by Worthington Daily Globe
January 14, 2013 at 6:00 pm in Worthington Daily Globe
We have a right to bear arms. This includes what the liberals call assault rifles they are not assault rifles unless they have a select button. Continue Reading
Tags: guns, letters, Opinion, Politics 34 Comments »
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
“Who are the militia? It is ourselves.” 100% WRONG
Militia is by definition an ORGANIZED body of citizens (with limited training) for military service to be used in an EMERGENCY. By definition, the militia is NOT the free public, but the National Guard.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: 30 49
The legal definition of the militia is “all able-bodied males between the ages of 17-47″ (47 years was the average lifespan at the time). It has nothing to do with the National Guard.
Hot debate. What do you think? 26 15
Well, not exactly. The “militia” can be either “organized” or “unorganized”. The National Guard is considered part of the “organized” militia. Read on:
The Unorganized Militia consists of all able bodied persons of the nation and of the states between the ages of 17 and 44, and is exclusive of all members of the organized militia, i.e., the Armed Forces of the Federal Government of the United States and of the National Guards of the various states of the Union.
Title 10 U.S.C. 311. Militia: composition and classes
(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.
Hot debate. What do you think? 15 22
Thank you for proving my point in paragraph “a”. Granted, I was off on the upper age by 3 years.
Like or Dislike: 13 6
Are you choosing to ignore b1 , the organized militia? National Guard?
That contradicts what you said in your original post.
Like or Dislike: 6 14
“One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offense to keep arms.”
— Constitutional scholar Joseph Story, 1840
“That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United states who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms…”
— Samuel Adams, in “Phila. Independent Gazetteer”, August 20, 1789
Your argument holds NO water. The courts have already ruled on the 2nd Amendment in United States v. Emerson, District of Columbia v. Heller, and in the 2010 Supreme Court ruling in McDonald v. Chicago. Why does the left constantly want “do overs” until their wishes are met? No where in ANY explanation of the Constitution have I read the words, “in an EMERGENCY.” I have seen NUMEROUS references to resistance against “Tyranny of our own governement” though.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 44 20
“constantly want “do overs” until their wishes are met?” so the GOP and yourself are ok with Obamacare and Roe v Wade now then? Don’t want anymore “do overs”.
“No where in ANY explanation of the Constitution have I read the words, “in an EMERGENCY.”” Doesn’t have to…the word MILITIA is, and its meaning is clear if you look it up in Webster.
Dont see the word tyranny once. Do see militia…plenty. Section 8 of the Constitution;
“To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
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”
Which then follows the 2nd Amendment later in the Bill of Rights; “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.”
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: 23 37
mister merc – you can continue making that same tired argument but I assure you your not the first to suggest it.. I actually support your right to do so.
Truth of the matter is it doesn’t hold water, it’s been rejected by most scholars, the United States Supreme Court and most of the clear headed rational thinking American public.
Go ahead and stand on your belief but it’s just not compelling in any way, shape or form. If what you say is true then the whole history of the second amendment is turned on it’s head and the amendment should be struck down by the courts and all firearms confiscated.
Good luck with that one.
Hot debate. What do you think? 27 18
As always, conservatives defending the right to bear arms can’t grasp rudimentary concepts nor facts and those that are gun owners by the very nature of one’s pscyhe that thinks strangers are all out to get them…a so deep rooted delusional paranoia that apparently only a gun in one’s home can offer them any feeling of comfort…and so out of their fear and paranoia lose what little grip on reality they had and totally lose it when the topic of gun control comes up as seen as a threat to taking away their security blanket and the wailing over that not unlike when take security blanket from a toddler.
Sigh….yes, yes, and those same one’s referring to in that statement are now fumming mad and pouting that isn’t true…
I offer the following simple and inescapable truth…gun control and regulations DOES NOT mean the government is going to take away all the guns from everybody…there hasn’t even been a mention of taking anyone’s guns away….the irony doesn’t escape me that the very people that holler the loudest about they need guns to protect themselves because there’s a whole horde of crazy people out there trying to get them…are actually fighting against some common sense control to make sure those crazy boogeymen that believe are coming to get them doesn’t have a gun or worse an automatic assault rifle..
I do believe Merc is correct btw…the founding fathers held no faith in the very goverment they were creating and though we had no Army we had state militia’s at that time and so the intent of the second ammendment was not to take away the guns from those that could serve in a militia so the states could protect themselves from a tyranny of the federal government and to squash attempts at uprising against the states. This then became the National Guard.
The gun nuts are also correct as the Supreme court has ruled that it is a Constitutional right for people to have guns in their homes to defend themselves…what’s overlooked is that the Supreme court has also ruled on 2nd Ammendment that the goverment though has every right to control and regulate those guns. So using the Supreme Court rulings on Second Amendment thinking is argument against government regulations on guns is the akin to slapping one’s self stupid repeatedly.
Interesting note as in…HELLO?….There has been a half a dozen gun control legislations passed to try to have some form of gun control already…does anyone even know that? So in way, gun control has already happened repeatedly.
Now the big brain teaser for the gun nuts…after multiple different gun control legislations how many guns of homeowners did the government sieze? How many times has the government siezed all guns? How many politicians have mentioned that they want to seize all guns?
If you answered zero to all the above…you’d be correct. In fact….SMH!!!….We already had a ban on automatic assault weapons…in 1994,as part of the Brady Act….did anyone come and sieze your guns? Did it in fact impact homeowners that aren’t so delusional that felt need a weapons stockpile of automatic assault weapons to defend themselves?….of course not. The trouble was Repubs in 2004 refused to renew that bill at it’s sunset making automatic assault weapons legal again.
So…SMH!! Part of the public discussion is banning automatic assault weapons and we’ve already done that, there was a ban on them for 10 years and most appear to be obvlivious that we already did it for 10 years…but hollering all the same as if the world is going to end and it’s not just invisible boogeyman but the government is coming to take away everyone’s guns.
I’m obviously not a gun person, though would defend people’s rights’ to have a gun to protect their home, even though I think most of you fall into the very profile of the delusional crazy people out there with guns trying to kill someone. But again, gun control means we should be smarter and use common sense….it’s just IMHO…but flying off the handle and acting like chicken little and that the world is going to end and spouting paranoid delusions that the government is trying to take everyone’s guns and it’s part of subversive plot and everyone’s out to get you….well, if you think that then you’re exactly the type of person I feel real uncomfortable with having guns.
Hot debate. What do you think? 26 32
Automatic weapons were NOT outlawed as part of the Brady act. They were outlawed in 1933 as part of a different law. Owning an automatic weapon requires a special federal firearms license.
Hot debate. What do you think? 21 11
Thanks as I assume correct as don’t know guns, never needed one ever. That must be the law they passed to outlaw Tommy guns because all the ganster shootings with them. Again, a form of reasonable gun control that didn’t impact gun ownership nor one’s abilitity to defend their home.
Hot debate. What do you think? 17 17
“How many politicians have mentioned that they want to seize all guns?” Straight from the mouth of our fearless leader; “Even if I want to take them away, I don’t have the votes in Congress,’’ he said. “This can’t be the reason not to vote for me. Can everyone hear me in the back? I see a couple of sportsmen back there. I’m not going to take away your guns. I don’t have the votes in Congress-yet!”—Like that last word of the sentence; YET!!!?
“I think most of you fall into the very profile of the delusional crazy people out there with guns trying to kill someone.” Who’s delusional? Very funny that you fear everyone with a gun wants to kill someone else with it. But hey, that’s what great about the First Amendment of our Constitution, you have every right to say and write what you want, even if you are attempting to degrade others because of their beliefs and opinions, we are used to that kind of behavior due to the last four years of dem control over our once great country. No Amendment is more important than the next. It was written by people far wiser than any of us, and protected by what you all would like to see banned; The gun!
Hot debate. What do you think? 16 22
ellamay~~ 1- “Even if I wanted to” I couldn’t anyway…is what the President said….if that is what was really said his point was that there is no way he could… You apparently missed my point that many gun owners suffer delusional paranoia with one of the delusions being that the government wants to take their guns away as you clearly took something meaning the complete opposite and twisted it into alluding to subversive plot the Pres wants to take all guns away…..but thanks for supporting my point…SMH!!
2- Whew…ya’ kinda went off on deep end lecturing me on 2nd Amendment….apparently you missed the part where said “would defend people’s rights’ to have a gun to protect their home”….
Yes it’s my opinion and my experiences over decades that those that feel a need to have a gun because are paranoid about protecting themselves are a little delusional and not very balanced and what was saying that hit’s me funny and awfully ironic is that people that are afraid of other people coming to get them are the very type of scary people I try to avoid and yes, I’m absolutely entitled to my opinion by the Bill of rights as people are allowed to own a gun…and so? Not sure you had a point……..You’re quoting the President who essentially said there’s absolutely no way that the government can take guns away and lecturing me on my opinion despite already saying would defend people’s constitutional right to own a gun…
‘People seem not to see that their opinion of the world is also a confession of their character.” Ralph Waldo Emerson
Hot debate. What do you think? 21 18
“Now the big brain teaser for the gun nuts…after multiple different gun control legislations how many guns of homeowners did the government sieze? How many times has the government siezed all guns? How many politicians have mentioned that they want to seize all guns?”
Now a brain teaser for the anti-gn nuts…would any of the Presidents “orders” have done anything to stop the shooting at Sandy Hook?
You libs just abound with so much emotion and so little reason….
Try solving the problem…… instead of pretending like you “care”…ACT like you care!
Hot debate. What do you think? 16 21
“……..You’re quoting the President who essentially said there’s absolutely no way that the government can take guns away ” And said he would not raise taxes on the middle class. And said he would have the most transparent administration ever. And said Planned Parenthood provides mammograms. And said Benghazi was about an internet video, and that his budget would cut $4 trillion over ten years, and the healthcare bill wouldn’t raise the deficit by one dime, and that Guantanimo would be closed in one year, and on and on and on. Yep, I believe every word he says as you obviously do. After all, he’s been so honest and forthcoming over the past four years, how could anyone doubt him?
Hot debate. What do you think? 19 17
Ellamay – this is another classic, pointless attempt to demean President Obama and veer off topic at the same time.
Will you be attending Romney’s inauguration on Monday. or just watching it from the comfort of your recliner?
Hot debate. What do you think? 15 21
Ellamay isn’t demeaning Obama, Obama is demeaning Obama, and the Constitution of the United States.
Hot debate. What do you think? 18 15
Very clever, “smartimus”. Are you going to Romney’s inauguration, too?
Oh, yeah, that’s right. He didn’t win. Still upset about that? Time to move on.
Hot debate. What do you think? 14 18
The fact that Obama got re-elected doesn’t mean that he cares about the Constitution that he disingenuously swears to uphold. It just means that he’s a terrific liar.
Hot debate. What do you think? 18 16
Typical right wing, Obama-hating response. And it’s a load of Fox-News-driven baloney. Or perhaps you have FIRST HAND knowledge to back up your insidious claim? The fact that he WON by a sizable margin would indicate that a helluva lot of Americans disagree with you — and voted him in for a second term. So, they’re all wrong and you’re right!? Wow.
It’s a difficult, painful pill for right-wingers to swallow, I know. But, hey, at least you know how to spell “liar”. Ellamay doesn’t.
We’re not going to go back and compare how much former presidents have lied, are we? That’s WAY more off topic and you don’t want to go there. Pick another battle.
Uhhhhh, eastender there are currently no former presidents in office. Obama is the liar we are currently concerned with. Obama is the king of the low information voter. He is more than willing to subvert the Constitution in gun matters, and spending and debt related matters as well. It’s been well documented in recent months.
Hot debate. What do you think? 19 15
Seems funny how everyone says that the 2nd Amendment was meant to mean either the National Guard, Army, etc. and NOT the general public yet, when you do a little research you find numerous quotes from our founding fathers stating it DOES mean the individual person and not just the militia or army.
“The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.” (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8) ”
“”I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials.” (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426)”
Hot debate. What do you think? 20 12
Ellamay – I’d like to classify your computer keyboard as an “assault weapon” and move to ban it. You make no sense.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: 12 23
Wasn’t it Pres. GHW Bush that banned importation of many different kinds of assault rifles?
Like or Dislike: 18 10
Yes he did, after a massive school shooting in Stockton, CA in 1989. In 1998 Clinton also issued an executive order to ban the importation of over 50 semi-auto assault weapons that had been modified to get throught the sporting purpose exemption. In 2001, Clinton moved again banning the importation of assault pistols.
Like or Dislike: 15 9
“Ellamay – I’d like to classify your computer keyboard as an “assault weapon” and move to ban it. You make no sense.” As you should be classified as a terrorist for terrorizing common sense.
Demeaning Obama? Hardly, only pointing out the FACT that he is a constant lier and it was posted in response to another saying that Obama said he would not take any guns. Makes full sense to me, if someone states what Obama said is the truth, would it not be beneficial to explore how many of his so called “truths” really are the truth. Like the boy who cried wolf; do it enough, (lie) and people will begin to not believe you even when you tell the truth. I haven’t got the faith in his honesty
as much as you.
Hot debate. What do you think? 19 12
I’m a “terrorist terrorizing common sense?” That makes absolutely NO sense at all. But it is a nice try at whatever…
It’s going to be a l-o-n-g four years for you, ellamay, if you and your disciples continue to hold on to this hate-fest you have against the President. And, I fear, it’ll be a long four years for more moderate readers of this blog who will have to put up with your whining and half-truths. Find something else to do. Please.
Hot debate. What do you think? 14 20
Thank you! Well said.
Like or Dislike: 11 18
Please point out the “half-truths” I’ve told. I would be more than happy to either makes corrections or point you to the source.
Like or Dislike: 14 11
Interesting story on control.
Like or Dislike: 10 6
Why does the USC not apply to criminals? They have as much of a right to own a gun as anyone else. Could someone point out to me where in the USC it states that even those who are convicted of a felony get their right to bear arms taken away?
Like or Dislike: 6 11
“Why does the USC not apply to criminals” I believe that came about through the Gun Control Act of 1968 enacted by Congress.
Like or Dislike: 14 6
Which you should be arguing is unconstitutional. Guns should be for everyone even the idiots that shoot themselves or others at gun shows.
Like or Dislike: 4 6
“Which you should be arguing is unconstitutional” It’s actually NOT unconstitutional. The Fifth Amendment allows your right to be taken through due process of law. A felon CAN lose his civil rights when convicted in a court of law.
Like or Dislike: 4 2
Click here to cancel reply.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
To start connecting please log in first.
Topics is proudly provided by the Forum Communications Company