Now I have to carry Liability Insurance for my weapons

[nrubenstein]

Militia is defined at the federal level, as every male ages 17-45 and up to 65 for former military. There for anyone who falls into that demographic, is considered part of the militia period, no matter your political leaning, or personal feeling on the matter that is the fact of the matter.

Next if we look to the dick act of 1903 (that cant be repealed and is the law of the land an has been being ignored since 1934) The National guard is considered the organized militia, BUT ALL THE REST OF US that fall in to that 17-45 group and are male are CONSIDERED THE UNORGANIZED MILITIA, there for we have the rights to any and all means afforded to the to the average individual rifle man in the military.



Well regulated does not refer to organization and playing army in the woods with your buddies it refers to being familiar with your own privately held weapons, and knowing how to use it.
: to fix or adjust the time, amount, degree, or rate of <regulate the pressure of a tire> - Websters


Yes tis true lack of actually military training is a pit fall, but think about the fact that if you take just 5 average states, WI, PA, MI, OH, MN, and add up everyone that arms them selves and heads into the woods to kill dear....... Equals more armed people than the 3 or 4 largest armies in the world Combined. Now think about the fact that a few people with little "military training" have stymied the greatest military force the world has ever seen for 10 years, and the 2ed largest for a decade previous to that.


How so you brought it up
post #10

Again in post #15

And post #17


Hence my point about a person using a stolen weapon to hurt some one else. You seem keen on holding that victim of theft financially responsible for a crime that was committed with his stolen property by someone else. Along with the fact one should have to carry a pointless and legally unneeded insurance policy to pay for such instances. Hence my posting of the proximate cause definition.

If I am some how mistaken on the interpretation of proximate cause, please point in the correct direction to the correct one so I can learn from my mistake



Dont like get the Constitution amended to reflect this. You cant "repeal" the 2A away, we could amend it to reflect that, but you cant repeal it. You never going to get 66% in the US houses and 66% in both houses of 75% of the states.

I am not going to say anymore than that about this

Idiot.

You said: "In criminal law, the defendant's act must have been the proximate cause of the death of a victim to prove murder or manslaughter." You should know that there is a difference between guilty of murder/manslaughter and liable.

Furthermore, you keep bringing up non-constitutional definitions to defend your constitutional argument. If you are arguing on the basis of the constitution, then stick with it.