• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is the right to bear arms a civil right?

Is the right to bear arms a civil right?

  • Yes

    Votes: 37 63.8%
  • No

    Votes: 10 17.2%
  • Other

    Votes: 11 19.0%

  • Total voters
    58
Yes, the ATF/etc people who framed Randy Weaver and then killed his wife and son ARE insane thugs who should not have military weapons.


Unfortunately, they work for the government.


OMG...yeah. The big bad militia dude was framed. That doesn't fly.
 
I have no idea what you're talking about, and apparently neither do you.
Black's Law, Fifth Edition:

Assault
Any willful attempt or threat to inflict bodily injury upon the person of another, when coupled with an apparent present ability to do so, and any intentional display of force such as would give the victim reason to fear or expect bodily harm, constitutes assault. An assault may be committed without actually touching, or striking, or doing bodily harm, to the person of another.

You go kill someone for that ^ in Missouri and you'll most likely end up in jail.
 
OMG...yeah. The big bad militia dude was framed. That doesn't fly.


In point of fact, Randy Weaver was pressured by the ATF to act as an undercover informant, and to make a deliberate effort on their behalf to sell illegal weapons to a skin-head-type group so the ATF could bust them. When Weaver decided the risk involved in doing this was more than he was prepared to put his family though, they retreated to their cabin, where they were needlessly assaulted by government agents who behaved in an appallingly jack-boot-thug manner resulting in the deaths of a child and an unarmed woman. Facts.


I know it is hard, but try to keep up here.
 
You know nothing of which you speak. The fact that some groups abuse the term does not change the way the term is defined in the structure of our Constitution and rights.

It does indeed. Unless you are a militia under the terms of the constitution, you are not entitled to guns.

II. The English Background

A. Common-Law Origins of the Citizen Militia.

The citizen militia is one of the most ancient of Anglo-American institutions. Sir William Blackstone credited Alfred the Great with the development of the militia system, stating: "It seems universally agreed by historians, that King Alfred first settled a national militia in this kingdom, and by his prudent discipline made all the subjects of his dominion soldiers . . . ." [1] More recent historical research, however, has suggested that the origins of the early militia can be traced back at least to the seventh century and, in all likelihood, "the obligation of Englishmen to serve in the . . . peoples' army is older than our oldest records." [2] Clearly, the citizen militia, as an institution with a legal identity of its own, had existed for centuries prior to the Norman Conquest.

[p.3] The Saxon militia, known as the fyrd, was a "general" militia composed of all able-bodied men. In times of emergency, it was called out only in districts actually threatened with attack. Service in the fyrd was usually of short duration and the participants legally were obligated to provide their own arms and provisions in accordance with their socioeconomic standings. The system was well suited for an island kingdom with a simple agrarian economy and no need to project military power externally. The success of the Norman Conquest usually is attributed to a lack of Saxon leadership after the death of Harold, rather than any shortcoming with respect to the fyrd system. [3]

The only "professional armies" during the Saxon era were a few contingents of housecarls attached directly to the households of the King and the great Earls. These contingents were small in number because they were expensive to maintain. For the battle of Hastings, Harold could muster a force of only about 2200 housecarls, his own double force of about 2000 as King and Earl of Wessex, and several hundred more from his brothers Gyrth and Leofwine, whose earldoms adjoined his own. This was at a time when the total fyrd for all of England numbered around 50,000. [4] In earlier times, these contingents were even smaller. In the seventh century, for instance, the Dooms of Ine defined a group of seven men or less as "thieves," a group of seven to thirty-five men as "a band," and a group of more than thirty-five men as "an army." [5]

Wouldn't you say that that was what the founding fathers had in mind?

n examining the subject of the militia and the Constitution, a number of important issues immediately come to mind--the "federalism" issue of state versus national control of the militia, the "checks and balances" issue of presidential versus congressional control of the national military establishment, the issue of the political compromises reached in an effort to overcome the inherent weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation, and the paramount issue of civilian control over the military. To the Framers of the Constitution, the militia issue of perhaps the greatest significance, however, was the more fundamental question of the nature of the militia as a legal and political institution. Although less obvious to us today, that issue went to the very essence of the military's role in the new democratic republic and figured prominently in the debate over the ratification of the Constitution.

Nowhere in the Constitution is the term "militia" actually defined. Yet, when the Framers of the Constitution referred to the militia in the text of the document and the ratification debates, they had very definite ideas of what they meant. Their concept of the militia as a legal and political institution was a product of English heritage, as it was modified by the uniqueness of the American experience. It differed radically [p.2] from our own concept. Specifically, what we think of today as the militia--that is, the National Guard--would have been viewed as a "standing army" by political leaders of the Revolutionary era.

So, looking at the "intention" of the founding fathers as the right so loves to do, the Intention was a specific group of fighters.
 
It does indeed. Unless you are a militia under the terms of the constitution, you are not entitled to guns.



Wouldn't you say that that was what the founding fathers had in mind?



So, looking at the "intention" of the founding fathers as the right so loves to do, the Intention was a specific group of fighters.




The Founders already told you, in their own words, what they intended in the quotes I gave you.... but you ignored them, just like you ignore everything that doesn't fit your narrow agenda.

Fail again...
 
We're already part of the unorganized militia. This is how we can be drafted, because we're already affiliated with the military by default...the state can just 'call us up'. They're not enslaving a free man, they're activating a militiaman. The very purpose of the Selective Service is to record exactly who is in the unorganized militia should they need to be activated.

I've long been of the opinion that a 2-year term or service should be mandatory for everyone upon turning 18, because when you turn 18 you become part of the militia whether you like it or not. This is forced on you like taxes, so IMO just roll with it, use it to your advantage. Even if you choose not to continue to serve in the military, you are still in the militia and so you should have some base-level training to accompany it. You could be summarily deputized during a natural disaster before relief comes. You could be part of a neighborhood watch, etc. These civil duties would be greatly served by basic military training.

Militias were called up to quell union riots in the steel industry (which is why the left doesn't like the 2A) and were called up in CA, OR, and WA during WW2.
Well, we certainly agree here! :)

The only thing I wonder about is the length of service - but I think that's a matter of if it's full time or part time like the National Guard. I think there has to be some full time for "basic training" (3 months? - and not the same as Army/Marine basic). After that, two years at one weekend a month and 2-3 weeks a year is reasonable.
 
In point of fact, Randy Weaver was pressured by the ATF to act as an undercover informant, and to make a deliberate effort on their behalf to sell illegal weapons to a skin-head-type group so the ATF could bust them. When Weaver decided the risk involved in doing this was more than he was prepared to put his family though, they retreated to their cabin, where they were needlessly assaulted by government agents who behaved in an appallingly jack-boot-thug manner resulting in the deaths of a child and an unarmed woman. Facts.


I know it is hard, but try to keep up here.



Well, you're right about Weaver. But that doesn't give a green light to the civilian militia in this nation.
 
Well, we certainly agree here! :)

The only thing I wonder about is the length of service - but I think that's a matter of if it's full time or part time like the National Guard. I think there has to be some full time for "basic training" (3 months? - and not the same as Army/Marine basic). After that, two years at one weekend a month and 2-3 weeks a year is reasonable.
I was thinking a couple years in a reserve Guard unit. It's not a chunk out of your life unless you get deployed.
 
Prove this source's information is wrong first.
Use an unbiased source first. I linked to current US law. It will take much more than an opinion piece to debase that.
 
With one big exception. TODAY"S militia are domestic terrorists whose activities are subversive and dangerous to our society.

Only because you think that way, it's dangerous maybe to your status quo possibly, maybe, under certain situations. But "subversive and dangerous to our society"? Hell, freedom is subversive and dangerous to our society, but I'd rather be free. So I guess in a free Republic there is a certain amount of subversive danger which must be accepted and shouldered.
 
Well, you're right about Weaver. But that doesn't give a green light to the civilian militia in this nation.

Civilian militia doesn't need your green light. Who died and made you King anyway?
 
Yes, the ATF/etc people who framed Randy Weaver and then killed his wife and son ARE insane thugs who should not have military weapons.


Unfortunately, they work for the government.

And that's the true danger. Not some patriots pledging themselves to the defense of freedom, but the unchecked power of the government. There is no greater "terrorist" force.
 
I was thinking a couple years in a reserve Guard unit. It's not a chunk out of your life unless you get deployed.
I'd rather it be under local (State) control and not affiliated with the Fed in any way. In fact, I'd like to see county seats and large cities keep their militia members close for exercises instead of being moved halfway across the state. (Though basic could be done anywhere and a little bit of all terrains should be taught there.) Defending farm country is a much different game than defending suburbia, which is different than defending a city. The militia should be trained for local terrain.
 
I was thinking a couple years in a reserve Guard unit. It's not a chunk out of your life unless you get deployed.

It was not an opinion piece. But here's my government proof.

FBI — Terrorism 2002/2005

There is no single, universally accepted, definition of terrorism. Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85).

The FBI further describes terrorism as either domestic or international, depending on the origin, base, and objectives of the terrorist organization. For the purpose of this report, the FBI will use the following definitions:

Domestic terrorism is the unlawful use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual based and operating entirely within the United States or Puerto Rico without foreign direction committed against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof in furtherance of political or social objectives.
International terrorism involves violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any state, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or any state. These acts appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping. International terrorist acts occur outside the United States or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to coerce or intimidate, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.

The FBI Divides Terrorist-Related Activities into Two Categories:

A terrorist incident is a violent act or an act dangerous to human life, in violation of the criminal laws of the United States, or of any state, to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.
A terrorism prevention is a documented instance in which a violent act by a known or suspected terrorist group or individual with the means and a proven propensity for violence is successfully interdicted through investigative activity.

Note: The FBI investigates terrorism-related matters without regard to race, religion, national origin, or gender. Reference to individual members of any political, ethnic, or religious group in this report is not meant to imply that all members of that group are terrorists. Terrorists represent a small criminal minority in any larger social context.

Militia Members Charged in Plot to Kill Police Officers - WSJ.com

ADRIAN, Mich.—Nine members of an anti-government militia group were charged Monday with conspiring to kill a law-enforcement officer in an effort to start a "war" against the U.S. government, authorities said.

The group, known as Hutaree, planned to kill an unidentified local law-enforcement officer in April and then attack local, state and federal officers who came to Michigan to attend the funeral, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan said in a 12-page indictment.

Seven members of an anti-government militia group were arraigned in federal court here, charged with conspiring to kill a law-enforcement official in hopes of starting a "war" against the U.S. government. WSJ's Neal Boudette reports from Detroit.

Seven members of the group were arraigned in federal court in Detroit, one was arraigned in Federal court in the Northern District of Indiana and the last person was arrested Monday night. Those arraigned were ordered held without bond until further hearings this week. Federal agents made the arrests after weekend raids in Michigan, Ohio and Indiana.

The indictment said Hutaree, a small, armed militia group based in rural southeast Michigan, had practiced attacks and other military maneuvers for more than a year, and had planned to use homemade bombs like those used against U.S. forces by insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bombs were the key part of the alleged plot to attack the funeral of a law-enforcement officer, the indictment said.

From 2010

Election, economy spark explosive growth of militias - U.S. News

The election of President Barack Obama in 2008 triggered an explosion in the number of militias and so-called patriot groups in the United States, the Southern Poverty Law Center reported in its annual tally of such anti-government organizations.

There were 149 militias and patriot groups when Obama took office, compared to more than 1,200 today — an increase of 755 percent, the nonprofit civil rights organization reported.

"The increase has just been astounding," said Mark Potok, editor-in-chief of the SPLC report. "The reality is that many of these groups are becoming more and more fearful that Barack Obama will win the re-election. You can see the anger rising along with that fear."

Follow @msnbc_us
Advertise | AdChoices

The SPLC defines the "patriot" movement as made up of conspiracy-minded individuals who see the federal government as their primary enemy. The movement includes paramilitary militias as well as groups of "sovereign citizens," who believe they are not subject to federal or state laws, nor obligated to pay federal taxes, according to SPLC.

The center also reports a steady rise in the number of hate groups in America — from 604 in 2000, to more than 1,000 last year. Those include anti-gay groups, anti-Muslim groups, black separatists and "Christian Identity" groups, which hold racist and anti-Semitic views that overlap with neo-Nazi beliefs.

They are not legal organizations when they want to take out the government. They have no rights to bear military style weapons.
 
Civilian militia doesn't need your green light. Who died and made you King anyway?



Sure they do. If they are listed under the FBI list of terrorists organizations, they are illegal. THAT who is the KING. No?
 
Only because you think that way, it's dangerous maybe to your status quo possibly, maybe, under certain situations. But "subversive and dangerous to our society"? Hell, freedom is subversive and dangerous to our society, but I'd rather be free. So I guess in a free Republic there is a certain amount of subversive danger which must be accepted and shouldered.

It's not freedom to shoot policemen. It's not freedom to ambush officers. No one is accepting the killing of our police force and no one is accepting the sale of guns without background checks on EVERY sale, and the building of federal mental health facilities for wing nuts so paranoid they see their government out to get them and can only think of arming themselves to solve the situation.
 
Sure they do. If they are listed under the FBI list of terrorists organizations, they are illegal. THAT who is the KING. No?

So the government randomly defines someone as X, and it's fine with ya huh? Guess you don't mind all the prearrests that happen before the DNC and GOP conventions these days. The restriction to "free speech zones", I mean these people are dangerous.

:roll:

The government will label anything that threatens its power, justly or unjustly, as "terrorists" because it gives them breadth of "law" to do whatever they want to those folk. And ignorant sheep will go about their day thinking it's ok to allow for no defense of the individual, or requiring proof on part of the government beyond the government made and proclaimed definition. I see you are the fan of the Catch-22.
 
Sure they do. If they are listed under the FBI list of terrorists organizations, they are illegal. THAT who is the KING. No?


We don't have a King. The Militia saw to that. :mrgreen:
 
And that's the true danger. Not some patriots pledging themselves to the defense of freedom, but the unchecked power of the government. There is no greater "terrorist" force.

How is the power of the government "unchecked"? How old are you?
 
It's not freedom to shoot policemen.

Under certain conditions, it is certainly defense of liberty and freedom however.

It's not freedom to ambush officers.

Depends on circumstance.

No one is accepting the killing of our police force and no one is accepting the sale of guns without background checks on EVERY sale, and the building of federal mental health facilities for wing nuts so paranoid they see their government out to get them and can only think of arming themselves to solve the situation.

Police are government employees and if one is pissed at the government and looking to elicit change through violence, they are valid target. Revolt, armed revolt, is a right of the People for when government grows too aggressively against our rights and liberties. The whole of the Republic is founded on this principle.
 
We don't have a King. The Militia saw to that. :mrgreen:

Not quite true. You have laws..those are the kings in this nation. And killing police violates those laws and negates ANY definition of freedom fighter attached to militia groups.
 
Under certain conditions, it is certainly defense of liberty and freedom however.



Depends on circumstance.



Police are government employees and if one is pissed at the government and looking to elicit change through violence, they are valid target. Revolt, armed revolt, is a right of the People for when government grows too aggressively against our rights and liberties. The whole of the Republic is founded on this principle.

Oh, I get it. You're a "Sons of Anarchy" kinda guy whose definition of his sexual abilities is through the size of his gun. You really can't believe what you say, or you're not old enough to have voted more than once.
 
How is the power of the government "unchecked"? How old are you?

When they no longer fear the People. When the election cycles are rigged such that only Republocrats can win, when government expands its powers through things such as TSA, the Patriot Act, HLS, etc to infringe upon the rights and liberties of the individual. When defeatists cry out that we shouldn't even fight, that we shouldn't even have the chance of fighting; thus attempting to remove the final check. That is how government becomes unchecked. Are you stupid?
 
Back
Top Bottom