Art of CIP
Posts: 21,234
Long Beach, California, US
Amendment II
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.
There it is, in black and white. Yet somehow some Americans have presented all manner of arguments so they can buy as many guns as possible, and argue against any regulation they can. that has nothing to do with these simple words - and have used the second amendment to justify their positions.
Buying and owning guns does not make you part of a well regulated militia.
Wait - that bears repeating...
Buying and owning guns does not make you part of a well regulated militia. Joining the Armed Forces does... Becoming part of law enforcement does. It amazes me to no end that people have chosen to accept the propaganda of the gun lobby while completely ignoring the words of the constitution... But let's not fool ourselves - many of these people and lobbies wish to circumvent the constitution in its entirety - after all - it is perhaps the most liberal document written in the history of the world..
Art of CIP
Posts: 21,234
Long Beach, California, US
Lightcraft Studio wrote: Yes indeed.... "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
It doesn't say we should only arm the militia and disarm the people.
No, the second amendment says this:
Amendment II
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.
When you censor and edit it down to this:
""the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
It then has a completely different meaning. It becomes nothing more than perverted sophistry... I am not discussing the gun lobby's edited propaganda - I am discussing the 2nd amendment, in it's entirety...
Just for you CIP because you live in California you'll find sections 120-122 and 128-129 of interest. I don't know if you're able body but if you are then you are part of your states unorganized militia.
CALIFORNIA MILITARY AND VETERANS CODE
120. The militia of the State shall consist of the National Guard,
State Military Reserve and the Naval Militia--which constitute the
active militia--and the unorganized militia.
121. The unorganized militia consists of all persons liable to
service in the militia, but not members of the National Guard, the
State Military Reserve, or the Naval Militia.
122. The militia of the State consists of all able-bodied male
citizens and all other able-bodied males who have declared their
intention to become citizens of the United States, who are between
the ages of eighteen and forty-five, and who are residents of the
State, and of such other persons as may upon their own application be
enlisted or commissioned therein pursuant to the provisions of this
division, subject, however, to such exemptions as now exist or may be
hereafter created by the laws of the United States or of this State.
128. The unorganized militia may be called for active duty in case
of war, rebellion, insurrection, invasion, tumult, riot, breach of
the peace, public calamity or catastrophe, or other emergency, or
imminent danger thereof, or may be called forth for service under the
Constitution and laws of the United States. Whenever it is necessary
to call out any portion of the unorganized militia, the Governor may
call for and accept as many volunteers as are required for such
service, under regulations provided by this division.
129. Every member of the militia who is ordered out, or who
volunteers or is drafted under the provisions of this division and
who does not appear at the time and place designated by the Governor,
or under his authority, within twenty-four hours from such time, and
who does not produce a sworn certificate of physical disability from
a physician in good standing, is a deserter and shall be dealt with
as prescribed in the Articles of War of the United States, or by this
division.
Art of CIP wrote: No, the second amendment says this:
Amendment II
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.
When you censor and edit it down to this:
""the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
It then has a completely different meaning. It becomes nothing more than perverted sophistry... I am not discussing the gun lobby's edited propaganda - I am discussing the 2nd amendment, in it's entirety...
So, the comma in the sentence really means one must take the negative of the second part? Meaning, the right of the people should not exist?
So, if I say: "I love blondes, brunettes and redheads" it really means I love blondes, but don't love brunettes and redheads?
Art of CIP
Posts: 21,234
Long Beach, California, US
Bill Bates wrote: Just for you CIP because you live in California you'll find sections 120-122 and 128-129 of interest. I don't know if you're able body but if you are then you are part of your states unorganized militia.
CALIFORNIA MILITARY AND VETERANS CODE
120. The militia of the State shall consist of the National Guard,
State Military Reserve and the Naval Militia--which constitute the
active militia--and the unorganized militia.
121. The unorganized militia consists of all persons liable to
service in the militia, but not members of the National Guard, the
State Military Reserve, or the Naval Militia.
122. The militia of the State consists of all able-bodied male
citizens and all other able-bodied males who have declared their
intention to become citizens of the United States, who are between
the ages of eighteen and forty-five, and who are residents of the
State, and of such other persons as may upon their own application be
enlisted or commissioned therein pursuant to the provisions of this
division, subject, however, to such exemptions as now exist or may be
hereafter created by the laws of the United States or of this State.
128. The unorganized militia may be called for active duty in case
of war, rebellion, insurrection, invasion, tumult, riot, breach of
the peace, public calamity or catastrophe, or other emergency, or
imminent danger thereof, or may be called forth for service under the
Constitution and laws of the United States. Whenever it is necessary
to call out any portion of the unorganized militia, the Governor may
call for and accept as many volunteers as are required for such
service, under regulations provided by this division.
129. Every member of the militia who is ordered out, or who
volunteers or is drafted under the provisions of this division and
who does not appear at the time and place designated by the Governor,
or under his authority, within twenty-four hours from such time, and
who does not produce a sworn certificate of physical disability from
a physician in good standing, is a deserter and shall be dealt with
as prescribed in the Articles of War of the United States, or by this
division.
Mr. Bates would you be so kind as to paste section 16 of the general provisions of the CALIFORNIA MILITARY AND VETERANS CODE here for all to see?
Lightcraft Studio wrote: So, the comma in the sentence really means one must take the negative of the second part? Meaning, the right of the people should not exist?
So, if I say: "I love blondes, brunettes and redheads" it really means I love blondes, but don't love brunettes and redheads?
No, no, it's like this: if you say
"Being a red-blooded American male, I love blondes, brunettes, and redheads"
it means that you love them all only when you are a red-blooded American male. If you moved to New Zealand all bets would be off.
16. An oath authorized or required by Division 2 of this code or
the regulations issued thereunder or the statutes or regulations
governing the United States Army or United States Navy or United
States Air Force or the National Guard or the Air National Guard or
active militia may be taken before the following persons who are
authorized to administer the same within and without the State,
namely: all officers and persons authorized to administer oaths by
the 136th Article of the Uniform Code of Military Justice adopted by
Section 102 as part of this code, the Adjutant General, the Assistant
Adjutant General, the administrative officer in the Office of the
Adjutant General, officers of the National Guard when such oath is
authorized or required in a matter pertaining to the National Guard,
and officers of the Naval Militia when such oath is authorized or
required in a matter pertaining to the Naval Militia, except officers
of both land and naval forces on the reserve and retired list while
unassigned to duty, or by any other officer authorized to administer
oaths under the laws of this State. No charge shall be made for the
same.
In other cases where an oath is required by this code, the same
may be administered by persons authorized to do so by law.
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.
There it is, in black and white. Yet somehow some Americans have presented all manner of arguments so they can buy as many guns as possible, and argue against any regulation they can. that has nothing to do with these simple words - and have used the second amendment to justify their positions.
Buying and owning guns does not make you part of a well regulated militia.
Wait - that bears repeating...
Buying and owning guns does not make you part of a well regulated militia. Joining the Armed Forces does... Becoming part of law enforcement does. It amazes me to no end that people have chosen to accept the propaganda of the gun lobby while completely ignoring the words of the constitution... But let's not fool ourselves - many of these people and lobbies wish to circumvent the constitution in its entirety - after all - it is perhaps the most liberal document written in the history of the world..
Why don't you look at the case law already decided on this? You might learn something, but knowing your lack of an open mind, I really doubt it.
Simply put, your interpretation doesn't matter. What does matter is what the law and courts have already decided. Chew on that.
Art of CIP
Posts: 21,234
Long Beach, California, US
Bill Bates wrote: seems you could have done this one yourself
16. An oath authorized or required by Division 2 of this code or
the regulations issued thereunder or the statutes or regulations
governing the United States Army or United States Navy or United
States Air Force or the National Guard or the Air National Guard or
active militia may be taken before the following persons who are
authorized to administer the same within and without the State,
namely: all officers and persons authorized to administer oaths by
the 136th Article of the Uniform Code of Military Justice adopted by
Section 102 as part of this code, the Adjutant General, the Assistant
Adjutant General, the administrative officer in the Office of the
Adjutant General, officers of the National Guard when such oath is
authorized or required in a matter pertaining to the National Guard,
and officers of the Naval Militia when such oath is authorized or
required in a matter pertaining to the Naval Militia, except officers
of both land and naval forces on the reserve and retired list while
unassigned to duty, or by any other officer authorized to administer
oaths under the laws of this State. No charge shall be made for the
same.
In other cases where an oath is required by this code, the same
may be administered by persons authorized to do so by law.
I've read that one many times...
Could you be so kind as to elaborate on the meaning section 16?
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.
There it is, in black and white. Yet somehow some Americans have presented all manner of arguments so they can buy as many guns as possible, and argue against any regulation they can. that has nothing to do with these simple words - and have used the second amendment to justify their positions.
Buying and owning guns does not make you part of a well regulated militia.
Wait - that bears repeating...
Buying and owning guns does not make you part of a well regulated militia. Joining the Armed Forces does... Becoming part of law enforcement does. It amazes me to no end that people have chosen to accept the propaganda of the gun lobby while completely ignoring the words of the constitution... But let's not fool ourselves - many of these people and lobbies wish to circumvent the constitution in its entirety - after all - it is perhaps the most liberal document written in the history of the world..
As par for the course you are wrong.
The police and military are not a militia. Why dont we ask the person who wrote it what he ment? Oh that's right they alread did and his reply
I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials.
George Mason
What point? If you are trying to make a point you're not part of the unorganized militia, you have failed as usual. If the unorganized militia is called up, which is unlikely but one never knows, you'll get to take the oath.
Art of CIP
Posts: 21,234
Long Beach, California, US
Hoodlum wrote:
So your saying George Mason was insane???
No, what I am saying is that is the most insane thing you have ever written. You have presented one sentence from one man out of it's original context and then applied it to yours...
Art of CIP
Posts: 21,234
Long Beach, California, US
Bill Bates wrote:
What point? If you are trying to make a point you're not part of the unorganized militia, you have failed as usual. If the unorganized militia is called up, which is unlikely but one never knows, you'll get to take the oath.
If you are confused as to my point - please read the OP, because at this point you aren't even in the same ballpark here...
Monad Studios
Posts: 8,949
Santa Rosa, California, US
Lightcraft Studio wrote:
Exactly. Not only is a militia needed to insure the protection of the state, but the people also need to keep arms (to protect themselves).
That's one reasonable way to interpret the words, and it's the one that's been chosen as the law of the land. Whether the Supreme Court got it right it moot now, but there is still no single clear meaning to the words of the Amendment.
Monad Studios
Posts: 8,949
Santa Rosa, California, US
Who here would say that there is no private, individual right to bear arms; that there is just a right to do so for the purposes of a militia?
ETA: Can we agree that a line needs to be drawn somewhere? Can we all agree that it's okay for people to own squirt guns, and that it's not okay for people to own shoulder-fired, heat-seeking, armor-penetrating missiles? (However cool that might be)
Art of CIP
Posts: 21,234
Long Beach, California, US
Bill Bates wrote:
The people need to keep arms to do their civic duty as members of the unorganized militia.
And exactly what law defines that as Civic duty Mr. Bates?
the constitution of the United clearly states:
Amendment II
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.
Nowhere in that sentence, that one sentence - does the phrase "The people need to keep arms to do their civic duty as members of the unorganized militia"...
Monad Studios
Posts: 8,949
Santa Rosa, California, US
Art of CIP wrote:
And exactly what law defines that as Civic duty Mr. Bates?
the constitution of the United clearly states:
Amendment II
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.
Nowhere in that sentence, that one sentence - does the phrase "The people need to keep arms to do their civic duty as members of the unorganized militia"...
Art of CIP
Posts: 21,234
Long Beach, California, US
Monad Studios wrote: Who here would say that there is no private, individual right to bear arms; that there is just a right to do so for the purposes of a militia?
That argument can be made if we are strictly dealing with the 2nd amendment of the constitution, however - section one of the 14th amendment has already been used to set a legal precedent prohibiting that.
Exactly. Not only is a militia needed to insure the protection of the state, but the people also need to keep arms (to protect themselves).
Agreed, and the right to bear arms for self-defense has been upheld in the courts, as have restrictions on the type of weapons and ammo that are allowed. Things that were once legal, like cocaine and Thompson submachine guns, are no longer legal, nor should they be.
Art of CIP
Posts: 21,234
Long Beach, California, US
Art of CIP wrote: And exactly what law defines that as Civic duty Mr. Bates?
the constitution of the United clearly states:
Amendment II
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.
Nowhere in that sentence, that one sentence - does the phrase "The people need to keep arms to do their civic duty as members of the unorganized militia"...
Monad Studios wrote: You can't ignore case law.
What case law supports this? Name one law that states that Americans must buy guns as a requirement of civic duty?
Monad Studios
Posts: 8,949
Santa Rosa, California, US
Ronin, thank you for clarifying that for everyone. I'll add that prefatory clauses ("A regulated militia...") don't always restrict what comes after.
If I say, "In remembrance of the lives lost in Newtown, let us never again tolerate the easy availability of assault weapons" the part before the comma doesn't restrict what comes after. The sentence as a whole declares exactly the same purpose as the sentence without the intro: "let us never again tolerate the easy availability of assault weapons".
Similarly, the 2nd Amendment declares the same thing with or without it's intro: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
No, what I am saying is that is the most insane thing you have ever written. You have presented one sentence from one man out of it's original context and then applied it to yours...
Is English your first language?
One man? How about "the man". In fact the man who co wrote with Madison the very Bill of Rights you are completely misinterpreting. And when "The Man" was asked exactly what does the word Militia mean he responded.
"I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people." and he said it during Virginia's ratification convention, 1788
| 
| 
| edu