Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 345 ... LastLast
Results 106 to 140 of 247

Thread: Do we still need that militia?

  1. #106
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,283

    Default Re: Do we still need that militia?

    Lashing out? Hardly. I love you guys. You have lots of good boaty stuff.

    Glad we are not a colony because of...well...we had guns....but that’s hardly relevant to this discussion.

  2. #107
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,283

    Default Re: Do we still need that militia?

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    Good. back to the OP. The second has been corrupted by the SCOTUS through the years, and as the militia as called for in the Constitution has been replaced by the National Guard, the second is now superfluous and can be repealed.
    Or we can change the name of the Guard to Militia and solidify the right. Surprised it has not come up. Maybe something Trump can do in his second term?

  3. #108
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    2,421

    Default Re: Do we still need that militia?

    Quote Originally Posted by bluedog225 View Post
    Lashing out? Hardly. I love you guys. You have lots of good boaty stuff.

    Glad we are not a colony because of...well...we had guns....but that’s hardly relevant to this discussion.
    What's relevant to this discussion is that you claimed that the British can't use libraries, the internet and the television to become informed about gun laws. Where is the evidence for this claim?

    What's also relevant is that the fact that polls on gun laws are still being done in the UK prove that your inference that hate-speech laws stop such polls is utterly untrue. So not only are you wrong on the facts, you're not even bothering to do simple research to check whether you are right or wrong.

    While we're at it, if it was guns that stopped the USA from remaining a colony, why aren't Canada, Australia and New Zealand still colonies?
    Last edited by Chris249; 09-09-2018 at 06:04 PM.

  4. #109
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    2,421

    Default Re: Do we still need that militia?

    Quote Originally Posted by satx78247 View Post
    PeterSibley,

    YES, the SCOTUS did in 1939 in the MILLER decision.
    "Well regulated", said the majority means "functioning", as in a clock is said to be "well regulated if it runs properly".

    Moreover, "the militia" according to MILLER is EVERYONE (including women & older children) IF the manmade/natural emergency is so severe as to require their service for local rescue/recovery/restoration of normalcy.
    Several times in the 20th century there have been "calls" for common militia & generally for short periods in the wake of hurricanes/tornados/floods.
    (The last two times that I know of were for Hurricane Carla & Hurricane Camille. = In both cases parishes in South LA & counties in Southeastern TX called up civilians for hurricane recovery/rescue/restoration for periods over 30 days. - The militia was placed under the control of their local sheriff, to supplement the NG.)

    Note: NC, NY, SC, TX & some other States have 2 "militia groups" I.e., BOTH a uniformed State Defense Force (separate from the NG) & an "unorganized" militia. = Members of an SDF may NOT be deployed to any other State unless the governments of BOTH States agree.
    (OK & TX have a cooperative emergency agreement that their State forces MAY be deployed to the other State to deal with manmade or natural disasters. = The Texas State Guard has sent members to help with tornado recovery in SE Oklahoma.)

    Is there a reason for needing the militia in 2018? - YES, imo, there certainly is. = I was involved as a volunteer during & after Hurricane Harvey in 2017. = I was deployed to run an evacuation center.
    Had Harvey been much worse, (He was BAD ENOUGH for anyone here in TX!) the TX State Guard would have been called up to assist in the recovery effort & to supplement local governments, the DPS, Rangers, federal authorities & the various volunteer groups.

    yours, tex
    Tex, it's great that you and others volunteered. But do you have to be in an armed militia to volunteer when natural disasters occur? Other countries have organisations of volunteer citizens that help out when disaster strikes and they don't have guns.

  5. #110
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Above flood level, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    17,701

    Default Re: Do we still need that militia?

    Quote Originally Posted by twodot View Post
    The poster is silly hyperbolic.
    Y'reckon?

    Maybe Tex should pour another Bourbon and watch this...

    Jarndyce and Jarndyce

    The Mighty Pippin
    Mirror 30141
    Looe
    Dragon KA93

  6. #111
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Sequim, Washington
    Posts
    5,957

    Default Re: Do we still need that militia?

    Quote Originally Posted by satx78247 View Post
    DuncanGibbs,

    Fyi, I don't consume alcoholic beverages & haven't in 30 years plus. = 3 decades ago, virtually all servicemen "drank like fish".
    (I then met "an angel unaware", who doesn't approve of drinking & so I quit.)

    You really shouldn't make comments on public forums that make you appear to be FOOLISH to normal folks.

    Would you care for a "do over"?? = Instead of mindlessly agreeing with the LEFTIST, half-educated, ANTI-GUN IDIOTS, please tell me why I'm wrong.

    yours, tex
    No Bourbon for him, no, just Kool-Aid.
    PaulF

  7. #112
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    2,421

    Default Re: Do we still need that militia?

    Quote Originally Posted by satx78247 View Post
    Chris248u; twodot,

    And you KNOW that how?? = Have YOU served in a militia anywhere or are you "talking through your hat"??

    In case you don't know (and/or don't want to know,) MOST of the volunteers during HARVEY were armed & ready to defend ourselves & the people who were victims of the storm.
    (Fwiw, I was repeatedly asked by DPS, SD, local police,: You ARE armed, aren't you? And YEP I was carrying a concealed 9mm Sig-Sauer pistol & had a 12-gauge shotgun in the truck.)
    The "neighborhood defense groups" WERE armed with firearms & MOSTLY with shotguns or "deer rifles", after the first looters appeared.

    ImVho, anyone who is "out in the storm" & MAY be victimized by looters, roving groups of criminals & other predators, whether 2-footed or 4-footed, is STUPID to be UNARMED. = Such persons are called VICTIMS.
    (Unless you HAVE been in such a situation, you "know NOT & know NOT that you know NOT.")

    ADDENDA: The aftermath of KATRINA taught everyone in south LA, including those of us who were present but not from LA, how FOOLISH that the mayor of NOLA was to disarm the locals, as that left the civilians/householders to be PREYED UPON by criminals.
    (In the aftermath of KATRINA, being unarmed & helpless made it LIKELY that you would be abused/raped/robbed/assaulted/murdered by the same sort of persons, who commit crimes in "normal circumstances".)

    yours, tex
    What do you mean "And you KNOW that how?" Read my post. I asked a question, namely "do you have to be in an armed militia to volunteer when natural disasters occur?"
    Anyone who can read can see that was a question. I didn't claim to know the answer.

    Okay, if you have lots of guns in a community, then perhaps the people who go into a disaster scene may need guns. But if you don't have lots of guns already in the area (or you do have lots of guns but a different attitude towards them) then it seems you don't need guns.
    Did the Japanese who responded to the tidal wave need guns? Do the Italians who respond to earthquake disasters need guns? Do the Australian volunteers who respond to bushfires need guns? Did those who responded to the Boxing Day Tsunamai need guns? If those people didn't need guns, then it's obvious that in most areas, you don't need a militia with guns to respond to disasters.

    It seems that the only problem guns "solve" after disasters is a problem caused by widespread gun ownership itself.

    EDIT - I probably shouldn't respond to you after reading the vile, disgusting, revolting, lying and hate-filled posts you have written.
    I know there are intelligent, educated pro-gun people and I respect those who can be reasonable. You are not one of them. You have effectively called millions of people who prefer tighter gun controls a bunch of morons. That is arrogant beyond belief. To stereotype so many people who are for gun controls as "half educated" is nothing but a lie. There are people I know personally who have been to some of the world's top universities and earned PhDs who are for gun control. Even if you don't agree with their views, it is nothing but a slanderous lie to call such people "half educated" or "morons".

    Luckily, the Vietnam and WW2 vets I have known are far better and more understanding people than you are. By the way, I think you've already slandered one or two Vietnam vets here.
    Last edited by Chris249; 09-10-2018 at 12:23 AM.

  8. #113
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    victoria, australia. (1 address now)
    Posts
    51,523

    Default Re: Do we still need that militia?

    Quote Originally Posted by twodot View Post
    Fact remains, this country does not need weekend warrior militias as a component of common sense natural disaster management.
    It may be that due to every man and his dog, including satx and his cronies, running about armed in a disaster zone that in the US you do need armed rescue personnel.
    I have been involved with large bushfire fighting and it's aftermath several times in my life and not once would a firearm have been of any assistance. Except maybe for dealing with burnt stock, but farmers and the State and Commonwealth authorities were dealing with that post the firefront.

  9. #114
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    2,421

    Default Re: Do we still need that militia?

    Yes, and if we follow Tex's logic, it means he can't comment on countries with strong gun controls because he is not in a country with strong gun controls.

  10. #115
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    UK. Cornwall, Suffolk.
    Posts
    4,460

    Default Re: Do we still need that militia?

    Tex, you feel the need to have guns because everybody has guns. Can you imagine a scenario where no one has guns? Can you imagine a scenario where no one gets shot? Where there are no gun shops, no gun culture, and everybody feels pretty safe because no one has guns? Sounds pretty relaxed doesn't it?

  11. #116
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    victoria, australia. (1 address now)
    Posts
    51,523

    Default Re: Do we still need that militia?

    Having had an American sailing at our club last year, a man used to always carrying a gun I can say that he was scared.
    By the end of the season not so much.

  12. #117
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    victoria, australia. (1 address now)
    Posts
    51,523

    Default Re: Do we still need that militia?

    What has set Tex off?
    Donald is POTUS, his party holds sway, he's loading the USSC for the forseeable future making it more of another political institution than it ever was. There is no threat to his or Alan's guns unless Donald decides that they are dangerous to him and his power. So what has happened that he feels the need to be so extreme on a rather small forum about wooden boats?
    If he feels his gun 'rights' are under threat then who from?

  13. #118
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    2,421

    Default Re: Do we still need that militia?

    Quote Originally Posted by skuthorp View Post
    Having had an American sailing at our club last year, a man used to always carrying a gun I can say that he was scared.
    By the end of the season not so much.
    We have an American friend who was a fierce "right to bear arms" type when he moved over here. He was also a perfect example of the fact that there are pro-gun people who aren't like Tex - he was intelligent, well educated, volunteered to help his community, and knew how to discuss the issue without throwing stupid and vile insults around. We disagreed on gun control but I respected him as a person.

    After living in a country with strong gun laws for a few years, he has totally changed his tune. As Lupo notes, once he lived in a place where he didn't need to worry about lots of guns being around he realised how much safer he was, and how much safer he felt.

  14. #119
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    UK. Cornwall, Suffolk.
    Posts
    4,460

    Default Re: Do we still need that militia?

    I simply could not live daily with the knowledge that anyone anywhere could be carrying a weapon that could blow holes in my body. I cannot imagine living with that paranoia, and am glad I don't have to. America has been living through a small arms race, and it can only go one way. Sad but true.

  15. #120
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    victoria, australia. (1 address now)
    Posts
    51,523

    Default Re: Do we still need that militia?

    I term it as another civil war, the extent of the casualties support my assertion.

  16. #121
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,283

    Default Re: Do we still need that militia?


  17. #122
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    2 states: NJ and confusion
    Posts
    30,438

    Default Re: Do we still need that militia?

    Quote Originally Posted by twodot View Post
    To elaborate, I have no problem with strict gun control such that a person can be trained and licensed to carry a handgun while volunteering in the event of a natural disaster. Moreover, we do have a well-regulated militia which serves in the event of natural disasters - the National Guard.

    However, at present there is no national conversation on how to better respond to natural disasters. In that vacuum, weekend warrior militias are not a consideration.
    KInd of my sentiments. My point is that we cannot get to any sensible gun regulations because of the "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."


    Those words are only there because "A well regulated militia being necessary..." precede them.

    That is why I am trying to make those words central to the discussion. The 'well regulated militia' of the 2nd amendment WAS what is now our National Guard. It was citizens who the government supplied with 'arms' (not limited to guns) and trained. THAT militia has not been needed for a long time, and the 2nd Amendment needs to be simply deemed as moot as the 3rd has been.

    Sans the 2nd amendment, the constitution says NOTHING about what arms the public can own or in what way the state can regulate the ownership of arms.
    How do we form a mutiny? Our new captain is navigating poorly.

  18. #123
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    2 states: NJ and confusion
    Posts
    30,438

    Default Re: Do we still need that militia?

    Quote Originally Posted by Chris249 View Post
    We have an American friend who was a fierce "right to bear arms" type when he moved over here. He was also a perfect example of the fact that there are pro-gun people who aren't like Tex - he was intelligent, well educated, volunteered to help his community, and knew how to discuss the issue without throwing stupid and vile insults around. We disagreed on gun control but I respected him as a person.

    After living in a country with strong gun laws for a few years, he has totally changed his tune. As Lupo notes, once he lived in a place where he didn't need to worry about lots of guns being around he realised how much safer he was, and how much safer he felt.
    Next question: If there was NO 2nd amendment, why would one NOT have the right to own/bear arms?
    How do we form a mutiny? Our new captain is navigating poorly.

  19. #124
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    2 states: NJ and confusion
    Posts
    30,438

    Default Re: Do we still need that militia?

    Just as information, the last time Stephanie Ruhle updated violent gun incidents year to date, we were approaching 40,000.
    How do we form a mutiny? Our new captain is navigating poorly.

  20. #125
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,283

    Default Re: Do we still need that militia?

    It's clear what you are trying to do. But understand that under our Constitution, the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of our laws. And if you read the language quoted above, or better yet, the entire opinion, you will come to know that sensible gun regulations are, in fact, allowed.

  21. #126
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,283

    Default Re: Do we still need that militia?

    I thought knives were more deadly than guns. They also put a hole in you.

  22. #127
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    victoria, australia. (1 address now)
    Posts
    51,523

    Default Re: Do we still need that militia?

    The USSC has been a politically tainted organisation for many years, it is no longer adequate to it's purpose.

  23. #128
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,283

    Default Re: Do we still need that militia?

    That's not something for you to decide. But thanks for sharing your opinion.

  24. #129
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    2 states: NJ and confusion
    Posts
    30,438

    Default Re: Do we still need that militia?

    Quote Originally Posted by bluedog225 View Post
    It's clear what you are trying to do. But understand that under our Constitution, the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of our laws. And if you read the language quoted above, or better yet, the entire opinion, you will come to know that sensible gun regulations are, in fact, allowed.
    Would banning assault weapons be sensible? Can you pass any regs the NRA doesn't like?
    How do we form a mutiny? Our new captain is navigating poorly.

  25. #130
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    victoria, australia. (1 address now)
    Posts
    51,523

    Default Re: Do we still need that militia?

    Quote Originally Posted by bluedog225 View Post
    That's not something for you to decide. But thanks for sharing your opinion.
    The top court in the country can only do it's job as the ultimate arbiter of law and justice if there is continuing bipartisan agreement on precisely that matter. It's been a very long time since that has been true. It's a politically corrupted court.

  26. #131
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    2 states: NJ and confusion
    Posts
    30,438

    Default Re: Do we still need that militia?

    Quote Originally Posted by skuthorp View Post
    The top court in the country can only do it's job as the ultimate arbiter of law and justice if there is continuing bipartisan agreement on precisely that matter. It's been a very long time since that has been true. It's a politically corrupted court.
    The court would be fodder for another thread, but a discussion worth having. I has suggested some time back that one party ought not nominate two justices in a row. If Garland had been given a hearing and confirmed, and Hillary had won the election, McConnel would get to nominate next justice. Trump nominated Gorsuch, so Schumer should nominate Kennedy's replacement.

    That would require an amendment, I guess, but it seems it would help prevent stacking the court.
    How do we form a mutiny? Our new captain is navigating poorly.

  27. #132
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,283

    Default Re: Do we still need that militia?

    Quote Originally Posted by skuthorp View Post
    The top court in the country can only do it's job as the ultimate arbiter of law and justice if there is continuing bipartisan agreement on precisely that matter. It's been a very long time since that has been true. It's a politically corrupted court.
    Neither statement is true. And note that it is more difficult to politically influence a Justice appointed for life.

  28. #133
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    victoria, australia. (1 address now)
    Posts
    51,523

    Default Re: Do we still need that militia?

    Not if you appoint biased, and already dubious ones in the first place. Especially if they've got something to hide………...

  29. #134
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,283

    Default Re: Do we still need that militia?

    Quote Originally Posted by John Smith View Post
    Would banning assault weapons be sensible? Can you pass any regs the NRA doesn't like?
    Assuming your public policy goal is to reduce gun deaths, the test is generally what is the least regulation needed to achieve your goal. I thought handguns were responsible for many times more deaths. Therefore your proposal would be flawed.
    Aka not sensible. Can we have laws to try to keep guns out of the hands of felons. Yep.

    Also, what's an assault rifle? If I paint my grandfather's old Browning 270 black is it included?

  30. #135
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,283

    Default Re: Do we still need that militia?

    Quote Originally Posted by skuthorp View Post
    Not if you appoint biased, and already dubious ones in the first place. Especially if they've got something to hide………...
    We have to appoint human beings. Flawed as they are. Each with a history and a set of personal beliefs. It has always been so.

    Both hands are skilled in doing evil; the ruler demands gifts, the judge accepts bribes, the powerful dictate what they desire--they all conspire together. The best of them is like a brier, the most upright worse than a thorn hedge.*Micah 7:3-4

  31. #136
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    41,456

    Default Re: Do we still need that militia?

    Quote Originally Posted by bluedog225 View Post
    I thought knives were more deadly than guns. They also put a hole in you.
    Tell that to Stephen Paddock's victims.
    You really do post crap at times, please remember to engage brain before operating typing finger.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  32. #137
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    2 states: NJ and confusion
    Posts
    30,438

    Default Re: Do we still need that militia?

    Quote Originally Posted by bluedog225 View Post
    Assuming your public policy goal is to reduce gun deaths, the test is generally what is the least regulation needed to achieve your goal. I thought handguns were responsible for many times more deaths. Therefore your proposal would be flawed.
    Aka not sensible. Can we have laws to try to keep guns out of the hands of felons. Yep.

    Also, what's an assault rifle? If I paint my grandfather's old Browning 270 black is it included?
    What constitutes reasonable regs can be honestly debated. Many handguns are automatic.

    My entire point in this thread is we cannot have an honest discussion about reasonable regulations because those opposed to virtually any regulation point to the 2nd amendment, but only the second clause of it.

    I think a reasonable discussion aimed simply at the question of if we still need the militia referenced as the reason for the 2nd amendment (which is not the same thing as people today call a militia) we might reach a point of sane conversation over guns and regulating them.

    My primary purpose is to drive a discussion aimed directly at the first clause; the one that expresses the need for a well regulated militia as the reason the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    We no longer need that militia. Haven't needed it for a lot of years. That should render the entire 2nd moot just as the 3rd has come to be moot.

    Sans the second amendment, there is nothing in the constitution that would prohibit you from owning weapons, or arms, but we'd likely be more able to have reasonable laws regulating them.
    How do we form a mutiny? Our new captain is navigating poorly.

  33. #138
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Sequim, Washington
    Posts
    5,957

    Default Re: Do we still need that militia?

    Quote Originally Posted by John Smith View Post
    What constitutes reasonable regs can be honestly debated. Many handguns are automatic.

    My entire point in this thread is we cannot have an honest discussion about reasonable regulations because those opposed to virtually any regulation point to the 2nd amendment, but only the second clause of it.

    I think a reasonable discussion aimed simply at the question of if we still need the militia referenced as the reason for the 2nd amendment (which is not the same thing as people today call a militia) we might reach a point of sane conversation over guns and regulating them.

    My primary purpose is to drive a discussion aimed directly at the first clause; the one that expresses the need for a well regulated militia as the reason the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    We no longer need that militia. Haven't needed it for a lot of years. That should render the entire 2nd moot just as the 3rd has come to be moot.

    Sans the second amendment, there is nothing in the constitution that would prohibit you from owning weapons, or arms, but we'd likely be more able to have reasonable laws regulating them.
    When I saw this post , I thought...I wonder what Tex will think of this?

    Then I noticed, Tex is no more. I missed it, did he shoot himself?
    PaulF

  34. #139
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,283

    Default Re: Do we still need that militia?

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    Tell that to Stephen Paddock's victims.
    You really do post crap at times, please remember to engage brain before operating typing finger.
    I've been too enthusiastic with my arguments. I apologize for the offense.

  35. #140
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    41,456

    Default Re: Do we still need that militia?

    Quote Originally Posted by bluedog225 View Post
    I've been too enthusiastic with my arguments. I apologize for the offense.
    Fairy Nuff!
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •