• 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

How come no one agrees with you, but rather the wording of 10 USC 246?
I don't understand your question, could you please rephrase it?
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.
Service in the military has nothing to do with service in the militia. I'm unsure why people keep bringing it up.
 
I don't understand your question, could you please rephrase it?

You claim to have an understanding of 10 USC 246 that no one else has. Why do you assume that all of us, including one who has taught Constitutional law, are wrong.

Service in the military has nothing to do with service in the militia. I'm unsure why people keep bringing it up.

I brought it up to show that even though I had military service, including reserve time, that post-2000 I was de jure a member of the unorganized militia.
 
You claim to have an understanding of 10 USC 246 that no one else has. Why do you assume that all of us, including one who has taught Constitutional law, are wrong.
You could all agree that the Earth is flat, that doesn't make it so. I can prove 'the Earth is round' empirically, so if everyone else disagrees that just makes everyone else wrong.

1. There is no tradition or history of an "un-organized militia" being used at all in the entire spectrum of national defense.

2. The first militia law written under the 2nd Amendment, the Uniform Militia Act of 1792, does not recognize any body of citizens as an "un-organized militia". Instead, it calls for citizens to become enrolled and from that point forward be members of the militia. If you're not enrolled, you're not in a militia, which at the time meant you could be fined or jailed.

3. The idea of an "un-organized militia" is contradictory to the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment proscribes "a well-regulated militia", meaning training, and training takes organization. Un-organized means un-regulated which means un-trained.

4. An "unorganized" class of something that is really only defined by it's "organization" and "discipline" is a sophistry.

My opinion, which I seporate from the rest of this post as this post presents fact, is that the only reason any of you accept this legal gymnastics in the first place is that it gets you out of mandatory drill.
 
Last edited:
He said the statements, as you quote, were always in reference to state militias. Would you care to cite the entire conversation of each quote you gave so that everyone can place those quotes in their proper context?

I thought it was interesting that "god given rights" are open to human revision.
He thinks the Bill of Rights was written to protect state governmental entities? Just how big a ****ing moron is he??? I mean seriously...other than someone desperately trying to promote gun control, who would be stupid enough to make such an argument???
 
He thinks the Bill of Rights was written to protect state governmental entities? Just how big a ****ing moron is he??? I mean seriously...other than someone desperately trying to promote gun control, who would be stupid enough to make such an argument???

An intelligent reply would be to illustrate how the Bill of Rights was not written to protect government entities.
 
An intelligent reply would be to illustrate how the Bill of Rights was not written to protect government entities.
And to demonstrate that I would simply tell that ****ing moron and anyone that bought into his ridiculous comments they should do some reading...and start with the actual document itself.
 
1. There is no tradition or history of an "un-organized militia" being used at all in the entire spectrum of national defense.

2. The first militia law written under the 2nd Amendment, the Uniform Militia Act of 1792, does not recognize any body of citizens as an "un-organized militia". Instead, it calls for citizens to become enrolled and from that point forward be members of the militia. If you're not enrolled, you're not in a militia, which at the time meant you could be fined or jailed.

3. The idea of an "un-organized militia" is contradictory to the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment proscribes "a well-regulated militia", meaning training, and training takes organization. Un-organized means un-regulated which means un-trained.

4. An "unorganized" class of something that is really only defined by it's "organization" and "discipline" is a sophistry.

My opinion, which I seporate from the rest of this post as this post presents fact, is that the only reason any of you accept this legal gymnastics in the first place is that it gets you out of mandatory drill.

Well....I think I can begin to see the source of the confusion for you.

Lets address this by item.

1. You are a veteran...I am a veteran and a retiree....the law as written below:

All able bodied men, 17 to 45 of age, are ultimately eligible to be called up into military service and belong to the class known as the reserve militia, also known as the unorganized militia (10 USC). Able bodied men who are not eligible for inclusion in the reserve militia pool are those aliens not having declared their intent to become citizens of the United States (10 USC 246) and former regular component veterans of the armed forces who have reached the age of 64 (32 USC 313). All female citizens who are members of National Guard units are also included in the reserve militia pool (10 U.S.C. § 246).

You conflated veteran and retired...you are a veteran and subject to the above law until age 64; and, as such, are subject to recall.
Do not confuse this with the MSO ( Mandatory Service Obligation ) of 8 years that all service members incur upon enlistment.

All citizens are members of the unorganized militia unless they opt to join the organized militia; upon leaving the military, you automatically fell into the category mentioned above.....the Second Militia Act has never been repealed or replaced....simply modified to allow African Americans to serve, and females to be included.
Yes, you are still subject to recall as a veteran until age64.
2. The first militia law written under the 2nd Amendment, the Uniform Militia Act of 1792, does not recognize any body of citizens as an "un-organized militia". Instead, it calls for citizens to become enrolled and from that point forward be members of the militia. If you're not enrolled, you're not in a militia, which at the time meant you could be fined or jailed.

Selective reading on your part.....the above was superceded by the Second Militia Act of 1792; which states:

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 was further defined :

§246. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are-
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.


Lets look at that last sentence.....if NOT members of the National Guard and Naval Militia, yet still identified in the Second Militia act....who does that leave?

The citizens......and it is still in effect under the current Title 10....that same Title 10 that the draft draws its authority from to draft the unorganized militia.

Those citizens that have been mustered to duty under the draft for how many wars over the history of our Nation?
 
You conflated veteran and retired...you are a veteran and subject to the above law until age 64; and, as such, are subject to recall.
I am not subject to recall. I was while in IRR, but that's over now. And I'm too old to be drafted.

Those citizens that have been mustered to duty under the draft for how many wars over the history of our Nation?
Draft and muster are two completely separate things. No one was ever "mustered to duty under the draft". They were drafted. Period. They were not called to muster.

So you keep misusing legal terms and you forgot to address any of the 4 points I made in the post you quoted. If you are choosing to cling to these incorrect understandings of the terms and how they apply, or don't apply, make that known so I can just focus on the more interesting conversation with Turtle about the natural right the 2nd Amendment protects.
 
Last edited:
I am not subject to recall. I was while in IRR, but that's over now. And I'm too old to be drafted.


Draft and muster are two completely separate things. No one was ever "mustered to duty under the draft". They were drafted into the big Army or Marine, not called to muster to serve as militia.

If you have reached your 65th birthday, you are indeed no longer subject to recall under the law.

"Muster"...To assemble, summon, rally, convene, marshall, or demand the presence of.

You can be mustered to a Draft.....semantics.

The unorganized militia ( citizens) can, and have been mustered for the draft.

And you are ignoring the definition of "Unorganized militia".....lets not be disingenuous now.
 
If you are choosing to cling to these incorrect understandings of the terms and how they apply, or don't apply, make that known so I can just focus on the more interesting conversation with Turtle about the natural right the 2nd Amendment protects.
You can be mustered to a Draft.....semantics.
Thank you for making your intentions known, I will behave accordingly.

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
I'm feeling out your position on gun rights here...can we agree that the RKBA carries some limitations? We can discuss what exactly those limitations are later, but if you're one of these people who insists that any and all limitations whatsoever are infringements, then the conversation won't go very far.

For example, I don't think banning WMDs or explosives from private ownership is an infringement and I feel confident to defend that position. I'm hoping to find people who don't believe Joe Anybody has the right to store grenades in his closet.
 
Last edited:
Thank you for making your intentions known, I will behave accordingly.


I'm feeling out your position on gun rights here...can we agree that the RKBA carries some limitations? We can discuss what exactly those limitations are later, but if your one of these people who insists that any and all limitations whatsoever are infringements, then the conversation won't go very far.

For example, I don't think banning WMDs or explosives from private ownership is an infringement and I feel confident to defend that position. I'm hoping to find people who don't believe Joe Anybody has the right to store grenades in his closet.

How you personally chose to interpret the law as written is entirely up to you....but it does not alter the law.
 
Thank you for making your intentions known, I will behave accordingly.


I'm feeling out your position on gun rights here...can we agree that the RKBA carries some limitations? We can discuss what exactly those limitations are later, but if you're one of these people who insists that any and all limitations whatsoever are infringements, then the conversation won't go very far.

For example, I don't think banning WMDs or explosives from private ownership is an infringement and I feel confident to defend that position. I'm hoping to find people who don't believe Joe Anybody has the right to store grenades in his closet.

Where do you think the government was granted the power to restrict citizens from owning explosives like grenades? We know that the restriction originated in NFA 1934; where did the feds suddenly get that power?
 
Thank you for making your intentions known, I will behave accordingly.


I'm feeling out your position on gun rights here...can we agree that the RKBA carries some limitations? We can discuss what exactly those limitations are later, but if you're one of these people who insists that any and all limitations whatsoever are infringements, then the conversation won't go very far.

For example, I don't think banning WMDs or explosives from private ownership is an infringement and I feel confident to defend that position. I'm hoping to find people who don't believe Joe Anybody has the right to store grenades in his closet.

WMD have interstate consequences. explosives don't merit second amendment protections since they are indiscriminate weapons
 
WMD have interstate consequences. explosives don't merit second amendment protections since they are indiscriminate weapons
I have to disagree that explosives are indiscriminate. Having seen explosive shells used against groups of 100% enemies, said explosive shells killed 0 non-enemies. When you have friendlies in the mix, you don't deploy explosives in the first place, unless your intent is to allow collateral damage which you agree to pay for later, as we did twice in Japan.
 
I have to disagree that explosives are indiscriminate. Having seen explosive shells used against groups of 100% enemies, said explosive shells killed 0 non-enemies. When you have friendlies in the mix, you don't deploy explosives in the first place, unless your intent is to allow collateral damage which you agree to pay for later, as we did twice in Japan.

that's not the real issue is it.
 
Thank you for making your intentions known, I will behave accordingly.


I'm feeling out your position on gun rights here...can we agree that the RKBA carries some limitations? We can discuss what exactly those limitations are later, but if you're one of these people who insists that any and all limitations whatsoever are infringements, then the conversation won't go very far.

For example, I don't think banning WMDs or explosives from private ownership is an infringement and I feel confident to defend that position. I'm hoping to find people who don't believe Joe Anybody has the right to store grenades in his closet.

There is no point in discussing which 'limitations' are 'infringements' unless you precisely state your intended limitations. IMHO, when proposed limitations (must?) include exemptions (exceptions?) for off duty LEOs then they have gone too far, for example, magazine capacity limits. The excuse that LEOs are trained (educated?) falls flat unless you offer that taxpayer funded training (education) to any that wish to obtain it. Most state required CHL, CCW and LTC training consists of a 10 hour course with minimal range time included - hardly a major public expense if that training would actually save lives.
 
There is no point in discussing which 'limitations' are 'infringements' unless you precisely state your intended limitations. IMHO, when proposed limitations (must?) include exemptions (exceptions?) for off duty LEOs then they have gone too far, for example, magazine capacity limits. The excuse that LEOs are trained (educated?) falls flat unless you offer that taxpayer funded training (education) to any that wish to obtain it. Most state required CHL, CCW and LTC training consists of a 10 hour course with minimal range time included - hardly a major public expense if that training would actually save lives.
Thank you for the constructive questioning.

I supported the Clinton assault weapon ban because I hadn't seen such in action before and thought it was worth a try. Well, we tried it, and the research shows the ban did nothing. The ban did not help States become more secure in any way, nor did it deter crime, suicide, or injuries from negligence. So in terms of banning capacities and cosmetic features, I don't support it. It was worth a shot, it didn't work, time to move on. That being said, if throwing in a capacity limit or something helps a bill which is performing a constructive task get passed, I'll roll my eyes, say 'whatever' and go with it. It's annoying but it's not the end of the world.

I am interested in looking into a waiting period for every gun purchases. I've read that this reduces suicides and I think it merits more research.

I would like to see the machinegun registry reopened. It is so painfully obvious that assault rifles play a critical roll in facilitating the small unit tactics that a militia would be reasonably expected to perform. I also have no problem registering that assault rifle, being required to store it in a rated safe, and undergoing at least some kind of initial intermediate training (beyond basic safe handling and more into small unit tactics/CQB). Registration for the state to know how many militia they have and where, and training so you're effective, do not undermine the RKBA.

I assume we can at least agree on a few basic limits such as needing to be the age or majority and not have a violent past. Are there any limitations that you would be willing to negotiate in exchange for some benefit? What limitations would you offer for which benifits?
 
Thank you for the constructive questioning.

I supported the Clinton assault weapon ban because I hadn't seen such in action before and thought it was worth a try. Well, we tried it, and the research shows the ban did nothing. The ban did not help States become more secure in any way, nor did it deter crime, suicide, or injuries from negligence. So in terms of banning capacities and cosmetic features, I don't support it. It was worth a shot, it didn't work, time to move on. That being said, if throwing in a capacity limit or something helps a bill which is performing a constructive task get passed, I'll roll my eyes, say 'whatever' and go with it. It's annoying but it's not the end of the world.

I am interested in looking into a waiting period for every gun purchases. I've read that this reduces suicides and I think it merits more research.

I would like to see the machinegun registry reopened. It is so painfully obvious that assault rifles play a critical roll in facilitating the small unit tactics that a militia would be reasonably expected to perform. I also have no problem registering that assault rifle, being required to store it in a rated safe, and undergoing at least some kind of initial intermediate training (beyond basic safe handling and more into small unit tactics/CQB). Registration for the state to know how many militia they have and where, and training so you're effective, do not undermine the RKBA.

I assume we can at least agree on a few basic limits such as needing to be the age or majority and not have a violent past. Are there any limitations that you would be willing to negotiate in exchange for some benefit? What limitations would you offer for which benifits?

I have suggested including one's 2A status on their state issued, photo ID - if one passes a voluntary NICS BGC then their ID is stamped "GUN OK" allowing easy and immediate determination if they are legally able to buy, keep or carry guns and/or ammo. We must keep in mind that constituional rights, unlike state issued privileges, remain intact unless removed by due process of law and are not conditionally granted by the state in exchange for taking classes, passing tests or paying fees.
 
I have suggested including one's 2A status on their state issued, photo ID - if one passes a voluntary NICS BGC then their ID is stamped "GUN OK" allowing easy and immediate determination if they are legally able to buy, keep or carry guns and/or ammo. We must keep in mind that constituional rights, unlike state issued privileges, remain intact unless removed by due process of law and are not conditionally granted by the state in exchange for taking classes, passing tests or paying fees.

Your suggestion reminds me of the Michigan State 'enhanced' ID that allows one to cross into Canada, no passport required.
 
I have to disagree that explosives are indiscriminate. Having seen explosive shells used against groups of 100% enemies, said explosive shells killed 0 non-enemies. When you have friendlies in the mix, you don't deploy explosives in the first place, unless your intent is to allow collateral damage which you agree to pay for later, as we did twice in Japan.
My solution is simple, whatever the average soldier has access to, so should we. Plus it's already legal, albeit extremely hard, to obtain explosives.
 
My solution is simple, whatever the average soldier has access to, so should we. Plus it's already legal, albeit extremely hard, to obtain explosives.
The average soldier doesn't have access to their weapon at all. The average soldier is performing non-combat operations and his weapon is locked in the armory. The average soldier cannot check out that weapon whenever they want, they need the supply NCO's permission just to clean it, the commander's permission to go to the range with it, and the battalion commander's permission to use it in any form of conflict including self defense. And this is assuming the soldier is in good standing with his unit. When is that last time you tested APFT? If you don't have a passing APFT score within the last calendar year then your out and your weapon is assigned to someone else. The average soldier does not have access to explosives at all, ever.

Be careful what you wish for.
 
Last edited:
The Complete Moderate's Guide to Gun Control

Maybe while in garrison. Otherwise you’re wrong. Even in garrison you’re wrong about the PT score.
 
Thank you for the constructive questioning.

I supported the Clinton assault weapon ban because I hadn't seen such in action before and thought it was worth a try. Well, we tried it, and the research shows the ban did nothing. The ban did not help States become more secure in any way, nor did it deter crime, suicide, or injuries from negligence. So in terms of banning capacities and cosmetic features, I don't support it. It was worth a shot, it didn't work, time to move on. That being said, if throwing in a capacity limit or something helps a bill which is performing a constructive task get passed, I'll roll my eyes, say 'whatever' and go with it. It's annoying but it's not the end of the world.

I am interested in looking into a waiting period for every gun purchases. I've read that this reduces suicides and I think it merits more research.

I would like to see the machinegun registry reopened. It is so painfully obvious that assault rifles play a critical roll in facilitating the small unit tactics that a militia would be reasonably expected to perform. I also have no problem registering that assault rifle, being required to store it in a rated safe, and undergoing at least some kind of initial intermediate training (beyond basic safe handling and more into small unit tactics/CQB). Registration for the state to know how many militia they have and where, and training so you're effective, do not undermine the RKBA.

I assume we can at least agree on a few basic limits such as needing to be the age or majority and not have a violent past. Are there any limitations that you would be willing to negotiate in exchange for some benefit? What limitations would you offer for which benifits?

With regards to the so called “assault weapons ban”. All it did was limit “features”. So I sacrificed a bayonet lug for a standard 30 round mag. There was never an “assault weapons” ban.
 
The average soldier doesn't have access to their weapon at all. The average soldier is performing non-combat operations and his weapon is locked in the armory. The average soldier cannot check out that weapon whenever they want, they need the supply NCO's permission just to clean it, the commander's permission to go to the range with it, and the battalion commander's permission to use it in any form of conflict including self defense.
That's for a soldier's assigned weapon owned by the unit. Soldiers that live in the barracks can keep their own POW in the armories, where they do need commander permission to take them out, but they can also store POW off-post, and access them any time they leave the post. Soldiers that live off post have no more restrictions on their POW than civilians.

And this is assuming the soldier is in good standing with his unit. When is that last time you tested APFT? If you don't have a passing APFT score within the last calendar year then your out and your weapon is assigned to someone else.

Utter BS. Those that fail the APFT twice can be separated, but until that point, they are still assigned a weapon. There aren't soldiers in a unit who don't have a firearms already assigned just waiting for someone to fail an APFT.

The average soldier does not have access to explosives at all, ever.

The average soldier doesn't have access to military explosives except under close supervision, true. However, the average soldier can go to Cabelas and buy pounds of smokeless powder just like anyone else, and pressure cookers and PVC are pretty easily found, too.
 
Back
Top Bottom