Posted on 02/24/2018 3:05:57 PM PST by Blood of Tyrants
Okay, I'll bite. How did you know about ID number assignments from almost fifty years ago? I recall because the transition occurred while I was in the army and I had to re-mark some stuff.
A relative explained it to me when he showed me his dog tags. I also asked him about the indentation on the tags. Still don’t know if he told me the truth about that.
Regarding your first three paragraphs, I don’t see any of that changes what I wrote.
“Let’s suppose that we have a constitutional right to “raise and eat carrots”. Does that mean that we can only eat carrots that we raise? Does that mean that we can only raise carrots that we eat?”
That is the problem. What does “the right to raise and eat carrots” mean? If I don’t have the ability to raise carrots myself, may I on my own authority go pull up some of yours and eat them since I have a right to eat carrots? May I on my own authority use some of your land, seeds, and equipment to raise carrots since I have a right to raise carrots? What is the extent, the scope, of “the right to raise and eat carrots” or of “the right of the people to keep and bear arms”.
“I don’t think so.”
“You must be careful not to recycle nonsense from anti-gun liberals. “
You’re welcome to your thinking but everyone may not share it, particularly those who merely “recycle nonsense from anti-gun liberals”. And I don’t want to “recycle nonsense from anti-gun liberals”. I want to counter it with good sense. Hard core anti-gun liberals won’t be changed, they’re more about control than guns, but there are a lot of people who are not hard core anti-gun or pro-gun, people who just don’t know any better, people whom the hard core on either side need in order to prevail. We need to provide them with good sense, correct thinking, bring them to our side, at least in sufficient numbers so that we can prevail.
“I think the distinction between “organized” and “unorganized” was legislated after the Constitution and Bill of Rights was ratified, perhaps long after.” And so on for the rest of your post.
Doesn’t matter for the thread at hand, or at least most of it. “Organized” militia and “unorganized” militia exist in reality and this is recognized in law.
George Mason spoke: “I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.” (George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788)
If the militia consists of the “whole people”, certainly some of them are unorganized.
Organized militia kind of fell apart in many States sometime prior to the civil war. People were still part of the militia, but they were unorganized.
I don't disagree.
My main point was that the National Guard, if their officers are not appointed by their respective states, cannot constitute the Militia.
Anti-gunners in the past have successfully characterized any "organized militia" as being a group which wishes to overthrow the government, even if the mission was simply to be prepared to overthrow a tyrannical government which is what the Second Amendment supports.
Characterizing the National Guard as an organized militia justifies outlawing any other militia activity, at least in the minds of some.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.