The Militia Act of 1792 was a two part series of laws conscripting able-bodied
males into militias and empowering the federal government to use the militias as
a defense against foreign invasions, Indian attacks, and armed rebellions (bear
in mind Shays Rebellion 5 years earlier).It was superseded by the
Militia Act of 1903, which folded the militia system into the National Guard.Beyond the fact that it is no longer in effect, I see nothing in it
empowering the private arming of individuals. It is a draft that does not arm
individuals to protect them from the government, but has as a stated purpose the
suppression of armed rebellion. This is entirely consistent with a reading of
the Second Amendment as intended to pertain to well-regulated militias rather
than a nation of Wyatt Earps. Wanna use the Act to justify shooting
guns? Join the National Guard. Wanna use your weapons to overthrow a
tyrannical government? The Militia Act of 1792 makes *you* the enemy and gives
the governmnent the right to raise troops to crush you.
Feinstein said it will pass because the people support it. If the people
support it, why is it in question?Of course, the people opposed
obamacare before the dems ram-rodded it through with back room deals, bribery,
and graft, so we know they have a history of forcing bad legislation on us
despite our screaming NO!!! at the top of our lungs. Hopefully the repubs can
stand firm and protect us from the dems.
Those who remember the "shall not be infringed" part of the Second
Amendment, all conveniently seem to forget the "well-regulated" part of
the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment certainly permits the regulation of
firearms - that was stated explicitly in Justice Scalia's majority opinion
in the District of Columbia vs. Heller case. I quote from the court ruling: "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It
is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever
and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been
upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should
not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of
firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of
firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws
imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."There is nothing in President Obama's gun proposals that is
Thank you DN Subscriber 2 @ Kalindra also if you go to google and and
that directive was to All freeman
Who are republicans planning on aiming these guns at if the USA
"declines" any further from their ideal? You vote, you
don't shoot your way in a democracy.
@Kalindra--- I am anxiously waiting for your response on "it never
Gun control legislation is like putting a band-aid on a compound fracture; we
might feel like some good is being accomplished, but it won't change the
amount of gun or any other kind of violence. The problem is a sick, violent and
dangerous society that is getting worse. As our society continues to crumble,
the need for responsible people to have guns for their own protection increases.
Limiting access to guns just makes responsible people more vulnerable.
"Never let a crisis go to waste" is the strategy of the gun banning
liberals, urged on by good intentions, but a stubborn refusal to look at facts
and accept reality. @ Kalindra- The law is the Militia Act of 1792
which required all able bodies males aged 18 to 45 to possess arms (defined to
be comparable to the standard military arms of the era). This was passed by the
Second Congress, Session I. Chapter XXVIII on May 2, 1792,@ Old
Switchero- Obama's front person on gun grabbing is Sen. Feinstein who
stated in 1995 that she "would take them all, every one of them" if she
could get the votes. It is prudent to believe your enemies when they tell you
what they want to do, be they politicians, or Muslim terrorists. By
the way, Feinstein's bill exempts retired cops from all the restrictions,
so "elite" people can be trusted with evil killing machines, but mere
citizens cannot. Some people truly "are more equal than others." And,
Feinstein is one of the few Californians well connected enough to have a permit
to carry a gun for self defense... but she won't trust other law abiding
The law requiring gun owner ship is a city/state law in Texas not a federal or
constitutional reference.However there is reference in the
constitution that all americans (citizens only) should be obligated to
participate in national defense and the militia but for religious and personal
beliefs it is not a mandate or law. The militia is considered armed civil non
military persons by law but another law creating the National Guard units took
the term militia to mean part time military to justify its creation. Furthermore, the National Guard is the property of the states they reside in
and federally funded to buy and maintain military training, weapons, and gear.
The president does not control or own the NG and must request that a state
Governor to call in his NG militia to support a declared war by congress. In the
last 40-50 years of war no governor has been obligated to draft the militia into
war becasue congress has never delcared them wars. Billions of dollars economic
windfall supersedes the constitution, democracy, peace, and legal wars.But states are under threat of federal funding boycotts if they don't
comply with political war machine demands.
It's going to be compromised down to the background checks on all gun
purchases thing which has 80% approval with the public AND over 70% approval
among NRA members. In my opinion that's the most important thing to address
anyway. I'd be fine with it if that's the only thing we got out of it
for new gun safety regulations.
Republicans, speculating on the actions of Democrats.I thought guns
didn't kill people?Isn't that why people are trying to ban
@ kalindra. It was a law at one time Joseph Smith wrote about it in one of
his letters ,If I can find it i will share the source
Why send weapons to other countries, then deny it to our citizens?
@phillipmaybe the reason no one can find that law is because it never
At one time in US history is was mandatory for all male Adults of a certin age
to own and know how to fire their wepons.It would be great if some one can still
find that law in the books and force it. but I think they took that law
off the books when they started the national G. I dont care for some of the
Wepons they want to ban, But I think if it was to baned it should be by the
voice of the people.
@ Lightening LadI agree with Mountanman and worf. I do not see how
they are "threatening the federal government " what they are doing
is called freedom of speech" I also do not see them" shooting off
because no one knows who you are?" anymore then you are .
The right to bear arms, "shall not be infringed". Gun control is
clearly unconstitutional. Criminal control isn't. The 2nd amendment is for
citizens to have protection against it's own government. Stop talking
about hunting and talk the real issues.
I do hope that the Democrats put themselves into this gun issue. It will divide
their party just like abortion has divided the Republicans. I thought for sure
that the Democrat Party had universally said no to any action against gun
owners/2nd Amendment issues. However with the recent shootings, they have been
dragged into it. This could spell trouble in some Senate races for the
Democrats coming in (yes, believe it or not) less than 2 years. If the
Republicans can hold the House, and take the Senate, or even narrow the gap by a
few seats, then we can put good old Obama into the lame duck catagory and
breath a sigh of relief that his last 2 years will be as powerless as Bushs last
Worf and mountainman are you threatening the federal government or just shooting
off because no one knows who you are?
Obama hasn't suggested a ban on all guns. Why do people insist on being
WorfBanning alchohol led to people like Al Capone coming into power.
Banning Marijuana has led to an over crowded prison system. The only
reason there is a marijuana ban is because the federal government is profiting
Ban:* alcohol* marijuana* illegals* uninsured
motoristsGo on!! Make my day.
We need restrictions on Obama,--not guns.
Even Democrats know bad people will never obey any gun law, never have, never