• 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!

[W:963] The Complete Moderate's Guide to Gun Control

Captain Adverse said:
My reply to this oft-repeated question has been given in other threads.

Here is a link to the last post in a rather lengthy argument on the topic... feel free to work your way back...or not. :shrug:
Click to expand...

I was hoping to participate in the conversation, not read someone else's. I can do that anywhere.
 
TurtleDude said:
so what was the natural right-the one that the Cruikshank court noted was not CREATED by the constitution that the founders intended to recognize with the second amendment? SELF DEFENSE WAS THAT NATURAL RIGHT
Click to expand...
We agree that self-defense is a basic right of all people. I don't think the right to own a firearm is synonymous with the right to self-defense, however.
 
Wayne Jr said:
Thank you for taking the time to look up a relevant portion of a Federalist Paper.

In reading it, I can see both interpretations, but I disagree with the modern idea forwarded by Conservative gun right's groups that the RKBA is about vigilantism. These groups, such as USCCA and any civilian company with the word 'tactical' in its name, don't use the term "vigilanty" just like the Brady Campaign doesn't use the term "anti-gun", but when you look at what they want and compair it to the terms, it fits. What began as a right to defend the State from the Feds has turned into a radicalist notin of civilians performing revolt against the State.

The 2nd A was intended to protect individual's right to personally own firearms in case they need to join a militia. The right has since evolved into a more personal liberty, and I'm not saying we should go back, but we should have accurate historical context going forward.
Click to expand...

You should probably take a close look at the Second Militia Act of 1792, and the current Title 10, U.S.C. 311...there is no "in case"....Citizens already are the militia.
 
Wayne Jr said:
We agree that self-defense is a basic right of all people. I don't think the right to own a firearm is synonymous with the right to self-defense, however.
Click to expand...

well you'r right-it could be a sword, a dirk, a flail or a poleax back then or a nunchaku, a taser, a can of CS or a "guard father" spike today along with a firearm.

what was the natural right the founders intended to guarantee with the second amendment?
 
Bum said:
You should probably take a close look at the Second Militia Act of 1792, and the current Title 10, U.S.C. 311...there is no "in case"....Citizens already are the militia.
Click to expand...
I'll have a read through the Second Militia Act of 1792, but as for Title 10, U.S.C. 311, that law exists only to facilitate the transfer of personnel internationally. I like to use the example of the Secret Service, which, as a civilian law enforcement agency, needs some legal groundwork before going overseas 1. armed and 2. in an official government capacity. The "unorganized militia" has never been called to muster or deployed.
 
Last edited:
Wayne Jr said:
I'll have a read through the Second Militia Act of 1792, but as for Title 10, U.S.C. 311, that law exists only to facilitate the transfer of personnel internationally. The "unorganized militia" ever been called to muster or deployed.
Click to expand...

If you meant "never been called to muster", I would like you to review a few items;

WW I
WW II
Korea
Viet Nam....

Another word for call to muster is "draft".

Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution and 10 U.S. Code § 246

And to save you a bit of time, ( though I encourage you to read it ) The Militia Act of 1792 IS Title 10 in its latest incarnation.
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
well you'r right-it could be a sword, a dirk, a flail or a poleax back then or a nunchaku, a taser, a can of CS or a "guard father" spike today along with a firearm.

what was the natural right the founders intended to guarantee with the second amendment?
Click to expand...
To be free from tyranny. That doesn't mean we have no limits on arms, that means we keep an ace up our sleeve should push come to shove.
 
Bum said:
If you meant "never been called to muster", I would like you to review a few items;

WW I
WW II
Korea
Viet Nam....

Another word for call to muster is "draft".

Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution and 10 U.S. Code § 246
Click to expand...

Those were military units, not the "un-organized militia". You never once saw a boatload of regular civilians armed with personal weapons deploy in WW1, WW2, Koria or Vietnam. You saw the Army, Navy, and Marines.
 
Those "military units" consisted of draftees....who were called to muster, trained, and deployed.

Title 10 is not organizational deployment doctrine for the Armed Forces....it has nothing to do with "moving forces internationally" as you have claimed....if you think it does, please cite the appropriate DoD regulation/doctrine/or other relevant publication.....deployments orders to go to war are generated through the JC under guidance from civilian government leadership....not Title 10.
 
Wayne Jr said:
To be free from tyranny. That doesn't mean we have no limits on arms, that means we keep an ace up our sleeve should push come to shove.
Click to expand...

we have limits-they come from state government properly. I don't buy the Stevens nonsense that the FOUNDERS must have wanted limits but because they didn't mention any, it must have been an "OVERSIGHT" and thus the Court should support such limits
 
Bum said:
You should probably take a close look at the Second Militia Act of 1792....
Click to expand...
Reading through the Act currently, it's clear the Act regards the organized militia, ie; the National Guard.

"The Militia Act of 1792, Passed May 8, 1792, providing federal standards for the organization of the Militia.

An ACT more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States.

I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved...."

So, Bum, if you're saying that you are a member of the militia, then it's reasonable for you to provide here and now the name of your Comanding officer. Please do so.
 
Last edited:
Wayne Jr said:
Reading through the Act currently, it's clear the Act regards the organized militia, ie; the National Guard.
Click to expand...

You are asserting that the Militia Act was in reference to the National Guard and Army Reserve?

Odd....the Second Militia Act was adopted in 1792.....the National Guard and Army Reserve would not exist for over another century....1903 and 1908, respectively.

You believe that the writers of the 2nd Militia Act wrote the law in anticipation of something that would not exist of another 100 plus years?
 
Bum said:
Those "military units" consisted of draftees....who were called to muster, trained, and deployed.
Click to expand...
They were drafted, not called to muster. Two very different things. Also, the Militia Act does not regard foreign wars. The Militia Act regards domestic assignments.
 
Bum said:
You are asserting that the Militia Act was in reference to the National Guard and Army Reserve?

Odd....the Second Militia Act was adopted in 1792.....the National Guard and Army Reserve would not exist for over another century....1903 and 1908, respectively.

You believe that the writers of the 2nd Militia Act wrote the law in anticipation of something that would not exist of another 100 plus years?
Click to expand...

You are claiming to be a member of the militia under the Militia Act, the Militia Act requires that you be enrolled into a formal unit by a Captian or Commanding Officer, so what are the names of your unit and commanding officer?

Of course, you don't have a commanding officer, because you aren't in the militia. This does not mean you cannot own arms, it just means you got the laws all wrong.

Please understand that I am not trying to be toxic by pointing out an error you've made. I make mistakes too. It's important to me that we deal with modern problems with an accurate historical perspective.
 
Last edited:
Wayne Jr said:
They were drafted, not called to muster. Two very different things.
Click to expand...

Not for purposes of this discussion....muster is to gather for accountability....recall that the civilians being drafted are already members of the unorganized militia, and mustering is the first step in training for them.
 
Wayne Jr said:
You are claiming to be a member of the militia under the Militia Act, so what are the names of your unit and commanding officer?
Click to expand...

My last unit was 2/12 Cavalry Regiment, 4th Brigade, 1st Cavalry Division...Commanding officer was Cpt Mendoza.

As a 23 year veteran, I am now retired, but still subject to Title 10 and mustering until my 65th birthday because of my status as a veteran.

How about you? Tell us about your last unit, Commander, and Military knowledge and experience...
 
Wayne Jr said:
You are claiming to be a member of the militia under the Militia Act, the Militia Act requires that you be enrolled into a formal unit by a Captian or Commanding Officer, so what are the names of your unit and commanding officer?

Of course, you don't have a commanding officer, because you aren't in the militia. This does not mean you cannot own arms, it just means you got the laws all wrong.
Click to expand...

LOL....no, it does not.....if you think it does, please link or cite the paragraph that supports that statement.

Additionally, the last block in a veterans DD214 states "Subject to recall by the Secretary of the Army and Secretary of Defense".
 
Bum said:
Not for purposes of this discussion....
Click to expand...
For purposes of any discussion. They were drafted, not called to muster. Different laws were involved.
 
Wayne Jr said:
For purposes of any discussion. They were drafted, not called to muster. Different laws were involved.
Click to expand...

You are splitting hairs to suit the definition you desire.....not that is has any affect on the stated and implied meaning for the 2nd Militia Act and Title 10.

Authority to draft is derived under Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution and 10 U.S. Code § 246......the very same Title and code that defines classes of militia.
 
Its nearly 7AM, and I have to get to work.

You have avoided several questions posed to you, and instead gone down a few rabbit holes;

Address the following that you have avoided:

Why was the National Guard and Reserve formed over 100 years after the 2nd Militia Act if the 2nd Militia act was meant for the National Guard and Reserve?

What citation, paragraph and line number stipulate I must be enrolled in a unit with a commanding officer if I am a veteran and member of the unorganized militia?

Provide legal citations and we can continue.
 
Bum said:
Its nearly 7AM, and I have to get to work.

You have avoided several questions posed to you, and instead gone down a few rabbit holes;

Address the following that you have avoided:

Why was the National Guard and Reserve formed over 100 years after the 2nd Militia Act if the 2nd Militia act was meant for the National Guard and Reserve?

What citation, paragraph and line number stipulate I must be enrolled in a unit with a commanding officer if I am a veteran and member of the unorganized militia?

Provide legal citations and we can continue.
Click to expand...

Actually I had an exhaustive reply about ready to go and I closed my browser so now I have to do it all over :D

You're subject to recall because you're retired. I'm not. I ETS'd. You're getting A LOT wrong here including the fact that you were in the Army, not the Militia.
 
Hopefully, I won't close the browser on myself this time :doh :lol:
Bum said:
My last unit was 2/12 Cavalry Regiment, 4th Brigade, 1st Cavalry Division...Commanding officer was Cpt Mendoza.
Click to expand...
So, that's an army unit, not a militia unit. So you were never in a militia unit, not a State Civil Militia or the National Guard. You were in the big Army.

Bum said:
As a 23-year veteran, I am now retired, but still subject to Title 10 and mustering until my 65th birthday because of my status as a veteran.
Click to expand...
As a retiree you're subject to recall, not muster. They're different things and shouldn't be confused with each other the way the left likes to confuse 'assault rifle' and 'assault weapon'.

Bum said:
How about you? Tell us about your last unit, Commander, and Military knowledge and experience...
Click to expand...
I was never in the militia so I don't have that information. I was in the big Army for a while and ETSd out after Afghanistan. I have no commander and am not subject to recall or muster. I'm not even in IRR anymore.

Bum said:
LOL....no, it does not.....if you think it does, please link or cite the paragraph that supports that statement.
Click to expand...
I've already don exactly that in post #36:
Wayne Jr said:
I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act.
Click to expand...

Bum said:
Additionally, the last block in a veterans DD214 states "Subject to recall by the Secretary of the Army and Secretary of Defense".
Click to expand...
Maybe on your DD214 it says that, because you are retired, and I am not. I happen to have my DD214 right here and the last block reads "30. member requests copy 4". Here's a pic:

dd214.jpg

Bum said:
You are splitting hairs to suit the definition you desire.
Click to expand...
In my heart of hearts I really don't think I'm doing that.

Bum said:
Why was the National Guard and Reserve formed over 100 years after the 2nd Militia Act if the 2nd Militia act was meant for the National Guard and Reserve?
Click to expand...
Today, that law regards the National Guard. Obviously it couldn't have regarded a unit that didn't exist at the time, but today it does.

Bum said:
What citation, paragraph and line number stipulate I must be enrolled in a unit with a commanding officer if I am a veteran and member of the unorganized militia?
Click to expand...
Militia Act of 1792, I, as I've already quoted here and in post #36.

Bum said:
Provide legal citations and we can continue.
Click to expand...
There's no excuse for you having not seen my previous citation. You're factualy incorect about nearly everything you say, including your own service and your own status.
 
Last edited:
How are we supposed to have a discussion if participants can't even get the basic facts correct?
 
Wayne Jr said:
How are we supposed to have a discussion if participants can't even get the basic facts correct?
Click to expand...

well I was never in the army or navy or USAF or Marines or NG but I may have been in the militia. but lets get back to the natural right recognized in the second amendment
 
Wayne Jr said:
How are we supposed to have a discussion if participants can't even get the basic facts correct?
Click to expand...

How come no one agrees with you, but rather the wording of 10 USC 246? I got out of the Army in 1990, and my IRR obligation was up in 2000. I was still under the age of 45 and subject to the obligations of the unorganized militia under 10 USC 246 until I reached age 46. Similarly I was also a member of the Colorado state militia at the same time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom