AlwaysRt Posted June 8, 2017 Posted June 8, 2017 6 minutes ago, Dave Hounddriver said: Its your country so you know it better than me. I only know what Google says: Just because something is not illegal does not mean people do it. In the case of private militias, it is far from common if there are any at all (besides 3 guys having a beer and shooting the cans calling themselves a militia and the zombie apocalypse guys. More of a bonding having fun thing than preparing for battle) 1 minute ago, Jack Peterson said: Now as a Brit I can only say what I have read but is this what is mentioned in this 2 Amendment with regards to Militia? The 2nd amendment is pretty simple and makes 2 basic statements (or at least they thought it was simple at the time they wrote it). "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." 1)"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," - Since it is necessary for the government to be armed in order to protect its citizens 2)", the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." - citizens have the right to own weapons and the government can not reduce that right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gratefuled Posted June 8, 2017 Author Posted June 8, 2017 59 minutes ago, scott h said: Anyway, as soon as we were on the street, there was no more looting You should know since you were there but that's not the way they showed it in tv. They showed the looters looting and NG and police standing back and allowing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forum Support scott h Posted June 8, 2017 Forum Support Posted June 8, 2017 17 minutes ago, Gratefuled said: You should know Yes, I do. And we all know how balanced TV coverage is 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gratefuled Posted June 8, 2017 Author Posted June 8, 2017 26 minutes ago, scott h said: And we all know how balanced TV coverage is Therefore, should I believe you or my lying eyes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Peterson Posted June 8, 2017 Posted June 8, 2017 Geeeze, is it any wonder the US has a National Guard, if only to stop you all killing each other 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert k Posted June 8, 2017 Posted June 8, 2017 1 hour ago, Jack Peterson said: Now as a Brit I can only say what I have read but is this what is mentioned in this 2 Amendment with regards to Militia? I think someone used some contradictory/ inaccurate language in the Wyoming law, wording there Jack. How can one have a "private militia"? When the militia is made of the public? The law would have been better worded if it said armed retainers or private army. The language has shifted in regards to "well regulated". At the time it was written well regulated meant competent, not that there should be restrictive laws placed upon the militia. That is why the final words are the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. You can't make a law limiting the keeping and bearing of arms, without "infringing" on that right. At the time of the writing of the second amendment, "militia" was defined as men between the age of 15 and 60 not enrolled in the military. National Guard are not "militia", they are an arm of the state, under the direct command of the state governor and supplied/ paid by the federal government. The public "militia" is supposed to have no master? The National Guard has two masters. Tomorrow the federal government could order the return of all of the National Guard's equipment because it doesn't belong to the state. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Peterson Posted June 8, 2017 Posted June 8, 2017 (edited) 36 minutes ago, robert k said: At the time of the writing of the second amendment, "militia" was defined as men between the age of 15 and 60 not enrolled in the military. Well as far as I can see it, the PI use the same amendment in their constitution but it will never happen, as I said in an earlier post allegiances are bought to easily here and it is here we are supposed to be talking about Edited June 8, 2017 by Jack Peterson Spelling AGAIN 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert k Posted June 8, 2017 Posted June 8, 2017 4 minutes ago, Jack Peterson said: Well as far as I can see it, the PI use the same amendment in their constitution but it will never happen, as I said in an earlier post are bought to easily here and it is here we are supposed to be talking about You may have something there Jack. For the concept of militia to work, requires civic minded people with a sense of community or possibly a fearsome external enemy, or both. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary D Posted June 8, 2017 Posted June 8, 2017 Also the 18th centry to bare arms probably meant to own, not carry. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Hounddriver Posted June 8, 2017 Posted June 8, 2017 10 hours ago, AlwaysRt said: Just because something is not illegal does not mean people do it. In the case of private militias, it is far from common if there are any at all Here is a news article from 2013 that just points out, even Americans don't seem to realize how many private militias there are on their own soil Quote . . . . The center tracked 1,360 radical militias and anti-government groups in 2012, an eightfold increase over 2008, when it recorded 149 such groups. . . https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/03/05/southern-poverty-law-center-militias-gun-control/1964411/ Since this is an older article there could be many more today, or less. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts