[TheForge] Criminal Background Check: way OT

[Peter Hirst]

Andrew:

With all due respect, I think you need to distinguish between what ought to 
be and what is.  The fact that there are still able marks men of qualifying 
age -- militia in the organic sense --  does not mean that there is a well 
regulated militia.  There is in fact not one single duly constituted Militia 
unit in the United States.  Not one. There are any number of private 
groups -- predominantly historical reenactors -- that go by the name of 
such-and-such state Militia --  but none of these, not one, with any 
authority or function to provide for the security of a State. Since the 
Militia Act of 1903, every State Militia was subsumned into the National 
Guard, which has been proven time and again to be  an instrument of the US 
Army, even when intially called up by a governor to serve as Militia.  None 
of the groups you refer to has any authority whatever to any more than any 
single or group of citizens.   There may also be Militia, there may be those 
qualified by definintion to form a militia, but the simple fact remains that 
none have been formed for many years  and there simply is is no well 
regulated militia.  Believing that there are some of the components that 
*could* be  a well regulated militia does not make it so.

And do not mistake what Scalia has done in Heller.  It does not leave the 
door open for the pervert case  with false reasoning:  it IS that case.  ANd 
I am not talking about some evil little prick.  I am talking about what the 
Supreme Court will do in the next cases that come before it.  I am saying 
that Heller sets up the next Supreme Court case:  that by severing the 
present right from the historic Militia rationale, the next cases that will 
test what KIND of weapons beyond handguns may be kept  and what if any 
weapons you may "bear"  under the second amendment  will be a far cry from 
what you would expect say a reasonably equipped  infantry unit  to carry in 
effective defense against the federal government.  ANd that case will be 
firmly grounded in Heller, not some some sleazy misinterpretation of it.  it 
is entirely wishful thinking to suppose Heller says that you may keep and 
bear the same arms that say the national Guard may keep and bear.  Hell, 
there is an Air National Guard unit right in my county.  They fly F-15s. 
Your reading of Heller suggests that the Scaliwag Militia would have the 
right to f-15s with full load of 20mm cannon, Sidewinders, Sparrows and 
AMRAAMS.  My reading is that the next case --Supreme Court case -- on the 
subject will draw the line somewhere around the distinction between the 
AR-15 and M-16, and will be firmly rooted in Heller and Miller, and that the 
well regulated milita will be found to have been subsumed by the natonal 
Guard in 1903.  I am not saying that's the way it ought to be.  I am saying 
that's where these four so-called conservatives (and Kennedy) -- not some 
lizard on the 9th circuit the SCOTUS -- are headed.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Andrew Vida" <osan at netlabs.net>
To: "Blacksmithing List Sponsored by ABANA" <theforge at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2009 8:02 PM
Subject: Re: [TheForge] Criminal Background Check: way OT


>
>
> Peter Hirst wrote:
>> Andrew:  If a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a 
>> free
>> state, why do none exist?
>
>    As I recall, there are actually quite a few.  Every able bodied male is
> militia.  There are several millions who are well trained marksmen -
> that would constitute a well-regulated militia.  There are also several
> state militias all over the nation.  BATFE would like to shoot them all
> dead, I am sure.  A militia does not require formal structure as, say, a
> corporation does in order to be a legitimate fact of life.  There are,
> to my knowledge, no minimum membership requirements in terms of numbers.
>  I could move to your town (gasp) and you and I could form the
> Scalliwag Militia and be perfectly legitimate.  We could train - we
> could sit around and drink beer.  Government has no say in the matter as
> that goes.
>
>    As I was thinking of our exchange today, I realized what I believe to
> be the disconnect between our viewpoints.  I am arguing from a purely
> principled standpoint, and from that POV I believe I am very close to
> perfectly correct.  You are arguing that the wording of Heller leaves
> the door open for a scoundrel to pervert a case based on false
> reasoning.  I agree this is the case - but it is the case in almost any
> ruling.  If a judge is going to be an evil little prick, he can say
> whatever he wants and it will stand until it is appealed.  Of course,
> the danger here is that the SCOTUS is the final stop - if THEY are
> corrupt or misguided, then the case in question is in trouble, no doubt.
>
>    But returning to a principled argument, I will point out that in order
> to be credible, the court would have to demonstrate conclusively that
> there is no longer a need for a well regulated militia.  This would
> place them on some thin ice since they would be attempting to prove a
> negative proposition, which anyone who has ever had even the most basic
> training in logic and reasoning knows is categorically impossible.
> "There are no little green men from outer space" cannot be proven under
> any circumstance.  "There is no need for a well regulated militia" is
> principally identical.  Therefore, if the SCOTUS were to attempt to rule
> this way, they would be putting their reputations and credibility at
> very grave risk.  Of course, they may decide they do not care and
> proceed anyway, but that is another issue.
>
>    There is yet another angle to the notion of the maintenance of a free
> state - that of external enemies operating on US soil.  Maintaining a
> free state means protecting it from all enemies foreign and domestic.
> This is contained in the oath every soldier takes upon joining the armed
> forces.  It can be well argued that another relevant aspect of the
> militia's role in maintaining a free state is to defend against
> terrorism on US soil.  It would be incredibly difficult to argue against
> this in a way that didn't smack of idiocy, ignorance, and utter
> corruption.  This aspect is prima facie proof that a well regulated
> militia is as necessary today as it ever was.  This is probably another
> QED moment. :)
> ______________________________________________________________
> TheForge mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/theforge
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:TheForge at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>