So you, who wants no infringements, licenses, or permits, wants to see the one enforcement agency in this country who can enter your house without a warrant, and is a federal agency, to charge a fee to train people how to use a firearm for self defense?Permits is just another way that the government makes you incompetent when you go to exercise a right while at the same time it turns a right in to a privilege that can be taken away by the government at a moments notice.
permit 1) v. to allow by silence, agreement or giving a license. 2) n. a license or other document given by an authorized public official or agency (building inspector, department of motor vehicles) to allow a person or business to perform certain acts. These can include building a structure, using a building, driving on the highway, conducting a retail business, and dozens of other activities. The purpose of permits is supposedly to guarantee that laws and regulations have been obeyed, but they also are a source of public revenue.
Since it touches upon license here is that definition as well.
The permission granted by competent authority to exercise a certain privilege that, without such authorization, would constitute an illegal act, a Trespass or a tort. The certificate or the document itself that confers permission to engage in otherwise proscribed conduct.
All definitions are compliments of Legal Dictionary.
As one can see that a permit and license are the same thing. They prove to the government that you are not competent enough to exercise your rights without their permission even though the Constitution of the United States and Bill of Rights say otherwise.
I believe that training for firearms should be available through a government agency, like Department of Natural Resources, which many state Department of Natural Resources provide for hunters for a small fee.
I see nowhere in my post that I want any federal government agency involved. I mentioned state Department of Natural Resources, because they already do hold classes for firearm safety that is required for a hunting license. I do not understand what you mean by "And you mention false flag operations..." and "What are you?"So you, who wants no infringements, licenses, or permits, wants to see the one enforcement agency in this country who can enter your house without a warrant, and is a federal agency, to charge a fee to train people how to use a firearm for self defense?
Really?
Hmph. And you mention false flag operations...
"What ARE you?"
Yeah, I got tapatalk, too. So what?
I mentioned false flag operations in one post since it had all the markings of being a false flag operation. The FBI is notorious for setting up false flag operations and here's an article about the FBI doing it. http://www.stuartwilde.com/2013/04/fbi-created-17-false-flag-terrorist-attacks-fox-tv/It's a quote from the movie, True Grit... The recent version...
You mention false flag operations in some of your posts... I wonder what YOU are doing...
For a patriot, I wonder why you would suggest state or federal DNR should charge fees to class REGISTRANTS, to teach them to handle a firearm.
Is this some back door REGISTRATION scheme?
Yeah, I got tapatalk, too. So what?
You fight for the literal reading of the Second Amendment, which mentions no training, yet you suggest training.I mentioned false flag operations in one post since it had all the markings of being a false flag operation. The FBI is notorious for setting up false flag operations and here's an article about the FBI doing it. http://www.stuartwilde.com/2013/04/fbi-created-17-false-flag-terrorist-attacks-fox-tv/
I never suggested federal agencies, but I did mention a state agency. The reason is simple because hunting is a state issue and firearms safety courses are already figured into the fee for the hunting license. My other option would be for schools to do it, like the high school I went to as a kid, but even then someone is paying for the class. Just because someone is against registration and permits/licenses does not mean that they are against training. I support training with anything because it allows a person to exercise their rights responsibly as having rights entails the responsibility of using that right safely.
Good idea and I too would be willing to donate something to such a cause.I completely agree that the training, and even permits should not be required. What part of "shall not be infringed"...
But while we work for that, which may take a long long time, we have to work within the system. There is no training required in WA, so my local clubs don't really fit the need for this. But offering to sponsor/pay for basic training for people who need it and want to be prepared would be a good idea too.
Actually, the Second Amendment does specify training. Here is the text itself.You fight for the literal reading of the Second Amendment, which mentions no training, yet you suggest training.
Edit to add... Training by the gubmint... State or Federal...
Hmmm... Curiouser and curiouser.
Yeah, I got tapatalk, too. So what?
I already explained where the need for regulation is in the Second Amendment with the phrase "well regulated". The militia is comprised of all citizens between the ages of 18-50 which is part of the United States Code and state laws. Both types of laws specify organized and unorganized militias. The organized is defined as the National Guard, which I disagree with since they are a federal military force. The unorganized is every citizen between the ages of 18-50 that are not currently serving in the National Guard or the federal military.You're right, of course, about the militia being regulated (trained up).
However, the right of the people is to bear the arms... And, at the time of the founding (not "constitutional", BTW)... Citizens who were conscientious objectors were allowed to send paid proxies to musters. Did that mean that those objectors had no right to arms for self defense? I think not.
So, where in the individual right to keep and bear is the need for "regulation?"
Yeah, I got tapatalk, too. So what?
Not to be rude, but your questions are stupid and not worthy of consideration. I have never once stated that the right to keep and bear arms is a collective right. In fact, it is an individual right that one must be trained to use responsibly like all rights a person has. I have made this abundantly clear in this thread and in other threads.I already agreed with the need for a regulated militia... But, if one falls out of the age range, does he (only men, BTW) forfeit his right to bear arms?
What if he's a C.O.? What if he's disabled? What if it's a she? Is there no individual right, then? And if not, it's the militia to be comprised only of men?
Hmmm....
Yeah, I got tapatalk, too. So what?
Actually, the Second Amendment does specify training. Here is the text itself.
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.Right. It doesn't say the people are the militia, but rather by keeping and bearing arms, they ensure the militia is and remains well-regulated.
Well regulated means to function flawlessly and with training to make it in perfect working order. To be able to have the people well regulated requires training. The Second Amendment goes hand in hand with Article 1 Section 8 Clause 16.Again, the people and the militia are two separate entities. Militias are a function of the government. The government is a function of the people.
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Disciplining the militia means to set down the standards of training. Here is the definition of disciplining from Webster's 1828 Dictionary which is the closest dictionary to how the founding fathers used the word.
DISCIPLINING, pp. Instructing; educating; subjecting to order and subordination; correcting; chastising; admonishing; punishing.
The Bill of Rights applies only to the federal government, but not the state governments. Nowhere in the Constitution are states granted the authority to abrogate that which is guaranteed to the people in the Bill of Rights. The states are able to govern themselves as they see fit, but are required to provide for training of the militia. Nothing I've said is contradictory to the strict interpretation of the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights.
EDIT: For clarity here is the definition of Discipline from Webster's 1828 dictionary.
DISCIPLINE, n. [L., to learn.]
1. Education; instruction; cultivation and improvement, comprehending instruction in arts, sciences, correct sentiments, morals and manners, and due subordination to authority.
2. Instruction and government, comprehending the communication of knowledge and the regulation of practice; as military discipline, which includes instruction in manual exercise, evolutions and subordination.
3. Rule of government; method of regulating principles and practice; as the discipline prescribed for the church.
4. Subjection to laws, rules, order, precepts or regulations; as, the troops are under excellent discipline; the passions should be kept under strict discipline.
5. Correction; chastisement; punishment intended to correct crimes or errors; as the discipline of the strap.
6. In ecclesiastical affairs, the execution of the laws by which the church is governed, and infliction of the penalties enjoined against offenders, who profess the religion of Jesus Christ.
7. Chastisement or bodily punishment inflicted on a delinquent in the Romish Church; or that chastisement or external mortification which a religious person inflicts on himself.
In the case of the Second Amendment and Article 1 Section 8 Clause 16 the correct definition of discipline is 2 & 4 since they relate to the militia.The Second Amendment deals with a right guaranteed to the people, as do the other nine amendments in the Bill of Rights.
Disagree with it all you like as it is your right. However, you're incorrect about the phraseology used in the Second Amendment. James Madison and the other delegates worded the Bill of Rights and Constitution in a manner that describes the object/reason of the clause first then mentions how they will accomplish it second. For example, here's another clause for you from Article 1 Section 6 Clause 1.I disagree with your entire premise.
