DoJ on Heller...

[lazs2]

sorry bingie.. the fact is that there is very little if anything that you are right about in this thread.

The militia part of the second is an example... one example for why we need the right..  it is not the exclusive reason.  If it were.. then the feds blew it when they accepted states into the union and allowed their constituions to exist.. they would be contradictory.   even if you were foolish enough to think that it was the only reason then you would have to go by what a militia was in 1776 (every able bodied person).. not what it morphed into.. You can't change the constitution by changing the meaning of words although.. you and your ilk do realize that it is worth a shot..  people are dumb after all.

laws do not exist to make the constitution moot.. the constitution exists to make laws.. bad laws.. moot. 

You are of course... no friend of the second.. you wish to destroy it.  You are no friend of our right to defend ourselves.   You are the people the constitution protects us from.. those who would make bad law to take away rights.

lazs

[Bingolong]

sorry bingie.. the fact is that there is very little if anything that you are right about in this thread.

The militia part of the second is an example... one example for why we need the right..  it is not the exclusive reason.  If it were.. then the feds blew it when they accepted states into the union and allowed their constituions to exist.. they would be contradictory.   even if you were foolish enough to think that it was the only reason then you would have to go by what a militia was in 1776 (every able bodied person).. not what it morphed into.. You can't change the constitution by changing the meaning of words although.. you and your ilk do realize that it is worth a shot..  people are dumb after all.

laws do not exist to make the constitution moot.. the constitution exists to make laws.. bad laws.. moot. 

You are of course... no friend of the second.. you wish to destroy it.  You are no friend of our right to defend ourselves.   You are the people the constitution protects us from.. those who would make bad law to take away rights.

lazs

Dumb people are people that dont understand that their right have all ready been taken away...such as yourself.

[lazs2]

ok... lets put it this way... if they did manage to take away the right based on changing the meaning of words...

are you ok with that?   given that you say only "dumb" people don't realize that they already have?

Face it.. you would be thrilled..   you would love to see any right you don't like taken away.

lazs

[Bingolong]

ok... lets put it this way... if they did manage to take away the right based on changing the meaning of words...

are you ok with that?   given that you say only "dumb" people don't realize that they already have?

Face it.. you would be thrilled..   you would love to see any right you don't like taken away.

lazs

 I will just simply point you here once more.

http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm


Have I not lost most of the right to be a militia?

Says I can have the weapons of the time? I can Not.

Your argument you need it for a tyrannical gov. is lost in the noise.

The only reason you need a gun is for your protection, not to protect others as that is not your job.
In order for you to be correct. You need to get the constitution changed. to exclude the militia.
It is not mine to prove the militia clause its there BOLD and is the basis for the second amendment.

Just becuase I can read and follow the progression of the Militia, does not mean that I'm a lideral whack job that is against gun rights.

Try to get that straight.

[Bingolong]

double post mistake

[Charon]

Some negros call themselves the N word... SO? does that make it okay for U?

You have no clue. None what so ever.

From Miriam-Webster

Main Entry:
    Jew Listen to the pronunciation of Jew
Pronunciation:
    \ˈjü\
Function:
    noun
Etymology:
    Middle English, from Anglo-French ju, jeu, from Latin Judaeus, from Greek Ioudaios, from Hebrew Yĕhūdhī, from Yĕhūdhāh Judah, Jewish kingdom
Date:
    13th century

1 a: a member of the tribe of Judah b: israelite
2: a member of a nation existing in Palestine from the sixth century b.c. to the first century a.d.
3: a person belonging to a continuation through descent or conversion of the ancient Jewish people
4: one whose religion is Judaism

Notice there is NO reference to Jew being a derogatory term. Now, when my Jewish friends in High school occasionally, for a short period of time, called each other "Jewboy" -- that is in line with you N word reference. And yes, outsiders were not welcomed to use the term

Again, just how many Jews do you know and socialize with on a regular basis?

Charon

[Bingolong]

You have no clue. None what so ever.

From Miriam-Webster

Notice there is NO reference to Jew being a derogatory term. Now, when my Jewish friends in High school occasionally, for a short period of time, called each other "Jewboy" -- that is in line with you N word reference. And yes, outsiders were not welcomed to use the term

Again, just how many Jews do you know and socialize with on a regular basis?

Charon

 You have no clue.

The romans gave the derogatory name JEW to the Jewish people not because they liked them mind you. Go tell your wife that  every time she says it she is repeating the romans that wanted to slaughter her people and drove them from there home land. Same with Hitler.

Mater fact I have a few Jewish friends one with the last name Cohen who's name dates back to the beginning of  the Jewish people. Calling them JEW is degrading. That is how I see it.

When you ask your wife a question about her faith.  Do you say "hey honey when you Jews were in the desert all that time..." Or "Its because of you Jews that the middle east is in turmoil don't you think dear?" I doubt it. and why not its disrespectful. If your wife wishes to do that it's her choice. She should look up where the word came from.

I was taught bye my folks not to call them JEWS as there are Israelites people of Jeddah an ancient kingdom of the Hebrews.

[bsdaddict]

As it is, the only thing you need your guns for IS for your own protection. Show me where it says that in the constitution.?

Amendment IX: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

[Charon]

The romans gave the derogatory name JEW to the Jewish people not because they liked them mind you. Go tell your wife that  every time she says it she is repeating the romans that wanted to slaughter her people and drove them from there home land. Same with Hitler.

Mater fact I have a few Jewish friends one with the last name Cohen who's name dates back to the beginning of  the Jewish people. Calling them JEW is degrading. That is how I see it.

When you ask your wife a question about her faith.  Do you say "hey honey when you Jews were in the desert all that time..." Or "Its because of you Jews that the middle east is in turmoil don't you think dear?" I doubt it. and why not its disrespectful. If your wife wishes to do that it's her choice. She should look up where the word came from.

I was taught bye my folks not to call them JEWS as there are Israelites people of Jeddah an ancient kingdom of the Hebrews.

I would tell my wife, if I thought she needed a good laugh. It is not disrespectful. You are being unnecessarily politically correct. Even this Jewish writer with the 6 page article published in the New York Times on what it means to be considered a Jew in Israel apparently has it wrong, since he uses the word Jew about 10 times on each page.

How Do You Prove You’re a Jew?

...More than any other issue, the question of Who is a Jew? has repeatedly roiled relations between Israel and American Jewry. Psychologically, it is an argument over who belongs to the family. In the past, the casus belli was conversion: Would the Law of Return, which grants automatic citizenship to any Jew coming to Israel, apply to those converted to Judaism by non-Orthodox rabbis? Now, as Sharon’s experience indicates, the status of Jews by birth is in question. Equally important, the dividing line is no longer between Orthodox and non-Orthodox. The rabbinate’s handling of the issue has placed it on one side of an ideological fissure within Orthodox Judaism itself, between those concerned with making sure no stranger enters the gates and those who fear leaving sisters and brothers outside.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/magazine/02jewishness-t.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Apparently even the Knesset needs to be schooled on the word Jew.

In 1970, the Knesset defined the term “Jew” as meaning “one who was born to a Jewish mother or who converted to Judaism.”

Even orthodox rabbis have it wrong.

“If you don’t keep the Torah and the commandments, O.K., so I excluded you. In any case you weren’t a complete Jew,” is how Friedman explains the attitude.

"Complete Jew" ... that guy must be a real self loathing Israelite, person of Jeddah.

Charon

[lazs2]

you are being silly bingie..   If in 2009 they decide there is no such thing as a militia.. does that mean to you that the second has no meaning at all?

That is suddenly, without any constitutional convention.. becomes moot?

None of this matters since only you and at best, 20% of the country think that the second is anything but an individual right.  No serious scholar subscribes to your far left interpretation of the second.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-02-26-guns-cover_N.htm

To say that it is not an individual right would conflict with state constitutions that existed when those states joined the union..

Talk about change!  if you suddenly said that the second was a "collective right" or... translated.. no right at all.. then you would have to change a bunch of state constitutions... send in the federal troops if they did not. 

Nope.. if the states constitutions conflicted at the time then they should not have been accepted into the union.

None of this however is anything but common sense.. anyone reading the second can see that it was not written to give states the right to arm their army.

lazs

[Bingolong]

you are being silly bingie..   If in 2009 they decide there is no such thing as a militia.. does that mean to you that the second has no meaning at all?

That is suddenly, without any constitutional convention.. becomes moot?

None of this matters since only you and at best, 20% of the country think that the second is anything but an individual right.  No serious scholar subscribes to your far left interpretation of the second.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-02-26-guns-cover_N.htm

To say that it is not an individual right would conflict with state constitutions that existed when those states joined the union..

Talk about change!  if you suddenly said that the second was a "collective right" or... translated.. no right at all.. then you would have to change a bunch of state constitutions... send in the federal troops if they did not. 

Nope.. if the states constitutions conflicted at the time then they should not have been accepted into the union.

None of this however is anything but common sense.. anyone reading the second can see that it was not written to give states the right to arm their army.

lazs


 

No.. Lazie I was just saying take out the militia part so it will read how you want it to. Without the militia part it would be an individual right.  Right? The only one who need it amended is you and the rest of the whacko gun freaks.
I'm happy the way it is. At the moment it does not read as an individual right. There are no militias of one.
You get so bent about it, and have stated they should have never put the militia part in. The fact that you say that means, it is just a bumb in the road to your percived gun rights, that you know its not an individual right and wish it to be changed.

I would just like to see a definition of the unorganized militia as the organized militia is defined.

Na ....  anyone who reads it from left to right can see that a militia is involved in the right to bear arms... Why did they frame the question the way they did? Who in this day and age is involved in a militia? Not to many folks.

[bsdaddict]

I would just like to see a definition of the unorganized militia as the organized militia is defined.

The currently effective Militia Act  --  10 U.S.C. § 311 (enacted 1956, amended 1958).

              (a)  The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and . . . under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

              (b) The classes of the militia are --

              (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

              (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

 

[Bingolong]

The currently effective Militia Act  --  10 U.S.C. § 311 (enacted 1956, amended 1958).

              (a)  The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and . . . under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

              (b) The classes of the militia are --

              (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

              (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

 

Go here Im not going to start over but thanks
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,220172.0.html

However you should include the whole provision

312. MILITIA DUTY: EXEMPTIONS
   The following persons are exempt from militia duy:
 (a) (1) The Vice President.
     (2) The judicial and executive officers of the United States, the
       several States and Territories, Puerto Rico, and the Canal Zone.
     (3) Members of the armed forces, except members who are not on
       active duty.
     (4) Customhouse clerks.
     (5) Persons employed by the United States in the transmission of
       mail.
     (6) Workmen employed in armories, arsenals,and naval shipyards of
       the United States.
     (7) Pilots on navigable waters
     (8) Mariners in the sea service of a citizen of, or a merchant in,
         the United States.
 (b) A person who claims exemption because of religious belief is
    exempt from militia duty in a combatant capacity, if the
    conscientious holding of that belief is established under
    such regulations as the President may prescribe.  However,
    such a person is not exempt from militia duty that the President
    determines to be noncombatant.
   
[there are no sections 313-330]

331.FEDERAL AID FOR STATE GOVERNMENTS
     Whenever there is an insurrection in any State against its
     government, the President may, upon the request of its legislature
     or of its governor if the legislature cannot be convened, call
     into Federal service such of the militia  of the other States,
     in the number requested by that State, and use such of
     the armed forces, as he considers necessary to suppress the
     insurrection.

332.USE OF MILITIA AND ARMED FORCES TO ENFORCE FEDERAL AUTHORITY
     Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions,
     combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority
     of the United States make it impracticable to enforce the laws
     of the United States in any State or Territory by the ordinary
     course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal
     service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the
     armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws
     or to suppress the insurrection.

333.INTERFERENCE WITH STATE AND FEDERAL LAW
     The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or
     both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he
     considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection,
     domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it--

      a) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and
         of the United States within the State, that any part or
         class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege,
         immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and
         secured by law, and the constituted authorities of the
         State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right,
         privilege, immunity, or to give that protection; or
     
      b) opposed or obstructs the execution of the laws of the
         United States or impedes the course of justice under
         these laws
     
     In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be
     considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws
     secured by the Constitution.

334.PROCLAMATION TO DISPERSE
    Whenever the President considers it necessary to use the
    militia or the armed forces under this chapter, he shall,
    by proclamation, immediately order the insurgents to
    disperse and retire peaceably to their abodes within a
    limited time.

As to your 9th amendment argument, I have said the same and maybe the 10th and possible the 14th as well.

[bustr]

The currently effective Militia Act  --  10 U.S.C. § 311 (enacted 1956, amended 1958).

              (a)  The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and . . . under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

              (b) The classes of the militia are --

              (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

              (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

So then (2) accounts for everyone else not in the National Guard. Which means someone in 1956-58 understood "the right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed."

I doubt Heller at the SCOTUS can do anything other than 1.) send the case back to a lower court or 2.) clear up the language and intent of the 2nd.

If the SCOTUS chooses to clear up the language then it will be an "either or" affermation of individual right vs. the vital interests of the government; since the DOJ has openly played the Fed governments investment in this by trying a soft manipulation of the SCOTUS in front of the whole country. Hasen't the SCOTUS historicly stuck it to the Fed government when it's tried things like this in full view of "We the People"? After all the members of the SCOTUS have a certain amount of power they have historicaly guarded religiously against presidential interference.

Maybe Bush knows his SCOTUS and did this on purpose to get slapped in the face by the SCOTUS with an affermation of "We the People" on his way out of the White House? Coming outright with a stand for the individual right position would be a loosing bet at this point in his political popularity and lack of ability to control Clinton holdovers at the DOJ. One of his ongoing stratagies has been to own Democrat\Liberal initiatives to take away thier power. The outcome of that is for another disturbing discussion.......  

[lazs2]

finally!  at last we got you to admit that anyone (97% of the country in the USA today quick poll)  that anyone who thinks the the second is an individual right is a "rest of the whacko gun freaks"

Why did you have to be so dishonest?  why is the left always so prone to lie?  to pretend to be either on your side or.. at least.. not your enemy?   the basic dishonesty of all your posts is pretty sickening but.. typical.

It takes getting you angry before you blurt out how you really feel..  not that it was that difficult... it is just that you could have saved us a lot of time by stating your true position in the first place.

You are cornered.. the militia was every able bodied man when the second was written.. you can't change that to mean.. be meaningless.. to say it means that it is the right of the states to arm their soldiers...

It would be the same as if you changed the meaning of "peace" or "quartered" in the third amendment and made them moot without a constitutional convention.

but.. despite your fervent wishes.. I don't believe any supreme court short of one appointed by you is going to tell 98% of Americans that a right that they thought they always had if really no right at all.

lazs