Page 7 of 18 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 171

Thread: Vermont to Register Non-Gun Owners?

  1. #61
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Vermont to Register Non-Gun Owners?

    Quote Originally Posted by jackalope View Post



    That is incorrect; the Supreme Court has specifically said the militia referred to in Article 1 and the 2nd Amendment are the same thing. They further said that the organized militia is a subset of the larger militia (the pool of people that can be called up).

    The Army National Guard website also says that is exactly what it is:


    About the National Guard


    The National Guard, the oldest component of the Armed Forces of the United States and one of the nation's longest-enduring institutions, celebrated its 370th birthday on December 13, 2006. The National Guard traces its history back to the earliest English colonies in North America. Responsible for their own defense, the colonists drew on English military tradition and organized their able-bodied male citizens into militias.

    The colonial militias protected their fellow citizens from Indian attack, foreign invaders, and later helped to win the Revolutionary War. Following independence, the authors of the Constitution empowered Congress to "provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia." However, recognizing the militia's state role, the Founding Fathers reserved the appointment of officers and training of the militia to the states. Today's National Guard still remains a dual state-Federal force.

    more ...
    The National Guard - About the National Guard

    It is directly derived from Article 1 of the Constitution, and is the same thing as the Militia referred to in the 2nd amendment, per the Supreme Court.
    *sigh*

    Yes, keep the lie going that I've said the militias are different. That's a great, intellectually honest way to argue.

    The National Guard may have started as militia, but it is no longer. It is now part of a standing army. A militia is not part of the standing army.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  2. #62
    Sage
    jackalope's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    08-08-14 @ 01:54 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,494

    Re: Vermont to Register Non-Gun Owners?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    *sigh*

    Yes, keep the lie going that I've said the militias are different. That's a great, intellectually honest way to argue.

    The National Guard may have started as militia, but it is no longer. It is now part of a standing army. A militia is not part of the standing army.
    I'm sorry, I understood you to say the national guard was not the militia? Did I misunderstand?

  3. #63
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Vermont to Register Non-Gun Owners?

    Quote Originally Posted by jackalope View Post
    Here you go: there is no constitutional right to organize into para-military groups. The court has said that is the case. The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of constitutionality. You have no argument.
    What you fail to regocnize is that:
    -You have not provided the argument of the court;
    -You have not explained how that argument is sound.

    As such, all you have done is appealed to authority, which is a logical fallacy.

    Therefore, you have -not- presented a sound argument as to how you may exercise each of those rights individually, but cannot exercise them together.

  4. #64
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Vermont to Register Non-Gun Owners?

    Quote Originally Posted by jackalope View Post
    I'm sorry, I understood you to say the national guard was not the militia? Did I misunderstand?
    The National Guard is now part of the Standing Army. It's not called up from the general population. Less you're looking to redefine what a militia is, the militia does not cover the standing army.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  5. #65
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Vermont to Register Non-Gun Owners?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Just use that big organ between your ears that occupies the space in your skull. I'm sure you can figure it out, humans are rather intelligent.



    You're making faulty assumptions that it will be easy to obtain a gun should things hit a level to which calling up the militia is necessary. There may be lag, there may not be lag. Who knows? If you're going to do something, if you'd fight for your State, then you need to be prepared and have the tools on hand for that. Thinking that you can just run out and get something that day isn't a guarantee that you can.



    Because those without the guns have demonstrated a willingness to put aside duty. You want to find those people and not even have them in the equation to start with. They are nothing more than a loss term.



    And you're assuming there will be. But again, it's a preparation thing. You're arguing an absurd position in that if the **** hits the fan you'll have all means necessary to buy the brooms and mops to clean it up. That's not a guarantee. Thus if you're going to commit to defense of the State via militia participation, you need to have the tools for that before someone else starts shooting at you.
    YOU are the one calling for a government registration for non-gun owners, therefore the onus is on YOU to show why it's necessary. And you are making a lot of unsubstantiated assumptions yourself: That people without guns won't be able to get them, that people who have them will choose to fight instead of selling their guns or giving them to someone who will, that such a registration will actually help the state identify potential militia members in some meaningful way, etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari
    Jesus tap dancing Christ on a pogo stick. Does anything stick in your brain? I said these aren't my arguments, these are the arguments put forth by those pushing the bill. I've already said this ain't my argument. I didn't write the bill, and I don't support the bill. Try to remember that for more than 3 seconds. Read, listen, comprehend; that's all I'm asking and that's all within the abilities of humans.
    For someone who doesn't support the bill, you certainly are expending a lot of time and emotion defending it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari
    But you just did. Name/address of owners etc, that's registration. Wow...it only took 1 sentence for you to contradict yourself.
    That's not a registration for YOU, it's a registration for your gun. So if your gun is ever used in a crime, the police will know who to contact. I am opposed to a registry for gun OWNERS - say, a list of all the firearms you've ever bought or sold.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  6. #66
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Vermont to Register Non-Gun Owners?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    YOU are the one calling for a government registration for non-gun owners, therefore the onus is on YOU to show why it's necessary. And you are making a lot of unsubstantiated assumptions yourself: That people without guns won't be able to get them, that people who have them will choose to fight instead of selling their guns or giving them to someone who will, that such a registration will actually help the state identify potential militia members in some meaningful way, etc.
    I'm not. As I've repeatedly stated, I disagree with much of government registration and databasing.

    You yourself have made a lot of unsubstantiated assumptions: People without guns will be able to get them when demand is high, that people who don't have guns will even go through the process of being able to fight despite having hamstrung themselves by not having been prepared, that people with guns will give up their guns to those without, etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    For someone who doesn't support the bill, you certainly are expending a lot of time and emotion defending it.
    I have the ability to understand arguments and where they come from even if I disagree in the base. Also, stupid arguments annoy me and I oft argue against them regardless of position. I'm not one with a high tolerance for stupidity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    That's not a registration for YOU, it's a registration for your gun. So if your gun is ever used in a crime, the police will know who to contact. I am opposed to a registry for gun OWNERS - say, a list of all the firearms you've ever bought or sold.
    No it's not. You're taking all MY information. For myself and my property, without due cause. You're not registering the gun, the gun is linked to ME. Thus it's registering ME. You have my personal information tied up in the lot of crap you think the government should have. The gun can't register itself, I or the gun store would have to do it. And it would be linked to address/name, etc. That's registering the person and their property without due cause or warrant.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  7. #67
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Vermont to Register Non-Gun Owners?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    No it's not. You're taking all MY information. For myself and my property, without due cause. You're not registering the gun, the gun is linked to ME. Thus it's registering ME.
    Yes. For gun registration to have any possible effect, the gun must be linked to the person.

    A list of guns linked to a person is exactly the same as a list of people linked to guns.

  8. #68
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Vermont to Register Non-Gun Owners?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Yes. For gun registration to have any possible effect, the gun must be linked to the person.

    A list of guns linked to a person is exactly the same as a list of people linked to guns.
    Exactly, and I oppose it. I don't think the government has any legitimate claim to knowing what and how many guns I have. They can piss off and wait for me to do something illegal that they can prove in a court of law first. I don't care what sort of deflect rhetoric people make, the fact is they're looking to make me register for exercising a right. And some people do not understand the danger and outrage of that statement. Authorizing the government to register people for exercising a right.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  9. #69
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Vermont to Register Non-Gun Owners?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Exactly, and I oppose it. I don't think the government has any legitimate claim to knowing what and how many guns I have.
    There is, indeed, no compelling state interest to that end.
    Under strict scrutiny, without that state interest, registration is presumed unconstitutional.

  10. #70
    Sage
    jackalope's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    08-08-14 @ 01:54 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,494

    Re: Vermont to Register Non-Gun Owners?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    The National Guard is now part of the Standing Army. It's not called up from the general population. Less you're looking to redefine what a militia is, the militia does not cover the standing army.
    You are incorrect. The National Guard derives its constitutional authority from the 'militia clauses' of the Constitution. It is the organized militias of the states:


    Legal Basis of the National Guard

    The National Guard's charter is the Constitution of the United States. Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution contains a series of "militia clauses," vesting distinct authority and responsibilities in the federal government and the state governments. These clauses and follow-on legislation have sculpted the Guard as you see it today. Here are summaries that will help you understand how the Guard came to be what it is today.



    Article I, Section 8; Clause 15 tells what the grounds are for calling up the Guard.

    Clause 15 provides that the Congress has three constitutional grounds for calling up the militia -- "to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrection and repel invasions." All three standards appear to be applicable only to the Territory of the United States.

    Article I, Section 8; Clause 16
    Congress may "organize, arm and discipline" the militia; the States may "establish… appoint the officers of… and train the militia." Also, limits Congress' power during peacetime.

    Clause 16 gives Congress the power "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." That same clause specifically reserves to the States the authority to establish a state-based militia, to appoint the officers and to train the militia according to the discipline prescribed by the Congress. As written, the clause seeks to limit federal power over State militias during peacetime.

    The Armies Clause
    "Congress may declare war, raise and support armies…"

    The "armies clause" in Article I, Section 8, conferred on Congress the power to provide for the common defense of the United States, declare war, raise and support armies, and make rules for the "government and regulation of the land and naval forces." The Congress also was granted authority to make all laws "necessary and proper" for carrying out such powers. Under this provision, congressional power over the National Guard appears to be far-reaching.

    Article I, Section 10
    "No state may keep troops… without the consent of Congress."

    Article I, Section 10 provides that no state, without the consent of the Congress, shall keep troops or ships of war in time of peace, or engage in war unless actually invaded. Be sure to see the Second Amendment for more about this.

    The Second Amendment
    "… a well-regulated militia [is] necessary to the security of a free State," and "…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

    The Second Amendment qualified Article I, Section 10 by ensuring that the federal government could not disarm the state militias. One part of the Bill of Rights, insisted on by the anti-federalists, states, "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."

    Article IV, Section 4 guarantees every State in the Union a republican form of government.

    Article IV, Section 4 provides that the federal government " shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government," and shall protect each of the States against invasion. At State request, the federal government was to protect the States "against domestic violence." Through these provisions, the potential for both cooperative Federalism and for tension between the "militia" and the "army" clauses was built into the constitution.

    Article II, Section 2 makes the president Commander-in-Chief of all forces, including the militia when federalized.

    Article II, Section 2 places all forces, including the militia when in federal service, under the control of the executive branch by making the president Commander-in-Chief.

    Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the ultimate control through its sole power to collect taxes to pay the military, to declare war and employ the militia for security.

    Article I, Section 8 gave the ultimate control to the Congress, by granting it the sole power to collect taxes to pay for the military, to declare war and to employ the militia for common purposes of internal security. Existing State militias could be maintained, although troops could be called into national service. But the founding fathers moderated that authority by leaving the individual States with the explicit responsibility for appointing officers and for supervising peacetime training of the citizen-soldiers.

    The Militia Act of 1792 clarified the role of the militia; required all able men to serve, be armed, and be equipped at their own expense; also, standardized unit structure.

    The Militia Act of 1792 subsequently expanded federal policy and clarified the role of the militia. It required all able bodied men aged 18 to 45 to serve, to be armed, to be equipped at their own expense and to participate in annual musters. The 1792 act established the idea of organizing these militia forces into standard divisions, brigades, regiments, battalions and companies, as directed by the State legislatures.

    The militia concept put to the test in the War of 1812
    For the 111 years that the Militia Act of 1792 remained in effect, it defined the position of the militia in relation to the federal government. The War of 1812 tested this unique America defense establishment. To fight the War of 1812, the republic formed a small regular military and trained it to protect the frontiers and coastlines. Although it performed poorly in the offensive against Canada, the small force of regulars backed by a well-armed militia, accomplished its defensive mission well. Generals like Andrew Jackson proved, just as they had in the Revolution, that regulars and militia could be effective when employed as a team.

    Posse Comitatus
    Congress' suspension of southern states' right to organize a militia resulted in Posse Comitatus, a limiting of the president's use of military forces in peacetime.

    In 1867, the Congress suspended the southern states' right to organize their militias until a state was firmly under the control of an acceptable government. The U.S. Army was used to enforce martial law in the South during Reconstruction. Expansion of the military's role in domestic life, however, did not occur without debate or response. Reaction to the use of the Army in suppressing labor unrest in the North and guarding polls in the South during the 1876 election led to congressional enactment of the Posse Comitatus Act in 1878. Designed to limit the president's use of military forces in peacetime, this statute provided that: "...it shall not be lawful to employ any part of the Army of the United States... for the purpose of executing the laws, except on such cases and under such circumstances as such employment of said force may be expressly authorized by the Constitution or by any act of Congress..."

    The States revise the military codes - 1881 to 1892
    Concern over the militia's new domestic role also led the States to reexamine their need for a well-equipped and trained militia, and between 1881 and 1892, every state revised the military code to provide for an organized force. Most changed the name of their militias to the National Guard, following New York's example.

    The Dick Act, 1903 affirmed the National Guard as the primary organized reserve force.

    Between 1903 and the 1920's, legislation was enacted that strengthened the Army National Guard as a component of the national defense force. The Dick Act of 1903 replaced the 1792 Militia Act and affirmed the National Guard as the Army's primary organized reserve.

    The National Defense Act, 1916 guaranteed the State militias as the primary reserve force; gave the President the authority to mobilize the Guard during war or national emergency; made use of the term "National Guard" mandatory; authorized drill pay for the first time.

    The National Defense Act of 1916 further expanded the Guard's role and guaranteed the State militias' status as the Army's primary reserve force. Furthermore, the law mandated use of the term "National Guard" for that force. Moreover, the President was given authority, in case of war or national emergency, to mobilize the National Guard for the duration of the emergency. The number of yearly drills increased from 24 to 48 and annual training from five to 15 days. Drill pay was authorized for the first time.

    The National Defense Act Amendments, 1920 put the National Guard on the general staff; reorganized the divisions.

    The National Defense Act Amendments of 1920 established that the chief of the Militia Bureau (later the National Guard Bureau) would be a National Guard officer, that National Guard officers would be assigned to the general staff and that the divisions, as used by the Guard in World War I, would be reorganized.

    The National Guard Mobilization Act, 1933 made the National Guard a component of the Army.

    The National Guard Mobilization Act of 1933 made the National Guard of the United States a component of the Army at all times, which could be ordered into active federal service by the President whenever Congress declared a national emergency.

    The Total Force Policy, 1973 requires all active and reserve military organizations be treated as a single integrated force; reinforced the original intent of the founding fathers (a small standing army complemented by citizen-soldiers.)

    Following the experience of fighting an unpopular war in Vietnam, the 1973 Total Force Policy was designed to involve a large portion of the American public by mobilizing the National Guard from its thousands of locations throughout the United States when needed. The Total Force Policy required that all active and reserve military organizations of the United States be treated as a single integrated force. A related benefit of this approach is to permit elected officials to have a better sense of public support or opposition to any major military operation. This policy echoes the original intentions of the founding fathers for a small standing army complemented by citizen-soldiers.

    Legal Basis of the National Guard

Page 7 of 18 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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