Happy!

[mostrobelle]

Oh, and let me add to my comments above the following:

Thanks goodness this isn't BARF...because this thread over there would have turned into a flame war.

Eff you, effer.  And yo mama too.  You're wrong and stupid.  And ugly.  And slow.  Your penis is small and your back is hairy.  And you're wrong. 

Did I mention you're wrong?   

How's that for a flamin'...oh, and speaking of flamin', you are. 

[desmoquattro]

Eff you, effer.  And yo mama too.  You're wrong and stupid.  And ugly.  And slow.  Your penis is small and your back is hairy.  And you're wrong. 

Did I mention you're wrong?   

How's that for a flamin'...oh, and speaking of flamin', you are. 

GAY 

[mostrobelle]

GAY 

PRIDE. 

PARADE.

is this weekend. 

[desmoquattro]

PRIDE. 

PARADE.

is this weekend. 

Yeah. The thumpy music should keep half the BARFers away.

[Desmostro]

Today is a happy day, America! 

See what happiness will get you?

What-ever. I want to dance now.  [moto]

[Hollywood]

The following is a post I made on the political board, after doing a little research.
 
"Currently, the "unorganized militia" is expected to come up when the Supreme Court again considers the laws pertaining to the right to possess firearms. Many localities have outlawed or regulated that right, which is guaranteed (but not precisely spelled out) in the Constitution. Nevertheless, if you are an adult American male (Or female) between the ages of 17 and 45, you are part of the militia, whether you knew it or not, whether or not you want to be, and whether or not you are armed. Just so you know." taken from America's Secret Army by James Dunnigan http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/200823224140.asp

So the Constitution, in the 2nd Amendment states, "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."

and

The Militia Act of 1792 states,  "That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia",

and

The Dick Act of 1903 recognized two classes of militia: the Organized Militia (National Guard) under federal-state control and the Unorganized Militia, the pool of 18-to-45-year-old males available for conscription.
 
Then every male in America that is a citizen or is planning to be a citizen has the right to bear arms. This would also include females.  (the Dick Act has since been amended to include them.) Unless the person is a convicted criminal or mentally unstable.
 
It does not get any clearer than that!

So all those people that say the right to bear arms only applies to the military or police are dead wrong!

Founding Fathers: 11tybillion  People trying to deny us our rights: 0

[darylbowden]

The following is a post I made on the political board, after doing a little research.
 
"Currently, the "unorganized militia" is expected to come up when the Supreme Court again considers the laws pertaining to the right to possess firearms. Many localities have outlawed or regulated that right, which is guaranteed (but not precisely spelled out) in the Constitution. Nevertheless, if you are an adult American male (Or female) between the ages of 17 and 45, you are part of the militia, whether you knew it or not, whether or not you want to be, and whether or not you are armed. Just so you know." taken from America's Secret Army by James Dunnigan http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/200823224140.asp

So the Constitution, in the 2nd Amendment states, "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."

and

The Militia Act of 1792 states,  "That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia",

and

The Dick Act of 1903 recognized two classes of militia: the Organized Militia (National Guard) under federal-state control and the Unorganized Militia, the pool of 18-to-45-year-old males available for conscription.
 
Then every male in America that is a citizen or is planning to be a citizen has the right to bear arms. This would also include females.  (the Dick Act has since been amended to include them.) Unless the person is a convicted criminal or mentally unstable.
 
It does not get any clearer than that!

So all those people that say the right to bear arms only applies to the military or police are dead wrong!

Founding Fathers: 11tybillion  People trying to deny us our rights: 0

Actually no.  Are you over 45? Cause according to your "research," once you pass the age of 45, you are no longer a part of that militia.

[gojira]

Just remember, if you have to shoot someone in your home, make sure you put the body in the bedroom. If you shoot someone, in self defense of course, in your home, it's only considered "self defense" if the intruder is in your bedroom. If you shoot them anywhere else in the house, it can be considered murder.
I have a very close friend in the D.A.'s office, and they confirmed this. They stated a case where the victim was tried for murder because she shot an intruder in her home, in the living room. The courts said if the intruder was in her room, then it was obvious he was there intentionally to harm her, and self defense was justified.

Hmmm.... last time I checked, anyone who was wrongfully entering my home, anywhere in the home, was there for less than friendly intent, and therefore I would be using self defense.

Depends on the state. I know of a couple stories in Oregon where anyone breaking into the home and verbally warned to stay away in the process, but the intruder still enters anyway, you can shoot them on the spot. On more than one occasion the intruder was shot dead. No charges against the homeowner.

But I agree, there's probably some wiseguy attorney out there that will argue the intruder was non-threatening simply because he/she was not even in the same room.

Hog wash ... a man's home is his castle.

[DucNrun]

Just remember, if you have to shoot someone in your home, make sure you put the body in the bedroom. If you shoot someone, in self defense of course, in your home, it's only considered "self defense" if the intruder is in your bedroom. If you shoot them anywhere else in the house, it can be considered murder.
I have a very close friend in the D.A.'s office, and they confirmed this. They stated a case where the victim was tried for murder because she shot an intruder in her home, in the living room. The courts said if the intruder was in her room, then it was obvious he was there intentionally to harm her, and self defense was justified.

Hmmm.... last time I checked, anyone who was wrongfully entering my home, anywhere in the home, was there for less than friendly intent, and therefore I would be using self defense.

Personally, I'd rather run a knife through 'em, from gut to gullet, so I could watch the look of "Oh sh*t, I shouldn't have come here!" in their eyes. Is that wrong?

I'm curious what county your friend is a D.A. for because the law does not make any stipulations for self defense like you're suggesting.  You merely have to articulate a reasonable fear for your life in order to justify self defense.

[Juan]

I am very happy too...   

[duckwrench13]

I'm curious what county your friend is a D.A. for because the law does not make any stipulations for self defense like you're suggesting.  You merely have to articulate a reasonable fear for your life in order to justify self defense.

You and I, and any sensible person in the world, would agree with that. Unfortunately, there was a case in the area, that the court found the home owner guilty of murder. The reason they said it was murder, was because... and I'm paraphrasing this..."because the intruder was not in the resident's bedroom, they then had time to plan an attack on the intruder, hence premeditation, not self defense." So according to this ruling, it would seem that the state only considered it self defense if they were in your room. Stupid, I know. All it takes is one sleazy lawyer to twist things around against the innocent.

The way I see it, if you are intentionally intruding on my property, then I will use force commensurate to the level of threat, to defend myself. As a firearm owner, I fully understand and accept the responsibilities and consequences of using deadly force if needed. Unfortunately, I've been trained to shoot center mass, in controlled pairs. The court's not gonna like that.

The 2nd Amendment was written in a time when conscripts and militias were a much needed fact of life. The world has definitely changed. It would make things much clearer if our government, and all of the involved interest groups, would not rewrite, but redefine things to meet modern times. Yeah, we all know that'll never happen.

But what do I know, I only fought to defend these rights, so I guess I'm just a statistic now.

[Hollywood]

Actually no.  Are you over 45? Cause according to your "research," once you pass the age of 45, you are no longer a part of that militia.

No, I am 34.
Yes, that is correct.
The Militia Act of 1792 required all able bodied men, between the age of 18 to 45, to serve in the local militia. If the man was new to an area, i.e. New to the United States, or just moved from one town or state to another. He would have been informed of his required duty. This included providing his own weapon. Anyone over 45 would not be required to serve. Considering the average life span for the year 1900 was 47.3 years of age.(That is 108 years later.) 45 would have been considered old. The average life span in 2000 was 77, a difference of 32.7 years. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus07.pdf#027 I would think that the average in 1792 was much less than 47.3. Possibly in the 20's. I would venture to guess that most men did not stay in past 45. I don't even know if someone over 45 was allowed to stay in. Now days people in the National Guard can stay in until 60, I think. (I don't recall the exact age but it is between 60 to 65.) I have seen two guys forced out after reaching that age.
The average life span has increased since 1900. However, the National Guard max enlistment age is 42. I don't think the age limit will be changed anytime soon. Considering these Acts have a greater age limit. I would say they are still relevent.

The Dick Act of 1903 made a distinction between the now volunteer only, "organized" militia (National Guard) and the "unorganized" militia (all those who choose not to volunteer to serve).
So, for someone who never enlisted in the military, once you reach the age of 46 you are no longer in the "unorganized" militia.

My point was to show that under the Constitution with the support of these two Congressional acts, anyone between the ages of 18 to 45, most definitely has the right to bear arms.

If everyone understood this, then maybe the only argument would be wether or not people 45 and above should still have the right to bear arms.
I think they should.
 

[darylbowden]

If everyone understood this, then maybe the only argument would be wether or not people 45 and above should still have the right to bear arms.
I think they should.  

Ahh, now there's the problem.  You need to amend the law to make it fit what you would like it to be.  You need to extend the age, a likely argument for that being that people's life expectancy is much higher nowadays.  Problem is, lots of things are different today, not the least of which is the fact that the redcoats are no longer coming.  So, you see, this is the issue with almost any law, it is subject to interpretation.  You might interpret it one way and I the complete opposite, and neither one of us could be "proven" wrong.  Ain't America grand?

[Drunken Monkey]

<mod hat>

Civil as this conversation has been, let's move it over to the politics forum just in case

Thread locked, just because it'd take too much effort to sort through and move just the politics bits...

</mod hat>