Summations Only

Hi No, Sure I have read the entire Constitution several times.Now as to my definition of Militia.

quote:

---

A militia (pron.: /mɨˈlɪʃə/),[1] generally refers to an army or other fighting force that is composed of non-professional fighters; citizens of a nation or subjects of a state or government that can be called upon to enter a combat situation, as opposed to a professional force of regular soldiers or, historically, members of the fighting nobility

---

SourceWhat Malitia was this part of the Constitution refering too?The National Guard did not exist at this time. It did not begin to exist until 1903.What constituted a State Militia prior to the ratification of the Constitution?

quote:

---

Art. XVII. The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without
the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority and be governed by it.

​

Art. VII. The governor of this commonwealth, for the time being, shall be the commander-inchief of the army and navy, and of all the military forces of the State, by sea and land; and shall have full power, by himself or by any commander, or other officer or officers, from time to time, to train, instruct, exercise, and govern the militia and navy; and, for the special defence and safety of the commonwealth, to assemble in martial array, and put in warlike
posture, the inhabitants thereof, and to lead and conduct them, and with them to encounter, repel, resist, expel, and pursue, by force of arms, as by sea as by land, within or within the limits of this commonwealth; and also to kill, slay, and destroy, if necessary, and conquer, by all fitting ways, enterprises, and means whatsoever, all and every such person and persons as shall, at any time hereafter, in a hostile manner, attempt or enterprise the destruction, invasion, detriment, or annoyance of this commonwealth; and to use and
exercise over the army and navy, and over the militia in actual service, the law-martial, in time of war or invasion, and also in time of rebellion, declared by the legislature to exist, as occasion shall necessarily require; and to take and surprise, by all ways and means
whatsoever, all and every such person or persons, with their ships, arms, and ammunititon, and other goods, as shall, in a hostile manner, invade, or attempt the invading, conquering, or annoying this commonwealth; and that the governor be intrusted with all these and other powers incident to the offices of captain-general and commander-in-chief, and admiral, to be exercised agreeably to the rules and regulations of the constitution and the laws of the land,
and not otherwise.

​

Provided, That the said governor shall not, at any time hereafter, by virtue of any power by this constitution granted, or hereafater to be granted to him by the legislature, transport any of the inhabitants of this commonwealth, or oblige them to march out of the limits of the
same, without their free and voluntary consent, or the consent of the general court; except so far as may be necessary to march or transport them by land or water for the defence of such part of the State to which they cannot otherwise conveniently have access.

---

These 2 articles are taken from the Massachusetts Constitution that was written in 1780.They reserved the right to keep and bear arms with no limit mentioned as to what kind of arms were to be kept.The governor was the commander in chief of the Militia, Army, Navy and all military forces of the State.Just a little look at the way the States saw the Militia prior to the formation of the United States. This is just one example. But the president did not call forth the state militia. He called forth the National Guard.

quote:

---

The National Guard was established as a federally funded reserve component of the nation's armed forces on 21 January 1903 with the Militia Act of 1903 under Title 10 and Title 32 of the US Code.

---

SourceThe National Guard was established in 1903. Which means it did not exist prior to 1903. According to the Militia Act of 1903 the president is the commander in chief of the Nation Guard. So what Militia did he call up? Yes, and State Militia's did exist when the Constitution was written and adopted. But with the Militia Act of 1903 the State Militia's ceased to exist. Everything became a Federally controlled system.

quote:

---

The Militia Act of 1903 organized the various state militias into the present National Guard system.

---

SourceSo everything became a Federally funded and controlled system. Removing all control from the State's. The States have to get permission to use the National Guard as the National Guard is under the direct control of the Department of Defense.Each State has an adjutant general who makes all tactical decisions, concerning anything the governor of a State wants the Guard to do.God Bless,

Hi No, I agree, great answer.The Problem is that the National Guard is not a State Militia.In fact you can not even name 1 State today that has a State Militia.Your contention is that the National Guard is a State Militia. If it was a State Militia there would have been no guardsmen die in foreign countries. The State malitia's could be called into service when the US was invaded or for insurrections.In Message 1978 you quoted the Constitution saying:

quote:

---

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
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, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

---

If the National Guard is a State Militia why are they being used to fight a war in Iraq, and Afghanistan?Why are they being deployed to the Sinai Peninsula?Where in the Constitution is authority given for a State Militia to be deployed anywhere other than on US soil?I propose that the National Guard is a Federally established, and Federally funded reserve component of the nation's armed forces. Which was established in 1903 by the Malitia Act of 1903.

quote:

---

The National Guard was established as a federally funded reserve component of the nation's armed forces on 21 January 1903 with the Militia Act of 1903 under Title 10 and Title 32 of the US Code.

---

SourceSince the National Guard is a Federally established/funded component of the nation's armed forces it can be deployed anywhere the Congress and President decides to deploy them.IOW the Congress and President do not believe the National Guard is a State Militia. I am not argueing that the State's militia's did not change in 1903. I am argueing that they did change as they ceased to exist according too the Militia Act of 1903 under Title 10 and Title 32 of the US Code. No, I never made such an argument. The Constitution clearly states that the State Militia's could be used to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions. You can put it to rest as I have never made such an argument.My argument has been that the Natinal Guard is not a State Militia.If it was it could only be used to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions. It could not be used anywhere else in the world.I believe that the citizens of every State should compose a Militia.

quote:

---

A militia (pron.: /mɨˈlɪʃə/),[1] generally refers to an army or other fighting force that is composed of non-professional fighters; citizens of a nation or subjects of a state or government that can be called upon to enter a combat situation, as opposed to a professional force of regular soldiers or, historically, members of the fighting nobility.

---

SourceThere are some things in the Constitution that I would like to see removed, but none of those have anything to do with what is being discussed at present. One case is I think the seventeenth amdndment should be repealed and go back to the original Constitutional way of Senators being chosen. Thus the States would be represented in Washington.But as far as what we have been discussing I have no problems with what the Constitution says. I do have a problem with the way some want to say what the Constitution says.The second amendment says:

quote:

---

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.

---

I believe that statement. You and others here do not believe what the Constitution says.You want to put limitations on what Arms can be owned by the citizens. But you and those calling for limitations wants to implement those changes without changing the Constitution to do so. Everyone wants to change it by executive order or laws by Congress.That is not the way to change the Constitution.I believe there should be limitations (I don't think everyone should be walking around with a nuclear bomb in a suitcase) as to what arms can be possessed. But if we are going to place such limitations on the second amendment we need to do it the way prescribed in the Constitution.The Congress and the President could come up with a list of things they would like to change about the second amendment such as add limitations to what could be owned by private citizens. These could be put in the form of an amendment to the Constitution and then presented to the States for ratification. If 38 States would ratify the amendment it would become law.You being a lawyer I would think you would want things done the way the Constitution precribes that they be done. Was the National Guard established as a federally funded reserve component of the nation's armed forces on 21 January 1903 with the Militia Act of 1903 under Title 10 and Title 32 of the US Code.?If the National Guard was established by an act of Congress that was signed into law by the President it is not an entity of the several State's.The State's had nothing to do with the establishment of the National Guard.Since the State's had nothing to do with the establishment of the National Guard, how can it be a State Militia?God Bless,

Hi Taq,Point of information. Don't we already register our cars?So what was your point?God Bless,

Hi Theo,Have you ever qualified expert with any weapon? Close is as I described upthread about a mob turning into my yard with intent to do me or my family harm.I practice at 25 feet, 50 feet, and 75 feet with all weapons I own except the long rifles. I do not own a BGM as the cost with scope and carrying case is close to $15,000. I have fired many rounds that is probably part of our National Debt, while in the military. Those bullets are very expensive at $4.90 per round.God Bless,

Hi Taq, I know you believe that. But what do you base that belief on?The National Guard was established and funded by an act of Congress and signed into law by the President in 1903.

quote:

---

The National Guard was established as a federally funded reserve component of the nation's armed forces on 21 January 1903 with the Militia Act of 1903 under Title 10 and Title 32 of the US Code.

---

SourcePlease explain to me how something that was established by Congress is a State Militia which the State's had no involvment in establishing or funding.God Bless,

Hi No, Would they know where to find your car if they decided to confiscate it or reposess it?God Bless,

Hi Percy,Why are you still spouting the same old statements that is not born out by the facts? In the past decade there have been 100 million NICS checks with 700,000 denials. That is a lot of legal gun sales. Meaning there is 99 million more guns today than there was 10 years ago.
SourceIn 2006 there were 10,225 murders by firearms.
In 2007 there were 10,129 murders by firearms.
In 2008 there were 9,528 murders by firearms.
In 2009 there were 9,199 murders by firearms.
In 2010 there were 8,775 murders by firearms. SourceAccording to these numbers homicides are decreasing per 100,000 people.2012: 2.833
2011: 3.618
2010: 3.5919 21
2009: 3.7519 22 21
2008: 4.01
2007: 4.19
2006: 4.29
2005: 4.18
2004: 3.97
2003: 4.11
2002: 4.1119 27
2001: 3.98
2000: 3.8419
1999: 3.8819 23
1998: 3.3723
1993: 7.0728 SourceIn 2011 there were 19,766 suicides by gun.
In 2011 there were a total of 38,285 suicides.There were 18,519 suicides by other means. That tells me a person who is determined to commit suicide will find a way whether they have access to a gun or not. SourceSo where are your stats to back up your claims?God Bless

Hi Percy, Why don't you argue as hard on banning automobiles as you do about banning guns?

quote:

---

Car crashes killed 33,561 people in 2012, the most recent year for which data is available, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Firearms killed 32,251 people in the United States in 2011, the most recent year for which the Centers for Disease Control has data.

---

Automobiles are more dangerous than guns so why not the same outrage against cars as there is about guns?God Bless,

Hi Percy, So how would you propose to get rid of all the guns?Then how would you get rid of the ability to build a gun. You can go to the local hardware store and buy enough material for less than $10 to build a single shot pistol, or shotgun.You could take the guns out of the hands of honest people but you would never get the guns out of the hands of people who want one to commit a crime.Thousands of guns go missing from armory's and police arms storage each year in the US and the UK. How would you propose to control that problem.You talked about there are people that are trained and keep their training up todate. Then you mentioned those who do not. I would be in favor of every gun owner having to go to training at least once per year.I raised 2 sons with loaded guns in the house. From the time they were 2 years old they were exposed to loaded weapons and viewed what they could do to animals. By the time they were 7 years old they had their own shotguns. My oldest son killed his first deer just before his 8th birthday. When people are trained to use weapons there will be no problems. The object is to know what you are shooting before you pull the trigger.But you are correct there are a lot of idiots that should not be allowed to own guns of any kind. They just buy a gun have no training and do not respect what a gun can do.Enough of my rant.God Bless,