[Vision2020] SHAME ON U.S. ! ! !

Paul Rumelhart godshatter at yahoo.com
Thu Mar 21 16:53:29 PDT 2013


>From what I've been able to determine, "well-regulated" at the time meant something similar to "properly functioning".  The "militia" consisted of ordinary citizens, as well as the more formal "militias", such as the National Guard.  In fact, according to U.S. Code Title 10, Subtitle A, Part 1, Chapter 13,  (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311) many of us on this list are already members of the "unorganized militia".   Here is that statute in detail:

"(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."

Age and gender restrictions aside, it seems clear that "militia" was meant to refer to the "unorganized militia" consisting of "the People".  The intent seems to be that citizens would procure firearms themselves and train themselves to shoot straight so that if the "unorganized militia" was ever needed they would be ready.  Say, for example, we get invaded by Canada.

Any restrictions placed on weapons legally available to the general public would need to keep that in mind.  We would also need to keep in mind that the militia is intended to be necessary "to the security of a free State" according to the Second Amendment.  Given all that, if restrictions had to be  made, it would be to weapons that are either too cumbersome for an individual to use, or too specialized so as to require training that was too intense for the average citizen to be able to accomplish on their own (such as learning to operate and Apache helicopter).  You could probably make the argument that weapons that are not useful in protecting the "security of a free State" could be restricted, though you could probably argue that most any weapon could be useful somehow.

I don't know what to tell you.  As a general rule of thumb, based on the above, I'd say that any weapon a police officer or security guard would find useful to protect themselves against criminals or useful in riots should not be restricted.

Paul




________________________________
 From: Tom Hansen <thansen at moscow.com>
To: Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> 
Cc: "thansen at moscow.com" <thansen at moscow.com>; "vision2020 at moscow.com" <vision2020 at moscow.com> 
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2013 2:52 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] SHAME ON U.S. ! ! !
 

Mr. Rumelhart informs us:

"Besides, fast firing weapons sound like they might be useful to a militia."

Two questions . . .

1 - What do you consider to be a constitutionally acceptable definition of "a well regulated militia"?

2 - What restrictions, if any, would you enact concerning the types of weapons legally available to the general public?


Seeya round town, Moscow, because . . .

"Moscow Cares" (the most fun you can have with your pants on)
http://www.MoscowCares.com
  
Tom Hansen
Moscow, Idaho

"There's room at the top they are telling you still But first you must learn how to smile as you kill 
If you want to be like the folks on the hill."

- John Lennon

 

On Mar 21, 2013, at 2:37 PM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:


Besides,  fast firing weapons sound like they might be useful to a militia.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20130321/4edb9d3e/attachment.html>


More information about the Vision2020 mailing list