written in a way that the comma is REQUIRED. Without it, it is not proper English.

Your 3 line example was interesting. However, none of the sentences are constructed properly. :lol:

And WHEN are you gonna quit using commas for apostrophes??? :lol: :lol:
 
__________________
Remember... friends are few and far between.

TRUCKIN' AIN'T FOR WUSSES!!!

"I am willing to admit that I was wrong." The Rev.
  #70  
Old 12-23-2006, 04:25 AM
Senior Board Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Dancing with the bright Pixies at University of Edinburgh
Posts: 2,575
Default

Originally Posted by golfhobo
Wot: I realize you are only quoting Wikipedia, so I'm not arguing with you, but there should be no debate about whether a comma was there or not. The Ammendment is written in a way that the comma is REQUIRED. Without it, it is not proper English.

Your 3 line example was interesting. However, none of the sentences are constructed properly. :lol:

And WHEN are you gonna quit using commas for apostrophes??? :lol: :lol:
There should be no debate? Why then is that point debated in your own country?
My three line example is purely to highlight the change of direction or context of prose through punctuation. It may pay you to examine your own grammar from time to time before making smart arse comments on that of others. Glass houses....throw stones.... Tchhh tchhhh!
Oh and Merry Christmas :wink:
 
__________________


Nemo Me Impune Lacessit

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On





All times are GMT -12. The time now is 06:31 AM.

Top