Author Topic: Check this load of crap ... (Read 1779 times)

weaselsan · « **Reply #60 on:** March 27, 2005, 04:25:51 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Maverick
Me too. We need to get to the range and practice some more.

This is hilarious...in order to attempt to change the meaning of the second amendment some here repeatedly use the phony premise that the Army National Guard is under control of the States. When I point out past examples of why that is not true, ie Eisenhauers take over of the Arkansas Guard in Little rock, that then becomes illegal (which it is not). The bottom line is you can't have your cake and eat it too, which would you prefer. The right of individuals to keep and bear arms, or the right of States to arm militias that the federal government has no authority over? In other words State Armies.

weaselsan · « **Reply #61 on:** March 27, 2005, 04:45:08 PM »

The Guard is first a state organization. It requires a federal order (federalization) to bring it to active duty for use outside of the state. That order, by law, can only be for 90 days UNLESS congress approves it and appropriates funding for it, otherwise it reverts back to the state.

This entire discussion is about the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms. The left's arguments against these rights has always been that it says to maintain a militia. I simply am pointing out that the purpose of this amendment is to allow the people to protect themselves against a corrupt government. If it is only a right to maintain the national guard, then it is not an individual right at all. Where does it require the bill of rights to authorize the federal Government to maintain an Army reserve? Or the States to use that force? NO IT IS AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT just as is Freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of speech.
otherwise you invite the government to decide what press is free, what speech is free and what religion you can practice.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #62 on:** March 27, 2005, 06:41:29 PM »

I still can't beleive that some of you think Gun Control or any "regulation" of the 2nd amendment is a good Idea.

To me it's the same as chipping away at the 4th Amendment for the same reasons....Saftey/Security.

These leftists that say the 2nd is obsolete scream and cry foul anytime somone wants to chip away or regulate 4th amendment rights. The irony is people make the same argument against the 4th as the gun control croud make against the 2nd.

I'll post this in every gun control discussion:

Some (not me) would make the same argument against 4th amendment freedoms as they do about 2nd amendment protection.

Some of you don't stop and think sometimes why we are so against anti-gun legistlation. For some like myself who dont dont even own a firearm its not about the gun but the protection under the constitution. The argument that some have used is that the second amendment is archaic and outdated.....well here you have somone saying that 4th amendment protections are outdated as well.

This is why a "living document" does not cut it....they are either ALL protections or none at all. Once you whittle away at the 2nd.....then shave a little off on the 4th....then sink your teeth into the 1st. Once the momentum has started it's hard to stop.

Maybe this puts a little perspective into other discussions.

Maverick · « **Reply #63 on:** March 27, 2005, 07:09:57 PM »

Weasel,

I really don't know what the heck your premise is anymore, you seem to be rather incensed and are not making much sense.

Eisenhoue federalized the guard to prevent the state governor from using it to violate federal law. The guard is NOT the governors personal troop resource. It belongs to the state but is not authorized to break federal law either. (desegregation)

This is totally seperate from the 2nd ammendment issue.

Quote:
This is hilarious...in order to attempt to change the meaning of the second amendment some here repeatedly use the phony premise that the Army National Guard is under control of the States. When I point out past examples of why that is not true, ie Eisenhauers take over of the Arkansas Guard in Little rock, that then becomes illegal (which it is not). The bottom line is you can't have your cake and eat it too, which would you prefer. The right of individuals to keep and bear arms, or the right of States to arm militias that the federal government has no authority over? In other words State Armies.[b/]

I have NO idea why you think anything I posted about the Guard had anything to do with denial of 2nd ammendment rights. Please point out where I said anything about it.

As to the bit about the Reserves. what are you asking stating? I couldn't make heads or tails out of your post on it. I posted about the Reserves to show the difference between them and the Guard and was responding to Toad's post not yours.

midnight Target · « **Reply #64 on:** March 27, 2005, 08:36:58 PM »

I'm certainly not in favor of taking guns away. I am a former gun owner and will probably be again soon. My point is only that the 2nd Amendment as it is written and currently interpreted by the SC does NOT protect the individual right to own firearms.

I think it is about time this matter is settled by the court.

john9001 · « **Reply #65 on:** March 27, 2005, 08:42:55 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
. My point is only that the 2nd Amendment as it is written and currently interpreted by the SC does NOT protect the individual right to own firearms.

I think it is about time this matter is settled by the court.

the SC is not infailable, dred scott decision.

edit: i think your use of the words "currently interpreted" says it all.