The Ability to Wage War

[Hardsheller]

Good Points Phillip,

The sad reality about guns is that most people who own them and carry them are not mentally prepared to use them and thus when confronted with a hostile situation wind up becoming the victims.

And by the way - you can carry a concealed weapon into a church in Missouri. But you must have permission from "the Pastor".

I told my deacons - Guys don't even ask. I'm going to be the only one packing.

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by Hardsheller:
Good Points Phillip,

The sad reality about guns is that most people who own them and carry them are not mentally prepared to use them and thus when confronted with a hostile situation wind up becoming the victims.

And by the way - you can carry a concealed weapon into a church in Missouri. But you must have permission from "the Pastor".

I told my deacons - Guys don't even ask. I'm going to be the only one packing.

You are right.

My wife asked me if I could actually take another human life (when I started my training). Boy, was that a hard question to answer. That question had better be settled in your mind before you let someone know you have a gun or they will take it while you are thinking about it.

After the Fort Worth shootings (in church) it looks like pastors are going to have to be packing.

I, along with policeman in our church, have carried our guns (concealed) during major youth events. Our church is right on a major highway out of Dallas and we have had child molesters come in and start talking to the kids. We had to have one arrested (he had warrants in Missouri) just two months ago. He came in with a wheel-chair and wound up watching the kids playing beside the church.

Our local sheriff escorted him to the local jail for extradition.

I know this sounds off the subject line, but it seems like the question here is does the 2nd amendment mean for the citizens themselves to be armed against tyranny of our own country and if so, where do we draw the line between a terrorist act and preventing government abuse?

 

[billwald]

"Which history - Swiss history supports the militia - they've had a democracy and been at peace a lot longer than our record."

It has been useful to the world powers to have a civilized neutral nation ergo, Switzerland.

 

[just-want-peace]

It has been useful to the world powers to have a civilized neutral nation ergo, Switzerland.

Correct! How else could all these thieves steal and get away with it except for "Numbered Swiss Bank Accts"?

I used to wonder how they could stay neutral (especially in WWII) but thinking about the anonymous numbered accounts that are virtually untouchable by anyone but the acct holder, it all made sense!

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by just-want-peace:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />It has been useful to the world powers to have a civilized neutral nation ergo, Switzerland.

Correct! How else could all these thieves steal and get away with it except for "Numbered Swiss Bank Accts"?

I used to wonder how they could stay neutral (especially in WWII) but thinking about the anonymous numbered accounts that are virtually untouchable by anyone but the acct holder, it all made sense! </font>[/QUOTE]Especially now that we are finding out that a lot of Nazi gold (much now unclaimed) was stored in Switzerland, along with cash embezzled by the Hitler cronies.

 

[Phillip]

By the way, I mean NO offense to those who may be citizens of Switzerland. (unless you are hoarding nazi gold and not sharing )

 

[poncho]

Originally posted by Hardsheller:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by poncho:
A miltia IMO would fight not only for survival but for victory. The only other option would be surrender to the invader or die defending your home. Here in America it is estimated that we have 80 million legal gun owners. We (I include myself) would never willing to point our guns at anyone unless our lives were threatened to the point of no other option.

Now tell me an invader would not ponder the damage that could be done to his war machine that isn't fighting on it's home turf by a militia that is defending it's home from it's home.

A standing army comforting as it seems can be used against the same population that funds and supports it. By order of the 'high command'.

Ask the Chinese students at Tianenmen square or the students in Ohio, the Branch Davidians what few survived, or Randy Weaver (there is little difference between the military and police forces these days).

I support the idea of a citizen militia.

No Militia is effective if it is unorganized and unprepared - does not the organization and the equipping of the militia in effect create a standing army?

Without organization and training and preparation all you have is a armed mob. There is no invading army in the world who would not welcome such a reception in place of a well organized, dug in, standing army. </font>[/QUOTE]A militia could be trained at the county level and armed at the citizens expense. The federal government could provide guidelines so as to keep training among the states uniform and up to date.

I would give up one weekend a month to train for the defense of my county. Especially now that our National Guard units are being sent overseas. I don't think this was there intended purpose.

 

[Hardsheller]

Armed at the citizens' expense?

Isn't that like a tax?

IE. you could arm yourself with what you could afford?

"Hi, I'm reporting for duty and all I can afford is a 12 ga. single shot shotgun my granddad left me. Where do you want me to fall in?"

Your idea of a militia is sounding more like a Barney Fife outfit all the time.

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by Hardsheller:
Armed at the citizens' expense?

Isn't that like a tax?

IE. you could arm yourself with what you could afford?

"Hi, I'm reporting for duty and all I can afford is a 12 ga. single shot shotgun my granddad left me. Where do you want me to fall in?"

Your idea of a militia is sounding more like a Barney Fife outfit all the time.

Just make sure you keep that one twelve-guage cartridge in your shirt pocket.

 

[poncho]

Originally posted by Hardsheller:
Armed at the citizens' expense?

I'm ready should the need to defend my county ever arise.

Isn't that like a tax?

No that would be volunteering to defend your county with what ever you have or are able to attain.

IE. you could arm yourself with what you could afford?

I'm ready should the need to defend my county ever arise.

"Hi, I'm reporting for duty and all I can afford is a 12 ga. single shot shotgun my granddad left me. Where do you want me to fall in?"

Thanks. We need all the help we can get! I see, all you could bring is a twelve ga. ss shotgun. Thanks for showing up! If you'd care to replace that with one of the twelve ga. pumps that were donated by the Downtown Gun Shop look in that big box over there if you ever run short of ammo this lot here was donated by the local Rod & Gun club of Anytown USA.

Fall in over there by the green tent. Our first lesson today will be on the US Constitution and Bill Of Rights. The County Sheriff as the highest elected official in the county will be giving the presentation. Followed by a chow break provided by Corkies Catering service. Corkie is the big guy over there with the Twelve Ga. pump he is also a veteran and will be giving classes from time to time to help with your training. That's it for today, so before I forget. Please memorize whats is on this card.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
§ 311. Militia: composition and classes


Release date: 2004-03-18

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

LINK

Your idea of a militia is sounding more like a Barney Fife outfit all the time. </font>[/QUOTE]Suggestions are always welcome for consideration. Thanks for showing up!

 

[poncho]

There is a hidden history of the Second Amendment which is long overdue to be written. It is this: during the ratification period of 1787-1791, Congress and the states considered two entirely separate groups of amendments to the Constitution. The first group was a declaration of rights, in which the right of the people to keep and bear arms appeared. The second group, consisting of amendments related to the structure of government, included recognition of the power of states to maintain militias. The former became the Bill of Rights, while the latter was defeated.[3] Somehow, through some Orwellian rewriting (p.132)of history, as applied to the issues of the right of the people to keep and bear arms and the state militia power, that which was defeated has become the meaning of that which was adopted.

Local authorities have a traditional power to require citizens to arm themselves and assist in law enforcement. In United States v. Fenwick, 25 F. Cas. 1062, 1964 (C.C. D.C. 1836) (No. 15,086), the court instructed the jury "[t]hat the marshal has a right to take the posse, and to call on all citizens to aid him in arresting the rioters, and that the citizens had a right to arm themselves."

State law may require any person to arm and assist in law enforcement. "The militia are composed of men of military age, whereas the posse comitatus is composed of all able-bodied persons of sound mind and of sufficient ability to assist the sheriff, and may be younger or older than the military age." Worth v. Craven County Comm'rs., 24 S.E. 778, 779 (N.C. 1896).

Chapin v. Ferry, 28 P. 754, 757 (Wash. 1891) found that a statute authorizing the sheriff or other officials to call out "an armed force" to suppress rioters referred to the posse comitatus an not the National Guard. The court noted that the statute:

is merely the reenactment of the common law .... It has always been the duty of magistrates and peace officers to preserve the public peace, even to the extent of calling to their aid every person within their jurisdiction .... That the force thus called out should be armed in some way would seem to go without saying ....

Source

 

[fromtheright]

poncho,

I have only a minor disagreement, with the history presented in the first quote (I couldn't find it in the Halbrook article, but I skimmed through it quickly).

There is a hidden history of the Second Amendment which is long overdue to be written. It is this: during the ratification period of 1787-1791, Congress and the states considered two entirely separate groups of amendments to the Constitution. The first group was a declaration of rights, in which the right of the people to keep and bear arms appeared. The second group, consisting of amendments related to the structure of government, included recognition of the power of states to maintain militias. The former became the Bill of Rights, while the latter was defeated.[3] Somehow, through some Orwellian rewriting (p.132)of history, as applied to the issues of the right of the people to keep and bear arms and the state militia power, that which was defeated has become the meaning of that which was adopted.

First of all, there are two different periods of ratification, one of the Constitution itself, 1787-1788, the other for the BoR, 1789--1791. This confusion of the two periods compounds the following mis-statement, that there were two entirely separate groups of amendments. The amendments were proposed by some of the states to Congress as part of their ratifications. They all included a mix, though Massachusetts and South Carolina's can be said to have been more heavily concentrated on structural changes. The amendments were digested and catalogued by Madison, who presented some of them to the House as a resolution which they debated. After going through the process of debate, a group of twelve of them were sent to the states for ratification, which were all "rights" changes and not structural changes (see From Parchment to Power: How James Madison Used the Bill of Rights to Save the Constitution by Robert Goldwin, an excellent account of Madison's efforts to guide the amendments through to prevent structural changes). There were not two separate groups, either presented to Congress by the states in their ratification of the Constitution, nor presented by Congress to the states for their ratification of the amendments. If that is from Halbrook, it is probably my only disagreement with him. I've read several articles by him and he is an excellent historian of the Second Amendment.

 

[poncho]

Thanks FTR.

 

[fromtheright]

My pleasure.

Was the first quote from the Halbrook article? I've got it somewhere here at home and will look it up if so. I'm puzzled that Halbrook would say such a thing.

 

[poncho]

Originally posted by fromtheright:
My pleasure.

Was the first quote from the Halbrook article?
I've got it somewhere here at home and will look it up if so. I'm puzzled that Halbrook would say such a thing.

Third paragraph I believe.

Maybe he (Halbrook) made a mistake. History hasn't always happened as written. It can change as we learn more also I reckon.