# Second Amendment Heroes **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 7, 2009, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-amendment-heroes/516719 "2009-11-07T15:20:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 14
**Author:** ![haymarketmartyr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/35a633/32.png) [@haymarketmartyr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/haymarketmartyr)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2009, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-amendment-heroes/516719/261 "2009-11-10T18:42:26Z")
Y > [@](#): > > ou don’t seem to understand the way compound sentences work. I understand perfectly that the first clause is there for the purpose of helping to define the content and meaning of the second clause. > [@](#): > > “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,” See? > > “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Easy peasey. Your intentional and dishonest use of a capital letter T for the word the shows that you are attempting the fraud of treating this phrase as a separate thought standing by itself. It is not. > [@](#): > > And, even if it was an issue of whether only those in the militia could own firearms, since everyone is in the unorganized militia, ipso facto, ergo procter hoc, la la walla bing bang, problem solved! Your own people have already quoted you the legal language - which you seemed to embrace and welcome - that showed clearly that even if we accept the fiction that such a militia exists as you want to believe it does, that the membership is restricted to able bodied males between 17 and 45 and women in the National Guard. You lose yet again by your own evidence which you welcomed and embraced. ---
**Author:** ![Todderbob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e47774/32.png) [@Todderbob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Todderbob)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2009, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-amendment-heroes/516719/262 "2009-11-10T18:56:11Z")
> [@haymarketmartyr](#): > > I understand perfectly that the first clause is there for the purpose of helping to define the content and meaning of the second clause. No, the first clause is to explain the logic behind the second clause. > [@haymarketmartyr](#): > > Your intentional and dishonest use of a capital letter T for the word the shows that you are attempting the fraud of treating this phrase as a separate thought standing by itself. It is not. Too bad that almost every educated constitutional scholar disagrees with you. Just like every dictionary, legal term, and popular opinion disagree with your definition of militia. > [@haymarketmartyr](#): > > Your own people have already quoted you the legal language - which you seemed to embrace and welcome - that showed clearly that even if we accept the fiction that such a militia exists as you want to believe it does, that the membership is restricted to able bodied males between 17 and 45 and women in the National Guard. No, the **organized** militia is able bodied men and women in the National Guard (_and coast guard_). The Unorganized Militia is every able bodied man (and since we’re not being discriminatory, woman). > [@haymarketmartyr](#): > > You lose yet again by your own evidence which you welcomed and embraced. I haven’t lost yet, what the hell are you on about? ---
**Author:** ![haymarketmartyr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/35a633/32.png) [@haymarketmartyr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/haymarketmartyr)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2009, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-amendment-heroes/516719/263 "2009-11-10T19:13:47Z")
Well bob - that is not what someone on your side said right here with this evidence of just who the militia is > [@](#): > > § 311. 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. so you are wrong. The unorganized militia is NOT every able bodied man. that is clear and beyond dispute according to the legal definition. ---
**Author:** ![Scumpup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Scumpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scumpup)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2009, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-amendment-heroes/516719/264 "2009-11-10T19:23:46Z")
If you are done being like some sort of parody of a gungrabber, how about let’s do this: Just tell us what you think is a solution to the gun “problem” that would be fair and equitable to all concerned. Frankly, I’m worn out on you badly and incorrectly arguing your side of this. ---
**Author:** ![Todderbob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e47774/32.png) [@Todderbob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Todderbob)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2009, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-amendment-heroes/516719/265 "2009-11-10T19:32:20Z")
> [@haymarketmartyr](#): > > Well bob - that is not what someone on your side said right here with this evidence of just who the militia is > > so you are wrong. The unorganized militia is NOT every able bodied man. that is clear and beyond dispute according to the legal definition. (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. Those are the only two relevant parts of the above paragraph. Since then, it’s worth noting that no one really discriminates between men and women anymore (except for compulsory military service), but that’s something that the ACLU might take issue with – if it wasn’t for the fact that they don’t view the RKBA as an individual right anyway (which is absolutely ridiculous, because everything else in the bill of rights is an individual right). And as for the upper limit on the age – do you plan on allowing people to purchase firearms and then forcing them to forfit (against the illegal search and seizure thing, I should think) them, if we ascribe to your definition of militia? And, you have yet to prove that the first clause limits the second clause. So, lets do that real quick. Do me a favor, while we’re at it, and explain to me while 9 out of 10 things would be considered individual and 1 out of 10 things would be considered a collective right? Religion? What the fuck, are you stupid? Of course it’s an individual right – no one argues otherwise. Search And Seizure? Individual, of course. Speech, don’t even go there – idiot. Need I go on? ---
**Author:** ![Martini\_Enfield](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/martini_enfield/32/11123_2.png) [@Martini\_Enfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martini_Enfield)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2009, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-amendment-heroes/516719/266 "2009-11-10T23:06:15Z")
> [@haymarketmartyr](#): > > Continuum: place the arms that the Founding Fathers knew and had in mind when they wrote the Second Amendment on one end of the continuum. Then place the advanced and far more powerful weaponry available today at the opposite end of the continuum. [There were machine-guns](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puckle_Gun#The_Puckle_gun)\* in 1776, as has been mentioned. They also fought wars with cannon. _Cannon_. There were also repeating/quasi-semi-automatic crossbows as far as as Ancient China. How on Earth can you possibly say “No-one should have big, scary, modern guns, but feel free to buy a cannon or a Puckle Defence Gun, or a repeating crossbow”? This sort of thing is _exactly_ why shooters keep trying to ‘confuse you with facts’, as you accuse- because without the facts, it’s clear you’ve got _no idea_ what you’re talking about. And there are, I argue, some subjects- and this is one of them- where having no functional knowledge of the subject at all means you (generic you) are not entitled to an opinion on it beyond “I don’t like what I’ve heard”. And that’s fine. You’re allowed to not like what you read about guns or hear about guns. But you’re _not_ allowed to try and ruin _millions_ of people’s hobbies, studies, and (in some cases) way of putting food on the table purely because you don’t like what you’ve heard about the equipment they use to do so with. \*Well, technically the Puckle Defence Gun was a rapid-firing tripod mounted revolver-rifle with quick reload cylinders, but by late 18th century standards it was a machine gun. And they had volley guns too, which are near enough to a machine-gun for the purposes of this argument ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2009, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-amendment-heroes/516719/267 "2009-11-10T23:30:59Z")
> [@Todderbob](#): > > Religion? What the fuck, are you stupid? Of course it’s an individual right – no one argues otherwise. > Search And Seizure? Individual, of course. > Speech, don’t even go there – idiot. > Need I go on? Go on? You need to back up. Do not post personal insults outside the BBQ Pit and definitely not in Great Debates. [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![Todderbob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e47774/32.png) [@Todderbob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Todderbob)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2009, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-amendment-heroes/516719/268 "2009-11-10T23:39:48Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Go on? > You need to back up. > > Do not post personal insults outside the BBQ Pit and definitely not in Great Debates. > [/Moderating] Sorry, **tomndebb** (and **haymarketmartyr** ), it wasn’t meant as an insult, it was meant rhetorically. ---
**Author:** ![haymarketmartyr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/35a633/32.png) [@haymarketmartyr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/haymarketmartyr)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2009, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-amendment-heroes/516719/269 "2009-11-11T02:11:52Z")
Todderbob - I already told you several times - there is no longer militia as described in the Constitutions Second amendment. That quaint relic of the 18th century died long long ago. ---
**Author:** ![JXJohns](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jxjohns/32/469_2.png) [@JXJohns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JXJohns)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2009, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-amendment-heroes/516719/270 "2009-11-11T03:02:43Z")
> [@haymarketmartyr](#): > > Todderbob - I already told you several times - there is no longer militia as described in the Constitutions Second amendment. That quaint relic of the 18th century died long long ago. Nor is there a requirement that one must be a militia member to bear arms. So what? ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2009, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-amendment-heroes/516719/271 "2009-11-11T03:05:59Z")
> [@haymarketmartyr](#): > > Todderbob - I already told you several times - there is no longer militia as described in the Constitutions Second amendment. That quaint relic of the 18th century died long long ago. Like in the 1970s, when people were being drafted and sent to Vietnam by a federal government that insisted that they were part of the “militia”? ---
**Author:** ![kopek](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kopek/32/337_2.png) [@kopek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kopek)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2009, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-amendment-heroes/516719/272 "2009-11-11T03:22:15Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > Like in the 1970s, when people were being drafted and sent to Vietnam by a federal government that insisted that they were part of the “militia”? Or volunteer fire departments, block watches, auxiliaries and other current forms of militia - armed and unarmed. The whole debate that militias (in terms of public defense and safety as used originally), organized and not, don’t exist today as they did almost 250 years ago baffles me. It ignores too much history and reality at the same time. Freeze things to 178something? When did we move past it? ---
**Author:** ![haymarketmartyr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/35a633/32.png) [@haymarketmartyr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/haymarketmartyr)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2009, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-amendment-heroes/516719/273 "2009-11-11T03:40:40Z")
from Lumpy > [@](#): > > Like in the 1970s, when people were being drafted and sent to Vietnam by a federal government that insisted that they were part of the “militia”? I would like to see factual evidence of what you are talking about here. from Kopek > [@](#): > > Or volunteer fire departments, block watches, auxiliaries and other current forms of militia - armed and unarmed. You are confusing community volunteerism with the militia whose functions have now been taken over by professionals and have been so for a very long time. Like Robert DeNiro said in THE DEERHUNTER… \*“this is this, this isn’t something else.” \* ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2009, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-amendment-heroes/516719/274 "2009-11-11T03:42:39Z")
> [@Todderbob](#): > > [http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iU2FSOlnxfzhAwbNibWTIhohwLVQD9BQ9A2G3](http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iU2FSOlnxfzhAwbNibWTIhohwLVQD9BQ9A2G3) > > He purchased the firearm legally, in a gun store. > > [http://abcnews.go.com/story?id=9012995](http://abcnews.go.com/story?id=9012995) > > Both of them, one of them was one of those ‘revolver’ guns, you know, the ones that aren’t as dangerous (But actually have more ballistic power). Ok, thanks. I stand corrected. ---
**Author:** ![Todderbob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e47774/32.png) [@Todderbob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Todderbob)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2009, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-amendment-heroes/516719/275 "2009-11-11T03:50:16Z")
> [@haymarketmartyr](#): > > I would like to see factual evidence of what you are talking about here. I would like to see where, exactly, in the 2nd amendment, it states that it’s a collective and not singular right, and where it says anyone not in a militia may have their rights to own a firearm infringed. ---
**Author:** ![enipla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/54ee81/32.png) [@enipla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enipla)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2009, 7:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-amendment-heroes/516719/276 "2009-11-11T07:36:02Z")
I’m just an average Joe that happens to own some firearms. All of them where handed down to me. Like others, I would like to hear what **hay** or anyone else would like to offer up for a compromise on gun control (or whatever you wish to call it). Truly. Let’s get down to brass tax. Please put forth your recommendations. Facts and stats are best for support. And please don’t bring up compromise unless you suggest a compromise. Let’s talk. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2009, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-amendment-heroes/516719/277 "2009-11-11T14:36:52Z")
> [@haymarketmartyr](#): > > I would like to see factual evidence of what you are talking about here. 😕😕😕😕😕 Evidence that US citizens who were not part of the National Guard were drafted to fight the Vietnam War in the 1970s? Evidence that the legal authority of the Federal government to draft civilians comes from the Militia Act of 1903? Evidence that the authority of Congress to call forth “the militia” is stated in Article One, Section Eight, clauses fifteen and sixteen, of the Constitution? I would say that you are in denial, except that I’m genuinely baffled by what you could possibly be in denial about. ---
**Author:** ![haymarketmartyr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/35a633/32.png) [@haymarketmartyr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/haymarketmartyr)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2009, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-amendment-heroes/516719/278 "2009-11-11T15:52:08Z")
NO Lumpy. Not the twisted way you just reframed the question. Answer it the way you posted it in the first place. > [@](#): > > Like in the 1970s, when people were being drafted and sent to Vietnam by a federal government that insisted that they were part of the “militia”? Sow us the evidence from the US Government that drafting someone into the army was the federal government insisting that they were now part of the MILITIA like you claim. You are confusing apples and oranges and attempting to pretend that they are one and the same. They are not. So please, show us the statements from the federal government that people were being drafted into the MILITIA during the Viet Nam years. ---
**Author:** ![hobscrk777](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a6a055/32.png) [@hobscrk777](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hobscrk777)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2009, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-amendment-heroes/516719/279 "2009-11-11T16:27:54Z")
> [@enipla](#): > > I’m just an average Joe that happens to own some firearms. All of them where handed down to me. > > Like others, I would like to hear what **hay** or anyone else would like to offer up for a compromise on gun control (or whatever you wish to call it). > > Truly. Let’s get down to brass tax. Please put forth your recommendations. > > Facts and stats are best for support. > > And please don’t bring up compromise unless you suggest a compromise. > > Let’s talk. Well, I don’t know that a brass **tax** will do much to raise any revenues, let alone control guns, but I’d be happy to provide some brass tacks discussion. I’d like to see regular evaluation of gun competency, for example, in the form of marksmanship and safety tests by certified individuals. ---
**Author:** ![JXJohns](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jxjohns/32/469_2.png) [@JXJohns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JXJohns)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2009, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-amendment-heroes/516719/280 "2009-11-11T16:33:49Z")
> [@hobscrk777](#): > > Well, I don’t know that a brass **tax** will do much to raise any revenues, let alone control guns, but I’d be happy to provide some brass tacks discussion. > > I’d like to see regular evaluation of gun competency, for example, in the form of marksmanship and safety tests by certified individuals. I’ll bite. As a gun owner, what do I get out of the deal? In the spirit of compromise and all. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-amendment-heroes/516719.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-amendment-heroes/516719.md?page=15)