Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Terror on March 25, 2005, 12:03:11 AM
-
s.620 (http://www.theorator.com/bills109/s620.html)
I guess people just do not understand what the second amendment is about...
Terror
-
No gun control law has ever been overturned as un-Constitutional.
Not one, not ever.
-
Mrs. FEINSTEIN , Mr. WARNER, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. DEWINE, Ms. MIKULSKI, Mr. DURBIN, Mrs. BOXER, Mrs. CLINTON, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. DODD, and Mr. REED
aka the Poster kids for Senate Term Limits...
- Seagoon
-
Reads as equally stupid as the last one. Definition of "assault" weapon is the same, results would be the same. All sizzle, no steak.
Won't pass in this Congress.
-
I'm okay with campaign finance reform, but term limits?
Not so much.
Term limits is a nice way of saying voters are too stupid to recognize corrupt politicians.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Term limits is a nice way of saying voters are too stupid to recognize corrupt politicians.
Do you mean that as funny interesting, or funny ha ha?
-
Originally posted by Nash
Do you mean that as funny interesting, or funny ha ha?
Funny as in not neccessary. ;)
-
Okay. :)
It was just a very interesting sentence....
-
Originally posted by Sandman
I'm okay with campaign finance reform, but term limits?
Not so much.
Term limits is a nice way of saying voters are too stupid to recognize corrupt politicians.
Well, whether you say it nice or rude and blunt, it's the truth. Look at the Fords of the Memphis/Shelby County Tennessee area. More examples are VERY easy to find, if you just look.
-
Getting elected even to the 1st term is solid evidence of corruption so vile it is akin to treason
-
the department of justice just finished a ten year study on guns and the second amendment...
interesting things were that they decided that "the people" meant just that... everyone... they cited 16 other examples where the word "people" was used.
next... all the studies they coulod obtain showed that no gun control law anywhere in the states has ever been effective in reducing crime.
It is true that no gun control law has been overturned but no court has ever ruled on the second... both sides are leary. If the issue is forced I want it to happen under Bush and a supreme court he helps appoint.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Terror
s.620 (http://www.theorator.com/bills109/s620.html)
I guess people just do not understand what the second amendment is about...
Terror
Whats this? another "feel good law" attempt?
-
yep... you would think that politicians who wasted so much time and effort on bills that no one wants and that do no good at all would be kicked out on their butts...
without term limits this will never happen tho. no one wants to lose a state politician who has achieved power to manipulate funding better than some junior member.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Terror
I guess people just do not understand what the second amendment is about...
Terror
You would be right.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
I'm okay with campaign finance reform, but term limits?
Not so much.
Term limits is a nice way of saying voters are too stupid to recognize corrupt politicians.
95% of incumbents are re-elected, couple that with gerrymanderd districts (safe) and you end up with a govt run by incompetents.
yes , voters are stupid. voters want the budget ballanced but also want "govt funding" for their part of the country.
voter::"oh please mr congressman, don't close the military base, it's important to my cities economy"
congressman:: "i will fight to keep this base open, it's important to my districts economy, and my re-election"
-
Originally posted by Sandman
No gun control law has ever been overturned as un-Constitutional.
Not one, not ever.
That might be a correct statement, but all that means that liberals in a Judiciary support the agenda of liberals in Congress.
Duh, what a surprise. Especially that the Judiciary is orders of magnitude more liberal than Congress. They consistently block obviously constitutional laws, so letting an un-constitutional law skate is not any different.
You see.. the Constitution is a "living" document. What used to be a unalienable right before, might not be any more. But do not fret my friend, there is a tons of new rights still to be discovered.
-
Originally posted by mietla
They consistently block obviously constitutional laws, so letting an un-constitutional law skate is not any different.
Thanks for that legal opinion, Mr. Barrister. :aok
-
No problem. I have many opinions to offer, just ask.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
I'm okay with campaign finance reform
would you buy this one?
* No limit on a single contribution.
* No organization of any kind can contribute.
* All contibutions are from private citizens via a personal check (from a personal account of course).
* All contributions over $xxx (say $10,000) are traced to make sure that they really come from an individual, and not from a fake account seeded by some organizattion. No more John Huang with a brown bag full of cash.
* Only US citizens can contribute.
* All contributions are a public record and are available to anyone for the asking.
do you think Congress would buy that?
-
I would buy it! lol
Congress is more likely to **** tiffany cufflinks before they do.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
I would buy it! lol
Congress is more likely to **** tiffany cufflinks before they do.
Of course.
And this is because that would be a real reform, not like this McCain-Feingold idiocy.
-
mt... your wife is wrong.... again.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
mt... your wife is wrong.... again.
lazs
Lazs, I salute you.
:D :D
-
Originally posted by mietla
would you buy this one?
* No limit on a single contribution.
* No organization of any kind can contribute.
* All contibutions are from private citizens via a personal check (from a personal account of course).
* All contributions over $xxx (say $10,000) are traced to make sure that they really come from an individual, and not from a fake account seeded by some organizattion. No more John Huang with a brown bag full of cash.
* Only US citizens can contribute.
* All contributions are a public record and are available to anyone for the asking.
do you think Congress would buy that? [/B]
Hmmm... what this list really means is the elimination of special interest groups and lobbies.
I doubt Congress would go for it, and I'm not so sure they should.
I think citizens should have the right to remain anonymous. I also think contributions from non-citizens should not be allowed. As for organizations, make their donations public.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
I think citizens should have the right to remain anonymous.
well, just just killed the very notion of a reform. Any foreign and domestic enemy of the US stays invisible.
I also think contributions from non-citizens should not be allowed.
You just contradicted your first statement.
As for organizations, make their donations public.
not enough.
How do you justify organizations extorting money from the public (this way or another), and then funneling it to the politicians who support their agenda?
Need examples, ask.
-
Originally posted by mietla
You just contradicted your first statement.
I know.
There is no such thing as a black/white answer.
Your solution throws the baby out with the bathwater.
-
Howdy Sandman,
Originally posted by Sandman
I'm okay with campaign finance reform, but term limits?
Not so much.
Term limits is a nice way of saying voters are too stupid to recognize corrupt politicians.
Well lets just take one of the 11 up there, whom I personally familiar with from my time living in Northern VA and working for GoCos in D.C. - "Babs 'no ankles' Mikulski"
(http://www.myeloma.org/images/inline/AdvocacyDay/Mikulski.jpg)
Ms. Mikulski was just elected to her fourth 6 year term in the US Senate. She is from the Great State of Maryland, a machine state controlled by the Democratic party. Every 6 years or so, when Barbara comes up for re-election, some poor shlub from the under-ranks of the Democratic party (even the Baltimore Sun has taken to calling them "token" opposition) is called upon to face the wrath of the Mikulski machine. They are despatched in short order given her massive campaign war chest, firmly established network in the party, and connections throughout the state. Quite simply, you could run a young Thomas Jefferson for the spot and "Babs" would eliminate him in no time.
Once the Democratic challenger is put in his/her place, she inevitably goes on to destroy what ever sacrificial victim the Republicans can offer up. As they have neither the voter base in the cities, the money, media support, the organization nor the name recognition. So we have Senator Babs essentially installed in the Senate for as long as her heart can continue to pump blood throughout her frame.
Even if she was a great senator, the idea of totally stifling the ability of even her own party to bring in new blood would be bad for the Republic, but as it is giving NARAL and the AFL-CIO a permanent seat in the US Senate (she has never disagreed with even the most extreme positions of both organizations) strikes me as contrary to all hope of deliberation or compromise. Hegemony doesn't strike me as particularly good for democracy on the whole.
But that's just my fallible human opinion.
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by mietla
Lazs, I salute you.
:D :D
When you two finish your french kiss you might want to pick up a book.
The last mention of the Second amendment in the SC was in 1990... before that it was 1939. When exactly did they become so... "liberal?" Was it before or after Dred Scott?
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Thanks for that legal opinion, Mr. Barrister. :aok
Wasn't an opinion, it was a fact. Example " 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. It couldn't be any clearer if you shoved it up their juditial behinds.
-
Originally posted by mietla
would you buy this one?
* No limit on a single contribution.
* No organization of any kind can contribute.
* All contibutions are from private citizens via a personal check (from a personal account of course).
* All contributions over $xxx (say $10,000) are traced to make sure that they really come from an individual, and not from a fake account seeded by some organizattion. No more John Huang with a brown bag full of cash.
* Only US citizens can contribute.
* All contributions are a public record and are available to anyone for the asking.
do you think Congress would buy that? [/B]
lol, they would buy it, as soon as they figured out loopholes to make it moot
-
Originally posted by weaselsan
Wasn't an opinion, it was a fact. Example " 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. It couldn't be any clearer if you shoved it up their juditial behinds.
Maybe you should get yourself appopinted...
The 1939 case U.S. v. Miller is the only modern case in which the Supreme Court has addressed this issue. A unanimous Court ruled that the Second Amendment must be interpreted as intending to guarantee the states' rights to maintain and train a militia. "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument," the Court said. In subsequent years, the Court has refused to address the issue. It routinely denies cert. to almost all Second Amendment cases. In 1983, for example, it let stand a 7th Circuit decision upholding an ordinance in Morton Grove, Illinois, which banned possession of handguns within its borders. The case, Quilici v. Morton Grove 695 F.2d 261 (7th Cir. 1982), cert. denied 464 U.S. 863 (1983), is considered by many to be the most important modern gun control
-
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a “shotgun having a barrel of less that eighteen inches in length” at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that is use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158.
The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power--“To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; 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.” With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.
The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment at the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia--civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.
The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. “A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.” And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.
Midnight why not post the whole of US vs Miller 1939 and not try to presuade your audience by shorting them on the information there of. I clipped the above from the first 3rd. The original ruleing says that a sawed off shotgun does not conform with the Military arms of the day, 1939, .45 auto pistols, 1903 springfeild rifles, 30-06 BAR automatic rifles. A sawed off shotgun is not protected by the 2nd amendmant because it would not be a wheapon of military use to the militia. The militia is still We the People. So what are the standard arms of our current military?
-
US vs. Miller(1939):
The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators.
These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. [/b]“A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.”
And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.
I say they ought to bring it on and settle this once and forever.
The language they used was plain and simple. There was then and is now no doubt what they meant.
It's the lawyer's penchant for twisting the meaning of words into something entirely new that gives the only hope for the antis.
-
Originally posted by Toad
I say they ought to bring it on and settle this once and forever.
The language they used was plain and simple. There was then and is now no doubt what they meant.
It's the lawyer's penchant for twisting the meaning of words into something entirely new that gives the only hope for the antis.
Define "is" please.
-
Originally posted by weaselsan
Wasn't an opinion, it was a fact. Example " 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. It couldn't be any clearer if you shoved it up their juditial behinds.
You must forgive me if I believe what the U.S. Supreme Court rules as Constitutional (or not) before I take your word on it. ;)
-
bustr etal,
My only point in this is that there is more than a little doubt about the supposed constitutionally protected right of individuals in this Country to keep arms.
If we need to dig up 200 year old definitions of militia and compare those to rulings by courts in the 1930's then the issue is far from black and white.
I just wonder when the NRA and its lobby is gonna stop trying to lie to it's members.
-
Maybe when the antis stop lying to everyone?
Like I said.. let's bring it to the court and decide it once and for all.. except we know what would happen if the antis lose, right? It wouldn't be "once and for all", they'd just attack from a new angle.
-
Oh come on Toad, you know you want to agree with me...give in... let the dark side wash over you.
What the heck are you doing up this early on a saturday? I'm working.
duh! nevermind... it's not early there.
-
mt... your wife is saying that if we can prove that a weapon is useful in the forming of a militia then the SC will uhold the right to keep and bear it.
The example you have shown is a sawed off shotgun. There were weapons banned by the federal governmet unless a person had a licence for them. Ruby ridge is a good example of how badly this law can go.
now... both the SC and the german army were wrong on this one. In WWI the U.S. issued it's troops "sawed off shotguns" or "trench brooms" the germans "who were useing gas warfare at the time" complained that the shotguns were against the convention and threatened to shoot any prisoner caught with one.. the Americans continued to issue the shotguns and said they would retaliate on german pow's if the germans made good their threat.
sawed off shotguns (really, just production shotguns with short barrels) have been used by the U.S. military ever since and it is possible for anyone to own one with a barrel shorter than 18" with the right licence... 18" barrels are legal and have no restrictions.
but... tell the little woman that I will be glad to put my name up for "able bodied American" miulitia if that will be what satisfies your idea of "the people" as it aplies to the second.
I don't think you want the bill of rights to be modified with some nebulous defenition of "the people" tho that means only "the people so long as the government controls them". "The people" is used a lot more often than in the second.
lazs
-
And toad... you are correct.. it is a never ending battle with the liberals and their husbands.
No matter how black and white it is written or even if it is an amendment.... the womanly nannies will allways be back to chip away at our rights.
The best thing that any gun owner today can do to keep his rights is to join the NRA... the next best thing is... go buy another gun.
lazs
-
Sorry lazs, but you and your husband have completely missed the point.
The question isn't whether or not shotguns are useful to a militia. It is whether or not a MILITIA is necessary for the 2nd amendment to allow arms to be born. Miller obviously says YES.
Now if you want to be silly and claim yourself as part of a well regulated militia... than you should be allowed to own a bazooka and even nuclear weapons.
Even you don't want you to have nuclear weapons.
-
Miller pointedly says
the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense
That'd be.... me.
AND Miller pointedly says
when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.
Means I have a right to supply myself with arms "of the common use at the time". That'd be small arms, personal weapons. If you doubt that, there's documentation on the web you should be able to find easily.
Now, as to "common use", I think you need only look at the arms of a regular infantryman in Iraq. M-16 derivative and semi-auto pistol at the minimum.
-
even the government can't store high explosives and nukes anywhere they want. I agree that they should not be in residental areas by ordinary people..
who are, by the way, the "militia"... I don't have to call myself anything. the second says that in order for me to respond and form a militia my right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
I would agree with the supreme court if they felt that nukes or explosives were too dangerous (out of my control) to allow me to own without severe restrictions... private companies have built nuclear power plants tho under restrictions.
Now... it seems that you are really saying here that the constitution is outdated and needs to be changed. I disagree with that and will fight to keep it.
You can't make a case that "the people" means anything other than what it means in the rest of the constitution and it's amendments tho.
The department of justices lengthy study (about 400 pages) competed last year says exactly that. "the people" is exactly what it says. Everyone.
lazs
-
toad... you might find a short barreled shotgun in iraq being weilded by a U.S. soldier too.
lazs
-
The Founding Fathers recognized all of the First Ten Amendments as being safeguards of individual rights and liberties.
If I may refute your point MT, why would they place the right to bear arms so prominently near the top of that list of individual rights? Are we to believe that the Second Amendment, blessings and praise be upon it, is the ONLY ONE of the first ten amendments that DOES NOT REFER to individual rights? Could it be that they really meant what they said in the articles, essays, and personal letters during the debate over the passage of the Constitution about an armed citizenry being the best safeguard of liberty?
Careful now with your response. These were stand-up, take charge, handle-your-own-problems type of guys. The very notion of a "passive" citizenry that depended totally on the government for its security would have been silly and repugnant to them.
The armed militias to which they referred in the second amendment were groups like the minutemen, which every state organized before and during the Revolution as a defense of said state. The Founders saw these groups as being a safeguard against the development of a tyrannical national government. They had just fought a war to eject tyranny from American shores.
They recognized that the individual is responsible for his own security, and disaster awaited a citizenry that ceded that right to a central government. Modern history is rife with examples of unarmed citizens being slaughtered by their own governments. The list of such examples is far too lengthy to recite here.
If we have a problem in our "modern" society with gun-violence it is because citizens no longer accept responsibility for their own security, or for anything that they do for that matter, whether it is child-rearing or how we relate to and treat our neighbors.
-
OK, IF the militia is a safeguard against a tyrannical federal government, then why does the Constitution say this:
"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 officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress." -- Article I, Section 8, U.S. Constitution
Now if the Militia(s) are to be controlled by Congress how can they be deemed a deterent to tyrrany?
hmmmmmmmmmmm?
-
two seperate things mt.
the second is talking about an individal right (the people) like all the other amendments... the example you gave is simply giving the government the right to form militias also. Mostly, the constitution recognizes that the government has no rights unless they are called out. The founders needed the abilty to raise a government army or "militia". This did not abrigate the rights of the individual as called out in the second tho.
lazs
-
MT, that statement, if one reads it closely, refers to the training of militia units that might be used by the national government to carry out special duties or assignments. Notice, the training and appointment of officers and overall control of the militia units in question are specifically and undeniably left under the control of the STATES.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
The question isn't whether or not shotguns are useful to a militia. It is whether or not a MILITIA is necessary for the 2nd amendment to allow arms to be born. Miller obviously says YES.
.
you have it backwards, in order to organize a milita you must first have armed citizens.
also according to you , i should be able to carry a full auto M-16, as that is the "standard weapon" used by the military.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
When you two finish your french kiss you might want to pick up a book.
another one? I've already read a book.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
It is whether or not a MILITIA is necessary for the 2nd amendment to allow arms to be born. Miller obviously says YES.
And then Miller goes on to state that
the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense
Pretty universal inclusion of all able-bodied males into a MILITIA.
Tough luck for the ladies, though. ;)
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Funny as in not neccessary. ;)
Exactly. Ross Perot said it best when he said we have no need to enact term limit laws because we already have term limits...they are called "elections".
culero
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
MT, that statement, if one reads it closely, refers to the training of militia units that might be used by the national government to carry out special duties or assignments. Notice, the training and appointment of officers and overall control of the militia units in question are specifically and undeniably left under the control of the STATES.
Tell that to the Governor of Arkansas in the mid 1950's when Dwight Eisenhower took control of the Arkansas National guard to stop them from being used to prevent the desegregation of the schools. The National Guard or (Militia), is nothing more than the Army Reserves. Any ultra melon ruling stateing that the second amendment gives the right to the States is Bull****. The President has full control of the Army National Guard and only allows the States use of it at his pleasure. Furthermore, any ruling by any court, now or in the future dening that the second amendment is a right NOT directly given to the people, would totally destroy the meaning of the Bill of Rights, and I think not be looked up on favorably by the American people.
-
If there's something that prevents an individual State from forming its own Militia, I'm unaware of it.
The Guard and Reserves are not necessarily a State Militia.
The Militia Act of 1903, also known as the Dick Act, organized the various state militias into the present National Guard system.
I don't think it says the State can't have any other Militia.
And there's still this fine point:
The National Guard remains under the authority of the states (unless called into federal service).
This is NOT true of the reserves of the various services which serve primarily as training units for replacements to active component (Federal) forces.
-
Originally posted by Toad
If there's something that prevents an individual State from forming its own Militia, I'm unaware of it.
The Guard and Reserves are not necessarily a State Militia.
The Militia Act of 1903, also known as the Dick Act, organized the various state militias into the present National Guard system.
I don't think it says the State can't have any other Militia.
And there's still this fine point:
The National Guard remains under the authority of the states (unless called into federal service).
This is NOT true of the reserves of the various services which serve primarily as training units for replacements to active component (Federal) forces.
But thanks for the legal heads up. We can petition the Florida Senate to form a Militia of good ol boys. Maybe a 100,000 or so in case them Yankees start any crap.
What do you think "unless called into Federal Service" means? It simply means you can use the ARMY National Guard unless I take it away at my pleasure. It is not UNLAWFUL for a State to secede from the Union or for say 10 or 12 southern States cause they don't like them nasty blue States. Does civil war ring a bell.
-
Weasel,
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.
Toad,
The Reserves, specifically Army, aren't a "repl depot" any more. The Army with DOD sanction mandated that Army Reserve units missions be changed to Combat Support (MP's Engineers etc) and Combat Service Support (transportation, maintenance units etc.) so that the Regular Army could be freed from those missions that are not required on a regualr or constant basis. That allows the Active Army to concentrate on the combat missions. It was requested that the Combat Arms Reserve units assets be realocated to National Guard units.
Part of this is due to poor readiness for combat missions due to lack of time and assets to train with on the part of the Reserves. For the most part the Reserves did a creditable job given the restraints they operated under but it is hard to maintain manning for a part time Combat Arms unit.
-
Bottom line is that the Guard is not necessarly the "militia" referred to by the 2nd.
The militia referred to by the second is, as has been noted:
comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense
So, I'm in the Militia. ;)
-
Originally posted by Toad
Bottom line is that the Guard is not necessarly the "militia" referred to by the 2nd.
The militia referred to by the second is, as has been noted:
So, I'm in the Militia. ;)
Absolutely.
Also, weaselsan, quoting examples of Federal abuse of states' rights as justification is IMO faulty logic.
Abraham Lincoln (an otherwise good man who I consider to be a war criminal) was IMO the first and most notable example of a Federal official trampling upon the Constitution and beginning the lengthy process of the usurpation of state' rights that has resulted today in a complete and total imbalance of the shared powers of government (in favor of the Feds now). There are many ways this can be illustrated as fact. Its still not right.
culero (power to the people, or as close to them as possible!)
-
the second says that the right of "the people" to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed "the people" is used many more times in the document and allways means an individual right. Those rights shall not be infringed so that... if need be... "the people" can form a militia for the common defense. That would be anything from a man defending his home from crooks to a posse formed to chase down bad guys to the state forming an army.
The constitution also calls for the federal government to have powers to form an army in the form of a federal militia if we need to invade iraq or something.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Toad
Bottom line is that the Guard is not necessarly the "militia" referred to by the 2nd.
The militia referred to by the second is, as has been noted:
So, I'm in the Militia. ;)
Me too. We need to get to the range and practice some more. :D
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Me too. We need to get to the range and practice some more. :D
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.