2nd Amendment and the U.S. Code on Militia's

2nd Amendment and the U.S. Code on Militia's

The 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution plainly says;

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.

Gun grabbers always try to pervert this amendment by talking out the side of their necks when it comes to the meaning of a militia. So, i did the hard work for all the people out there that twist the amendment and this subsequent law.

In the United States Code (USC) is a compilation and codification of the general and permanent federal law of the United States. It contains 50 titles and is published every six years by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel of the US House of Representatives.

So, without further ado, the U.S. Code....

Title 10, U.S. Code, Chapter 13, Section 311

(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.

And that is why the US has the highest murder rate among all developed countries, that's a proven fact. By why let something like that disturb your feelings towards guns?

Hooo boy.

And where is that murder rate the most prevalent? Bring me the stats to go along with your rant.

Again, you can't even debate the point of the topic. You split straws. Debate the damn law as written!!!

Okay, let's debate the law as it is written. It says what you posted and that's that.

Are you referring to the places where gun laws are the strictest and crime rates are the highest? That's a nonsense argument. It's not hard to traffic guns into places where gun control is strict when you can get a gun easily anywhere else in the country. Felons can't buy guns, but they still have them don't they? And the reason they're so readily available on the black market is because they're readily available legally as well. The more guns are around, the more are going to fall into the wrong hands, plain and simple.

BubbleBliss wrote:
Okay, let's debate the law as it is written. It says what you posted and that's that.

Are you referring to the places where gun laws are the strictest and crime rates are the highest? That's a nonsense argument. It's not hard to traffic guns into places where gun control is strict when you can get a gun easily anywhere else in the country. Felons can't buy guns, but they still have them don't they? And the reason they're so readily available on the black market is because they're readily available legally as well. The more guns are around, the more are going to fall into the wrong hands, plain and simple.

You asked and answered your own debate. It's hilarious! More restrictions mean only one thing. More business on the black market and even easier access for criminals. If people want something badly enough, someone will supply it for a profit.

For many of America's gun-grabbers, the real goal has never been a safer society. To them, success is achieved not by reducing crime, but by enacting a law which is certain to fail. Of course, when it does, we'll need a new remedy, won't we?

Yeah, it does when you can have a market for illegal guns an hour away from a market of legal guns. Every idiot can go and buy as many guns as he wants to, or rob a gun store and sell them on the black market. It's basically giving merchants on the black market a supermarket to go get their goods they'll then sell on the black market.


Oh, yes. It's all about control with those damn socialists. The fact that the US has the highest murder rate in the developed countries has nothing to do with it.

BubbleBliss wrote:Yeah, it does when you can have a market for illegal guns an hour away from a market of legal guns. Every idiot can go and buy as many guns as he wants to, or rob a gun store and sell them on the black market. It's basically giving merchants on the black market a supermarket to go get their goods they'll then sell on the black market.

Then explain to me how with strict gun laws, DC and Chicago had/have some of the highest gun crimes and then you look at Minneapolis gun crime being low after the state passed a conceal-carry law a few years ago. Gun crime dropped dramatically after that law was passed as it did in Dallas-Ft. Worth when Texas passed the same conceal-carry law. Your logic is mind boggling.

BubbleBliss wrote:Oh, yes. It's all about control with those damn socialists. The fact that the US has the highest murder rate in the developed countries has nothing to do with it.

Who brought up socialists? You, not me. It seems like you intentionally try to stir up shit.

Because you can go a little outside of Chicago and DC and buy a gun!!! Got any sources for that?

I just figured I'd say it because Conservatives have shown again and again that they're thinking it. Maybe I should post a more Boortz like article that says things like Conservatives have no logic, are dumb and are powerhungry and controlling.

BubbleBliss wrote:Because you can go a little outside of Chicago and DC and buy a gun!!! Got any sources for that?

Again, how is it that gun crime dropped in Minneapolis and Dallas after the conceal-carry law was passed?

BubbleBliss wrote:I just figured I'd say it because Conservatives have shown again and again that they're thinking it. Maybe I should post a more Boortz like article that says things like Conservatives have no logic, are dumb and are powerhungry and controlling.

No, you assume people think it. Some do. Some don't. I never implied it or even suggested it nor have i ever said it anywhere. But you're doing it here to stir things up.

I asked you to provide a source for that. Then I'd like to see what kind of crimes were the ones most affected.

I do it more to poke fun, not to stir things up.

BubbleBliss wrote:
I asked you to provide a source for that. Then I'd like to see what kind of crimes were the ones most affected.

I do it more to poke fun, not to stir things up.

Go find it yourself. Do i have to provide source for each and every thing you don't like? The FBI statistics show that crime in Washing ton DC went down after the USSC ruled the gun ban unconstitutional. FBI stats show murders there fell by an astounding 25%, dropping from 186 to 140. Immediately after Chicago banned handguns in 1982, the murder rate (which had been falling almost continually for a decade) started to rise. Go look it up!

Okay, yet again I have to wade in and straighten out another foreigner on the intent and purpose of the 2nd Amendment.

I will begin by citing some of our nation’s founders on the subject, as it is they who conceived and included it into out founding documents and made it the SECOND right addressed in the Bill of Rights only next to freedom of speech and religion (which should give some pause as to the assault on religion in this country).

In speaking before the Virginia Ratifying Convention in 1788, Patrick Henry said: “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined."

In a letter to Justice John Cartwright, on June 5, 1824, Thomas Jefferson wrote: "The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."

In Federalist 29, written January 9, 1788, Alexander Hamilton wrote: “If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.”

Tench Coxe, in The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788, wrote: “Who are the militia? are they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American...The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”

Tench Coxe reiterated this sentiment a year later in his “Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution” in the Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 said: “As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”

So you see, bubbles, the 2nd Amendment is NOT about sport shooting, hunting or even home defense against criminals. It is the beating heart of our Bill or Rights. It gives those rights more than mere government lip service by seeing to it that this nation’s citizens can BE the needed counterbalance to potential government tyranny.

Remember, it was Jefferson who said, in his Bill for the more General Diffusion of Knowledge, "Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny."

But, let us now address your supposition that our right to keep and bear arms is the source of gun violence. Here I turn again to a founder.

Thomas Jefferson quoted Italian philosopher and politician Cesare, Marquis of Beccaria-Bonesana, when he wrote: [b]"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." Cesare Beccaria was best known for his treatise “On Crimes and Punishments.”

So even an 18th century ITALIAN philosopher could grasp the simple concept that disarming law abiding citizens does NOTHING to secure their safety and security from criminals, who DON’T feel obliged to obey those laws that disarm the law abiding citizens, thereby giving them a target rich environment to hunt in.

This restriction of gun rights coupled with weak enforcement of the law (including sentencing) is a sure recipe for anarchy on the streets. This is what happened in cities like Detroit, Los Angeles, D.C. and others.

The creation of gun exclusion zones only ensures that the only people to be found armed in those zones are the very people who could care less about such laws. In fact, it signals to the criminal element that here there be good hunting.

Having a gun for personal protection creates a hostile work environment for criminals.