dongreen76

..AND WHAT PRE-TELL IS U.S CODE.!!!!!
!!!!BECAUSE A MILITARY HAD NOT BEEN FORMED YET.!!!
THE MILITARY WAS MADE OUT OF THE M*****A,!!!THE M*****A FORMED THE MILITARY,!!!!OUT OF THEIR M*****A CAME THE ARMY WHICH IS THE MILITARY.!!!! THE MILITA WAS THE PROTOTYPE OF A NATIONAL GUARD,IT IS LIKE THE LAST LINE OF DEFENSE.!!! WHETHER OR NOT YOU OWNED A GUN OR NOT YOU WERE EXPECTED TO PARTICIPATE;!! WAS THERE ANY LAW THAT STATED THAT YOU MUST HAVE OWNED A MUSKETT.!!!! ONLY THE LAW OF COMMON SENSE DECREED
THAT YOU OWNED A GUN......
.....A WELL REGULATED M*****A.? DID THE COUNTRY, AT THAT TIME HAVE AN ARMY,NAVY,OR AIRFORCE,NO ! BECAUSE IT DIDN'T EXIST YET,NEITHER DID THE CONSTITUTION, THERE FORE,THERE COULD NOT BEEN A LAW STATING WHETHER YOU COULD OWN A GUN OR NOT.WHEN THEY DID MAKE THE LAW,THEY REFERRED TO IT AS HAVING TO BE REGULATED,CONTROLLED,IF THEY CONTROLLED YOU ,WHOM WERE PART OF THE M*****A,THEN THEY CONTROL THE GUNS YOU MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE OWNED."you people"can't except being wrong,when it is perceived by you that you are,like B.Clinton,you quibble in semantics.

Hug

Why don't you just take your gun to the police station and turn it in?

Kickaha Loc: Nebraska

The code for the m*****as is 10 US Code § 246.
Regulated as in operating together, coordinating activities. A well regulated clock means it is operating smoothly and accurately, it does not mean laws control it. The m*****a is the people, it is not a standing army or national guard. The m*****as are under the control of the governor. There was no specified weapon that m*****a members were to have, but was understood to be commonly own weapons. There was no restriction on the type of weapons. At the time of the Civil War, the army used single shot rifled muskets. Individual soldiers could bring their own firearms which many did. They owned rifles like the Henry repeating rifle. Many consider it the first assault rifle. While at the time it was possible for a private citizen to be better armed than the military, I am not advocating for private citizens to have miniguns and similar military hardware.

American Vet

Private citizens can have machine guns and similar military hardware now.

Kickaha Loc: Nebraska

I understand that, but it is heavily regulated and not easy to legally obtain one.

dongreen76

I can't do that because the police department generally confiscates them ,(I needed it to verse I***TS like you)in order for "YOU PEOPLE" to feel better and to protect people like you,because you hit a last nerve,the police confiscates my guns........ ONCE AGAIN !!!! the argument is not whether you have a right to own a gun,the arguments are pretty much; HOW BIG A GUN DO YOU NEED!.I stated in an earlier post I know people who owned surface to air missles,and today they are in jail,I agree with the idea of how big a gun do you need,that is to say,people whom want surface to air missles, and want nuclear capability can only have psychiatric bad intentions

Hug

So, now you don't want to give up your gun. I rest my case.

dongreen76

My fault,you misconscrued what I meant as to why I don't turn my guns in to the local police stations.My answer to that is because the police stations already have them,and not voluntarily so.I can't turn in what has already been confiscated.
.....or maybe not my fault;as suspected,"YOU PEOPLE" simply ,contrary to what you have advance into a popular belief; are slow on the uptake,and have all kind of trouble figuring out the down low.

Hug

Very sorry, obviously we do not know all the ins and outs of your situation and it is none of our business. Best wishes.

dongreen76

So far as it being none of your business and you not knowing the in's and out's connotes that you think it is of a sinister nature so far my being some kind of societal out cast.If you did no the ends and outs of it you wouldn't believe it ,and then when you found it to be true you would find it laughable,evidently the police do.

dongreen76

I don't know if you are pro gun rights, or anti gun rights.
I also made the statement that supports your argument that in order to be a part of the m*****a you were not required to have owned a weapon,preferably-using common sense- it would have been preferable that you"- BYOW"-and Booze too.When discussing second amendments rights it has been agreed upon many times that the founders had in mind the defense of the newly formed country -comprised of individual states- and the states powers as related to those of federallisim,also the states ability to defend themselves-therefore the phrase the right of the people to bare arms meant a m*****a,m*****a is a plurality,They meant they had a right to have an army,to defend themselves against a foreign entities if and when federallisim had failed .Common sense dictates,that as an individual you were allowed gun ownership,to protect yourself from all kind of threats from alien invaders and the wilderness alike....But !!? when making the statement the right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed upon,they were specifically talking about a m*****a, and that m*****a was formed to protect the people whom were individuals comprised of women and children and themselves ( who probably didn't have the right to bare arms ) Essentially,they were discussing states,rights, not individual rights.The states right to defend it self when under some kind of siege with a para military, the m*****a.When and if federallisim at failed
......and,once again the arguments about second amendment rights are about ,not of right to gun ownership,but the arguments are about ,how much gun do you need.

American Vet

Just for the sake of discussion, let's travel down this path:
Above you mention protection from "alien invaders". Would it not be reasonable for a person to carry the same individual weapons that are available to the invader?

dongreen76

I have got your point.It is an argument for a bigger gun.it is a valid good argument for the most part;but you have forgotten one thing.It is the same reason foreign policy dictates that we strive hard to not let the wrong people have the bigger gun,they have sinister agenda's as to how they want to use it.If you are familiar with war processes,it is known that when being the victor in a war,and the enemy has been beaten into submission- and he has surrendered - in order to have a cease fire there are certain conditions that must be met;one of those conditions is that he must submit to only having a defensive army as oppose to an army that has aggressive capacity.The point is that if he is allowed to have an aggressive military he will make war again.Contain and restrain his military capabilities and he will not present the same problem in the future.This same principle applies within the arguments of the second amendment.Remember the founders words of a "Well Regulated M*****a.Just has he would regulate the enemy that was defeated in war,the same concept applies domestically.So far as your worry of the alien having superior fire power,and you want your fire power to be equivalent to his,have you heard of the concept it is the government's responsibility to do for the people what they cannot do for themselves.The goverment has the responsibility of matching the alien in fire power- not you.
Think ,if every fool Joe six pack,such as yourself thought to arm himself based on the premise that the country's adversaries has greater arsenal weapon --ary than he ; in other words he's going to verse China, Russia,N.Korea, all by his lonesome. I***t !!!

Kickaha Loc: Nebraska

You're misunderstanding the meaning of well regulated m*****a. It does not mean control of the m*****a by law or chain of command. Well regulated m*****a means the m*****a members work together or coordinate their activities with one another. It is similar to saying a clock is well regulated. A well regulated clock doesn't operate by law or chain of command, it operates smoothly.

American Vet

You have forgotten a few things.

An "alien invader" isn't necessairly another country. I believe the legal term might be "home invasion". Individual weapons used by the military and police are commonly used by criminals. That being said, why would you restrict me - the law abiding citizen - from being equally armed to defend myself?

Your comment that "we strive" is a useless issue. We can "strive" all we want - but that's a far cry from actually having the outcome one desires.

The concept "it is the government's responsibility to do for the people what they cannot do for themselves". You can add to that "what the people won't do for themselves". Interesting and debatable concept as to exactly how far a government should go. And, as always, it depends on who is running the government. :)

As far as fighting against an adversary with a greater arsenal, I suggest you study history just a bit. Has happened numerous times.