Author Topic: chairboy...ACLU (Read 2268 times)

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #75 on:** September 19, 2005, 11:04:09 AM »

Quote

Then we could either get on with the 2nd American Revolution or we could get on with life under the liberties intended by the Founders.

The moment it happens...

Oh man, I'm getting giddy with anticipation.

GreenCloud · « **Reply #76 on:** September 19, 2005, 12:44:37 PM »

saburo..you are being very dense

"no aimed fire"

lmfingao ...If you point that barrel in your direction ...are you moving?...hell yes

Chairboy · « **Reply #77 on:** September 19, 2005, 12:51:51 PM »

Perhaps this is the difference between a 'precision approach' and a 'non-precision' approach to an airport. The precision approach, of course, incorporates both vertical and horizontal guidance, while the non-precision is usually just horizontal.

With a shotgun, precision is less important, but you're still getting a vital 'service'.

midnight Target · « **Reply #78 on:** September 19, 2005, 01:59:21 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
Not true. United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas held it was an individual right in the Emerson case.

There's a lower federal court that DID NOT uniformly hold the 2nd is a collective right.

I personally would like to see this settled once and for all at the SC level.

Then we could either get on with the 2nd American Revolution or we could get on with life under the liberties intended by the Founders.

Sorry Toad, I should have dated that. It was from a 4th circuit ruling in 1994. So, it was true at the time. Now we have 2 circuits saying collective, or at least agreeing with collective.

Toad · « **Reply #79 on:** September 19, 2005, 02:20:23 PM »

The Circuits can and do disagree. We've seen that on multiple aspects of the Constitution.

When they do disagree, where is the final ruling made? At the Supreme Court level.

Miller v US clearly supports the "individual right" of Americans to keep and bear arms.

Lewis V US (in 1980) is another SC decision that supports the "individual right" and it cited Miller in doing so.

Even more fundamental, however, is Jeezy's point, which nails it down perfectly and bears repeating:

Quote

Namely, the constitution is built on the assumtion that the people hold rights before the existence of the government, and that the people grant the government some of these rights "in order to form a more perfect union."

The most elequent exhibition of this concept was penned in the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

The collective rights model turns this concept on its head, and in essence posits that the right to bear arms is a right given to the govts for them to cede to the people as they wish--an untenable position, both given the text of the 2nd amnd and the overall aim of the constitution as a whole.

The US government does not give us our rights. No way; Jefferson's ghost would be wielding his shotgun pistol right in line next to me if that were so.

We the people cede rights to the government.

If we ever all forget that.... and it would seem some of my fellow citizens HAVE forgotten that... this Republic will have failed completely.

As I said, I hope the SC takes Emerson. It's time to settle who actually holds and who actually cedes the rights in this country.

.... and if it turns out the government holds and cedes all the rights, then by Cod, it's time for Jefferson's long overdue "rebellion every 20 years".

If they gut the 2nd, the rest of the Bill of Rights won't be far behind.

The recent "medical marijuana" and "eminent domain" cases already show the appetite of the Federalists for ever more power.

lazs2 · « **Reply #80 on:** September 19, 2005, 02:23:04 PM »

there is no way that the 2nd can be interpreted as a collective right. I'm with toad.... let's get it out in the open and done with.

For the supreme's it is lose lose... if they give an honest ruling it will open up the country for lawsuits on bogus gun control laws and make much of the federal and state government agencies useless and unnecessary...

If the vote as a collective right and that can be taken or given at the grace of state and federal governments..... there will be a huge influx of restrictive gun control and confiscation laws.... using rigestration to round up weapons... it is not ureasonable to expect thousands of Waco's.

lazs

SaburoS · « **Reply #81 on:** September 19, 2005, 02:30:34 PM »

Toad,
We are going around in circles here arguing about how red the apples are and how orange the oranges are.

Check your email.

Toad · « **Reply #82 on:** September 19, 2005, 02:33:53 PM »

I don't believe we are.

I'll check e-mail directly but let me ask you two questions:

Do you feel Miller V US grants an individual right to firearms ownership?

Do you agree that use of the LSS by 10th Mountain puts short shotguns and shotgun pistols in common use?

Those are straight up "yes/no" questions.

Clifra Jones · « **Reply #83 on:** September 19, 2005, 02:58:14 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Charon
I agree with 90 percent of what the ACLU does, since it supports a more libertarian individual rights perspective. But there is obviously a certain degree of true liberalism in the organization as well. Some individual rights are more important than others.

Charon

What indiviual libertarian rights are they defending for an organization like NAMBLA!

For those who are not aware, They are the North American Man Boy Love Association. One of their members was convicted of murdering a 10 yr old boy after reading information provided by NAMBLA on how to seduce young boys. He stated in court that their materials encouraged him to commit his crime. They are being sued by the parents

SaburoS · « **Reply #84 on:** September 19, 2005, 03:00:45 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
I don't believe we are.

I'll check e-mail directly but let me ask you two questions:

Those are straight up "yes/no" questions.

Quote

Do you feel Miller V US grants an individual right to firearms ownership?

It is a bad decision by the courts. I do not agree with that decision. It is absolutely idiotic that they want to ban a weapon made shorter, yet they have no problems with handguns?

No, I am not proposing a ban on handguns.

Quote

Do you agree that use of the LSS by 10th Mountain puts short shotguns and shotgun pistols in common use?

Overall, no.
I have yet to see them being used outside of its original combined weapons system. Combined, it is not a short weapon.
And here we go around in circles again.
I have yet to see them using the pistol version. I doubt we'll ever see it used as the pistol version if the butt stock were available. Big difference in recoil control.

Several hundred of the LSS were first deployed in 2004 to the 10th Mountain Division (18th Airborne Corps) in Afghanistan. They were initially issued one per squad, although the plan was to get one in every fire team.

What's is the staus now of the LSS.
How many of our forces are being issued this weapon system outside of the 10th Mountain Division?

I classify the shotgun as the same as the M203 grenade launcher. Not a "common" use weapon. It has its specific mission in support of the main battle rifle/assault rifle, but it will not be deployed in place of the main weapon.

Now my turn on the yes or no:

Has a sawed off double barrel shotgun ever been introduced and used by any military from say 1900 to present?

If yes, would you consider that as common use?

SaburoS · « **Reply #85 on:** September 19, 2005, 03:04:48 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GreenCloud
saburo..you are being very dense

"no aimed fire"

lmfingao ...If you point that barrel in your direction ...are you moving?...hell yes

Next time you go to an outdoor range and fire that 12 gauge or any weapon, don't aim, just point. you might just be surprised how much you miss what you're trying to hit.

First shot btw.

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #86 on:** September 19, 2005, 03:13:51 PM »

You have to take distances into effect and what kind of choke you have.

A short barrel could easily hit something at 10 yards. No effort involved.

A choked 25 inch barrel will blow a nice cylinder out of whatever you want at 10 yards.

It will be harder to shoot, but would be easier to hit things farther out.

SaburoS · « **Reply #87 on:** September 19, 2005, 03:34:59 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lasersailor184
You have to take distances into effect and what kind of choke you have.

A short barrel could easily hit something at 10 yards. No effort involved.

A choked 25 inch barrel will blow a nice cylinder out of whatever you want at 10 yards.

It will be harder to shoot, but would be easier to hit things farther out.

LOL, go ahead and try it.
Take a sawed off shotgun without front sight and put some lethal hits on that 10 yard target.
You've got 2 shots.

Now take a regular shotgun (short barrel) and use aimed fire.

You'd be surprised at the dispersion of the shot.

You'd also be surprised at how useless the sawed off is.

jEEZY · « **Reply #88 on:** September 19, 2005, 03:35:18 PM »

Originally posted by jEEZY
Actually...the collective rights [should read induvidual right] model is well-settled as the correct interpretaion, nobody has published a serious article otherwise in over thirty years. A circuit split only denotes a political split, not necessarily a split in understanding. Indeed, one of the most liberal law prof, Amar, came to the collective rights [should read induvidual right] model while researching an article he wanted to write on the collective rights model. In my view, cogent research clearly indicates an induvidual right in the 2nd amendment.

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
Assuming you meant individual right?

Or did you?

Whoops I did mean induvidual right--sorry...

SaburoS · « **Reply #89 on:** September 19, 2005, 03:40:34 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Clifra Jones
What indiviual libertarian rights are they defending for an organization like NAMBLA!

For those who are not aware, They are the North American Man Boy Love Association. One of their members was convicted of murdering a 10 yr old boy after reading information provided by NAMBLA on how to seduce young boys. He stated in court that their materials encouraged him to commit his crime. They are being sued by the parents

So when kids blame their violent actions on video games, the video games are at fault or somehow responsible?

How about that sick individual above being who he is, is the guilty one?

You're trying to blame the ACLU?
Did they come to the guy's defense at his murder trial?
Did NAMBLA show the guy how to murder?

Sheesh.

BTW don't even go there if you think I support pedophilia.