The National Rifle Association similarly didn't take a position on whether the court should get involved.why is this not surprising...
Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights 4
The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be tolerated, and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.
Originally posted by Toad
They'll define it for the federal government which should be quite simple; the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed (by the Federal government).
They'll let state constitutions define firearms ownership/possession for the individual states.
Which is simply as it should be.
For example:
Originally posted by lasersailor184yup...
The constitution doesn't just restrict what the federal government can or can't do, but what the states can or can't do.
Originally posted by the US Congress June 13, 1866
AMENDMENT XIV
Section 1.
...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;...
Originally posted by Tigeress
As much as I fear and dislike guns in general
Originally posted by Yeager
abortion is also protected in the consitution....somewhere in there.....
Reserved powers are those that have been reserved specifically for the states or are of a traditionally state scope. These consist mostly of police powers, such as providing fire and police protection, establishment of health regulations, licensing, and education.
Granted powers, also known as express, enumerated, implied, delegated, and inherent powers, are those specifically listed in Article 1, Section 8, such as the power to coin money, to raise an army and navy, to provide for patent and copyright protections, to establish a post office, and to make treaties and war with other nations. An express, delegated, or enumerated power is one specifically listed; an implied or inherent power is one that exists to carry out an express or enumerated power. For example, Congress can raise an army; this implies the ability to specify regulations concerning who can join the army.
Concurrent powers are those held to some extent by both the federal and state governments. Both, for example, have taxation power, the ability to construct and maintain roads, and other spending for the general welfare.
Many things are denied of both or either levels of government. States, for example, have no authority to coin money or wage war. Neither may pass a bill of attainder or any ex post facto law. Much of the Bill of Rights applies restrictions to both states and the federal government, while all of the Bill of Rights applies restrictions to the federal government. Note that the Bill of Rights originally had no effect of restriction on the states, but judicial interpretation of the 14th Amendment's due process clause has incorporated much of the upholding of civil rights to the states.
Originally posted by Bingolong
Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791.
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.
In the context of the Constitution, phrases like "shall not be infringed," "shall make no law," and "shall not be violated" sound pretty unbendable, but the Supreme Court has ruled that some laws can, in fact, encroach on these phrases.
Antifederalists supported the proposal to amend the Constitution with clearly-defined and enumerated rights to provide further constraints on the new government, while opponents felt that by listing only certain rights, other unlisted rights would fail to be protected. Amidst this debate, a compromise was reached, and James Madison drafted what ultimately became the United States Bill of Rights, which was proposed to the Congress on June 8, 1789.
The original text of what was to become the Second Amendment, as brought to the floor to the first session of the first congress of the U.S. House of Representatives, was:
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person. [12]
The Bill of Rights that Madison introduced on June 8 was not composed of numbered amendments intended to be added at the end of the Constitution. The Rights instead were to be inserted into the existing Constitution. The right to keep and bear arms was to be inserted in Article 1, section 8 that specifies Congress's power over the militia. The sentence that later became the Second Amendment was to be inserted in the First Article, Section Nine, between clauses 3 and 4, following the prohibition on suspension of habeas corpus, bills of attainder, and ex post facto laws, all individual civil rights asserted by individuals as a defense against government action. [12] (Additionally, these provisions can all be interpreted as limits on congressional power, a view that has been advanced by supporters of the individual rights view of the Amendment. [13]) Debate in the House on the remainder of June 8 focused again on whether a Bill of Rights was appropriate, and the matter was held for a later time. On July 21, however, Madison raised the issue of his Bill and proposed a select committee be created to report on it. The House voted in favor of Madison's motion, [14] and the Bill of Rights entered committee for review. No official records were kept of the proceedings of the committee, but on July 28, the committee returned to the House a reworded version of the Second Amendment. [15] On August 17, that version was read into the Journal:
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms. [16]
The Second Amendment was debated and modified during sessions of the House on August 17 and August 20. [17] These debates revolved primarily around risk of "mal-administration of the government" using the "religiously scrupulous" clause to destroy the militia as Great Britain had attempted to destroy the militia at the commencement of the American Revolution. These concerns were addressed by modifying the final clause, and on August 24, the House sent the following version to the U.S. Senate:
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
The next day, August 25, the Senate received the Amendment from the House and entered it into the Senate Journal. When the Amendment was transcribed, the semicolon in the religious exemption portion was changed to a comma by the Senate scribe:
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person. [18]
On September 4, the Senate voted to change significantly the language of the Second Amendment by removing the definition of militia, and striking the conscientious objector clause:
A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. [19]
The Senate returned to this Amendment for a final time on September 9. A proposal to insert the words "For the common defence" next to the words "Bear Arms" was defeated. [20] The Senate then slightly modified the language and voted to return the Bill of Rights to the House. The final version passed by the Senate was:
A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The House voted on September 21, 1789 to accept the changes made by the Senate, but the Amendment as finally entered into the House journal contained the additional words "necessary to":
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. [21]
This version was transmitted to the states for ratification.
Originally posted by Arlo
But Jefferson wasn't the only architect and more than his opinion counts (or counted). Hence the nature of an amendable constitution and the design of the three branch government.
Who, specifically, penned in (or insisted on) the "well regulated" part? Every Jimmy Joe Billy Bob who wants to own an M-60 doesn't sound like it would fit the bill.
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Well regulated doesn't mean well controlled. It means well practiced.
Originally posted by lasersailor184
According to the constitution, every Jimmy Joe Billy Bob can own a friggin tank, as long as they are proficient with it.
Originally posted by lasersailor184
When you think about it (I know it's tough, us using the word "Think" and expecting me to do it), a gun is rather useless unless the user is a good shot.
Well Regulated
The Random House College Dictionary (1980) gives four definitions for the word "regulate," which were all in use during the Colonial period and one more definition dating from 1690 (Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1989). They are:
1) To control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.
2) To adjust to some standard or requirement as for amount, degree, etc.
3) To adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation.
4) To put in good order.
[obsolete sense]
b. Of troops: Properly disciplined. Obs. rare-1.
1690 Lond. Gaz. No. 2568/3 We hear likewise that the French are in a great Allarm in Dauphine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 Men of regulated Troops on that side.
We can begin to deduce what well-regulated meant from Alexander Hamilton's words in Federalist Paper No. 29:
The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.
--- The Federalist Papers, No. 29.
Hamilton indicates a well-regulated militia is a state of preparedness obtained after rigorous and persistent training. Note the use of 'disciplining' which indicates discipline could be synonymous with well-trained.
This quote from the Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789 also conveys the meaning of well regulated:
Resolved , That this appointment be conferred on experienced and vigilant general officers, who are acquainted with whatever relates to the general economy, manoeuvres and discipline of a well regulated army.
--- Saturday, December 13, 1777.
In the passage that follows, do you think the U.S. government was concerned because the Creek Indians' tribal regulations were superior to those of the Wabash or was it because they represented a better trained and disciplined fighting force?
That the strength of the Wabash Indians who were principally the object of the resolve of the 21st of July 1787, and the strength of the Creek Indians is very different. That the said Creeks are not only greatly superior in numbers but are more united, better regulated, and headed by a man whose talents appear to have fixed him in their confidence. That from the view of the object your Secretary has been able to take he conceives that the only effectual mode of acting against the said Creeks in case they should persist in their hostilities would be by making an invasion of their country with a powerful body of well regulated troops always ready to combat and able to defeat any combination of force the said Creeks could oppose and to destroy their towns and provisions.
--- Saturday, December 13, 1777.
I am unacquainted with the extent of your works, and consequently ignorant of the number or men necessary to man them. If your present numbers should be insufficient for that purpose, I would then by all means advise your making up the deficiency out of the best regulated militia that can be got.
--- George Washington (The Writings of George Washington, pp. 503-4, (G.P. Putnam & Sons, pub.)(1889))
The above quote is clearly not a request for a militia with the best set of regulations. (For brevity the entire passage is not shown and this quote should not be construed to imply Washington favored militias, in fact he thought little of them, as the full passage indicates.)
But Dr Sir I am Afraid it would blunt the keen edge they have at present which might be keept sharp for the Shawnese &c: I am convinced it would be Attended by considerable desertions. And perhaps raise a Spirit of Discontent not easily Queld amongst the best regulated troops, but much more so amongst men unused to the Yoak of Military Discipline.
--- Letter from Colonel William Fleming to Col. Adam Stephen, Oct 8, 1774, pp. 237-8. (Documentary History of Dunmore's War, 1774, Wisconsin historical society, pub. (1905))
And finally, a late-17th century comparison between the behavior of a large collection of seahorses and well-regulated soldiers:
One of the Seamen that had formerly made a Greenland Voyage for Whale-Fishing, told us that in that country he had seen very great Troops of those Sea-Horses ranging upon Land, sometimes three or four hundred in a Troop: Their great desire, he says, is to roost themselves on Land in the Warm Sun; and Whilst they sleep, they apppoint one to stand Centinel, and watch a certain time; and when that time's expir'd, another takes his place of Watching, and the first Centinel goes to sleep, &c. observing the strict Discipline, as a Body of Well-regulated Troops
--- (Letters written from New-England, A. D. 1686. P. 47, John Dutton (1867))
The quoted passages support the idea that a well-regulated militia was synonymous with one that was thoroughly trained and disciplined, and as a result, well-functioning. That description fits most closely with the "to put in good order" definition supplied by the Random House dictionary. The Oxford dictionary's definition also appears to fit if one considers discipline in a military context to include or imply well-trained.
What about the Amendment's text itself? Considering the adjective "well" and the context of the militia clause, which is more likely to ensure the security of a free state, a militia governed by numerous laws (or the proper amount of regulation [depending on the meaning of "well"] ) or a well-disciplined and trained militia? This brief textual analysis also suggests "to put in good order" is the correct interpretation of well regulated, signifying a well disciplined, trained, and functioning militia.
And finally, when regulated is used as an adjective, its meaning varies depending on the noun its modifying and of course the context. For example: well regulated liberty (properly controlled), regulated rifle (adjusted for accuracy), and regulated commerce (governed by regulations) all express a different meaning for regulated. This is by no means unusual, just as the word, bear, conveys a different meaning depending on the word it modifies: bearing arms, bearing fruit, or bearing gifts.
Originally posted by Toad
They'll define it for the federal government which should be quite simple; the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed (by the Federal government).
They'll let state constitutions define firearms ownership/possession for the individual states.
Which is simply as it should be.
For example:
Originally posted by AKIron
I already plan to move to Idaho next January. I'd better start buying up some land in case the SC rules poorly. Land prices there may skyrocket. ;)
Originally posted by wrag
NOPE!
Sorry but the Bill of Rights is the LAW of the LAND! AND supersedes ALL other laws!
Second Amendment-based challenges to a local ordinance in Morton Grove, Ill., were rejected by the Illinois State Supreme Court (Quillici vs. Morton Grove) and the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and in 1983 the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal.
Originally posted by SIG220
No, the correct question to ask is this: Who are THE PEOPLE????
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
SIG 220
1. Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, Detroit & Chicago cops need guns.
2. Washington DC's low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Indianapolis' high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control.
3. Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control but statistics showing increasing murder rates after gun control are "just statistics."
4. The Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went into effect in 1994 are responsible for the decrease in violent crime rates, which have been declining since 1991.
5. We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid.
6. The more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals.
7. An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you.
8. A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.
9. When confronted by violent criminals, you should "put up no defense - give them what they want, or run" (Handgun Control Inc. Chairman Pete Shields, Guns Don't Die - People Do, 1981, p. 125).
10. The New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about guns; just like Guns & Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart surgery.
11. One should consult an automotive engineer for safer seat belts, a civil engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for internal medicine, a computer programmer for hard drive problems, and Sarah Brady for firearms expertise.
12. The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National Guard, which was created 130 years later, in 1917.
13. The National Guard, federally funded, with bases on federal land, using federally-owned weapons, vehicles, buildings and uniforms, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a "state" militia.
14. These phrases: "right of the people peaceably to assemble," "right of the people to be secure in their homes," "enumerations herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people," and "The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people" all refer to individuals, but "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" refers to the state.
15. "The Constitution is strong and will never change." But we should ban and seize all guns thereby violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments to that Constitution.
16. Rifles and handguns aren't necessary to national defense! Of course, the army has hundreds of thousands of them.
17. Private citizens shouldn't have handguns, because they aren't "military weapons'', but private citizens shouldn't have "assault rifles'', because they are military weapons.
18. In spite of waiting periods, background checks, fingerprinting, government forms, etc., guns today are too readily available, which is responsible for recent school shootings. In the 1940's, 1950's and 1960's, anyone could buy guns at hardware stores, army surplus stores, gas stations, variety stores, Sears mail order, no waiting, no background check, no fingerprints, no government forms and there were no school shootings.
19. The NRA's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign about kids handling guns is propaganda, but the anti-gun lobby's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign is responsible social activity.
20. Guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.
21. A handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only has 20.
22. Women are just as intelligent and capable as men but a woman with a gun is "an accident waiting to happen" and gun makers' advertisements aimed at women are "preying on their fears."
23. Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering butchers but revert to normal when the weapon is removed.
24. Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at gun shows.
25. A majority of the population supports gun control, just like a majority of the population supported owning slaves.
26. Any self-loading small arm can legitimately be considered to be a "weapon of mass destruction" or an "assault weapon."
27. Most people can't be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by because they can be trusted.
28. The right of Internet pornographers to exist cannot be questioned because it is constitutionally protected by the Bill of Rights, but the use of handguns for self defense is not really protected by the Bill of Rights.
29. Free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers, and typewriters, but self- defense only justifies bare hands.
30. The ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends certain parts of the Constitution, and the NRA is bad, because it defends other parts of the Constitution.
31. Charlton Heston, a movie actor as president of the NRA is a cheap lunatic who should be ignored, but Michael Douglas, a movie actor as a representative of Handgun Control, Inc. is an ambassador for peace who is entitled to an audience at the UN arms control summit.
32. Police operate with backup within groups, which is why they need larger capacity pistol magazines than do "civilians" who must face criminals alone and therefore need less ammunition.
33. We should ban "Saturday Night Specials" and other inexpensive guns because it's not fair that poor people have access to guns too.
34. Police officers have some special Jedi-like mastery over handguns that private citizens can never hope to obtain.
35. Private citizens don't need a gun for self- protection because the police are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court says the police are not responsible for their protection.
36. Citizens don't need to carry a gun for personal protection but police chiefs, who are desk-bound administrators who work in a building filled with cops, need a gun.
37. "Assault weapons" have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people. The police need assault weapons. You do not.
38. When Microsoft pressures its distributors to give Microsoft preferential promotion, that's bad; but when the Federal government pressures cities to buy guns only from Smith & Wesson, that's good.
39. Trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for defensive purposes, which is why you see police officers with one on their duty weapon.
40. Handgun Control, Inc., says they want to "keep guns out of the wrong hands." Guess what? You have the wrong hands.
Originally posted by badhorse
The 2nd amendment was not put in place to protect the rights of hunters or recreational shooters. It was put there to protect us from "over zealous politicians" and judges. Hopefully the court will get it right this time. (unlike 1939).
...the right of the people (not the states) shall not be infringed.
Originally posted by Cypher
IIRC somewhere in the constitution it says that a militia consists of all males ages 18 to 45.
Originally posted by Golfer
There is not really any reason to be afraid of a firearm. In my experience those who actually have a legitimate "fear" of guns are the ones who don't know the first thing about using and handling them safely.
Then again I've grown up shooting and now instruct others how to shoot. One of my absolute favorite things to do is take someone who may have no experience with a firearm and help them break targets on a trap or skeet range. Same goes for the more, stigmatic I guess, handgun. The first time someone handles a hangun they're typically nervous, timid and unsure of what to actually expect. When they put a few rounds through it, they're usually not happy to wait for me to reload the magazine!
Sounds like it could be something fun for you to do, Tigress!
Originally posted by lazs2
arlo.. I think toad hit all the historical stuff. I think it is common sense tho... especially given the wording of the second as originally written that...
The reason the peoples right to bear arms shall not be infringed is that without an armed populace you can't form a militia.. take away their arms and the people can't come together to form a militia.
Originally posted by lazs2
also.. I think that we are getting too caught up in who is the militia.. it matters not who they are .. someone said it quite well
The original intent and purpose of the Second Amendment was to preserve and guarantee, not grant, the pre-existing right of individuals to keep and bear arms. Although the amendment emphasizes the need for a militia, membership in any militia, let alone a well-regulated one, was not intended to serve as a prerequisite for exercising the right to keep arms.
The Second Amendment preserves and guarantees an individual right for a collective purpose. That does not transform the right into a "collective right." The militia clause was a declaration of purpose, and preserving the people's right to keep and bear arms was the method the framers chose to, in-part, ensure the continuation of a well-regulated militia.
the amendment merely states WHY it is necessary for the peoples natural right to keep and bear arms should not be infringed.
The militia needed to be drawn on from the ranks of armed citizens. One was not obligated nor was his right dependent on... the militia.
lazs
Originally posted by Tigeress
My fear and dislike for guns has to do with people using poor judgement much more so than anything else although they are loud.
Originally posted by lazs2
also.. I think that we are getting too caught up in who is the militia.. it matters not who they are .. lazs
Originally posted by lazs2
bingalong... I think that the framers were very farsighted.. I think the fact that they used the "militia" to describe why, or one of the reasons why we needed to preserve every mans inherent right to own firearms can only be interpreted as...
explicit approval for arms that would work for militia duty. I don't know what kind of support you have for the second but.. one that only allows say... single shot rifles or.. as the UN wishes... ones that won't shoot past 100 meters! well..
That is not what I would call useful arms to come together and form a militia to fight tyranny with... Of course the meant for us to have the latest hand held firearms (arms).
What do you think they meant? do you think that every 20 years... say if cell phones get invented.. we should scrap our bill of rights or maybe the 1st amendment because... well.. how could they have seen cell phones even 50 years ago?
no, the framers were inspired and they were brilliant.. they knew that so long as we were human.. the document would be relevant since it did nothing but guarantee inherent human rights could not be stomped on by a tyranny.
Now.. if you want to argue that humans have less rights now or that tyranny no longer exists or that human nature is different somehow then you might have a case.
lazs
Originally posted by Coshy
Then you dont have a fear and dislike of guns, you have a fear and dislike of people with poor judgement USING guns.
I have a dislike of people with poor judgement using an automobile, not a fear and dislike of automobiles.
The difference there is important.
Originally posted by Bingolong
I am not making my own interpretation of the 2nd here just stating what is on the books.
I would argue all of those in context to a militia. I would replace "Humans" with "the People".
When you say "can only be interpreted as..." Bye who? and "explicit approval for arms" From who? and for what? the rush at the boarder?
Hell there are 3 million capable to fight in LA alone. Now we need 100,000,000 million m-16's to back our national militia. common!
Originally posted by SIG220
The opinion back at that time was that the militia was comprised of ALL MEN able to bear arms. That is why the right was expressly given to the PEOPLE. I do not believe that women were yet considered to legally be people back then. That did not come until much later, as women eventually gained equal rights with men.
Jefferson was the main person behind having a Bill of Rights added to the Constitution. In fact, he insisted on it, in order to gain his support for the Constitution. He viewed it as being protection for the people from losing key rights to either the Federal or State governments.
Here are quotes from Jefferson on these two issues:
"A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular; and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inferences." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787.
"The governor is constitutionally the commander of the militia of the State, that is to say, of every man in it able to bear arms." --Thomas Jefferson to A. L. C. Destutt de Tracy, 1811.
SIG 220
Originally posted by lazs2
tigress.. when it is said that 49% of all households have a firearm in them.. it is pretty certain that this is a very low number.
We all know several households that have (legally or otherwise) firearms in them that the government knows nothing about.. this is as it should be in my opinion but.. be that as it may...
We all know people who have guns that the government knows nothing about.
We all know people who don't own guns now that.. if they thought they might not be able to.. would rush out and get one.
The feds are very well aware of this.. they know how much we love our freedom to defend ourselves and.. I guess.. in that respect.. the fact that they have not disarmed us....
pretty much proves that the founders knew exactly what they were talking about don't it?
lazs
Originally posted by WWhiskey
this is how i think as well
to better understand you must put yourself in 1776 U.S. no tax base to build a militia or to arm it. the militia had to be of the people, who had arms to start with! the basic requirment of admittance into a militia was , do you have a gun, and do you know how to use it!
the next militia you see in this country will be the one formed right after the gov. tries to take the 2nd amendment away from the people.
the police tazer people at will without regard for there safety killing more and more of them every year now ! What do you think they will do to us when we cant defend ourselves at all. i abide by the law as best i can and served my country proudly for many years but the gov. as we know it is out of control .that is why we have the 2nd amendment, for people like me who think the gov. is no longer functioning in the best enterest of its people.
i do hope that i am wrong and this gov. gets back on track!
Remember, if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have them
and yes i guess that makes me one too!
Originally posted by Maverick
Why would the authors of the bill of rights be concerned for the "rights" of a group such as a millitia? It seems all the other rights are aimed at individuals since it's an individual that is a citizen of the country and that citizenship protections pertain to individuals, not some group of people.
It's not a group that has the right to speech, assemble, worship, drink etc. those are protections for individuals, not some ambiguous anonomous group of people. They are rights of and for the people as individuals.
Originally posted by Bingolong
having a m16 is usless to bombs, rockets, cannons, fighter jets, missles etc... even 100,000,000.
Originally posted by lazs2
I think we have all seen tho that when states violate the constitution.. the feds do indeed step in.. as you have seen with civil rights and free speech cases. I don't think you want civil right to revert to the states again now do you? I know the court of today does not want to imply such.
lazs
Originally posted by lasersailor184
When it says that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, it means both by the Federal Government, and the States government.
The Court goes on (Presser):
"But a conclusive answer to the contention that this Amendment
prohibits the legislation in question lies in the fact that the
Amendment is a limitation only upon the power of Congress and the
National Government, and not upon that of the States" ..." [p.619]
Originally posted by Chairboy
Every other right recognized in the Bill of Rights is an individual right, not a 'group' one.
Why would folks expect the 2nd to be the one exception? That's just silly.
Originally posted by Toad
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by lasersailor184
When it says that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, it means both by the Federal Government, and the States government.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The aforementioned quote from Presser seems to contradict you. Do you have an explanation for that?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Court goes on (Presser):
"But a conclusive answer to the contention that this Amendment
prohibits the legislation in question lies in the fact that the
Amendment is a limitation only upon the power of Congress and the
National Government, and not upon that of the States" ..." [p.619]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by lazs2
Every time the lefties pass some gun grabbing gun control law they say it will make us safer and they are proven wrong... it is time to ignore them and let a new experiment rule..
Let us go back to the freedoms our founders knew were ours by right of being a human.
Nothing bad will happen.
lazs
Originally posted by Hornet33
Toad if our form of government as framed in the consitution is "of the people, by the people, and for the people" then yes our opinions do in fact matter and we the people do make the laws, not the Supreme Court.
What most people in the country have forgotten is that the government is supposed to DIRECTLY represent the collective will of the people. Most people today think the government is there to provide us with everthing we need and to take care of us and that whatever the politicians decide to do is fine because they know whats best for everyone.
That's a bunch of crap. If the SC were to rule on the 2nd and say that it's the governments right to decide who can or can't own a gun, or were to come out and outlaw guns all together for "the good of the people" as many liberals would love to see happen, I think you would see a major shift in the general public as to how much people would start to get involved in what the government is doing. Maybe to the point of forcibly replacing the entire government all together.
What has happened over the years is that the SC has injected itself too far into the making of laws and that is not it was intended to do. They are only there to interpret the law as it applies to the constitution. They have gotten away from that position to the point that now when they make a rulling on something they are in fact legislating the law as it is applied to everyone and that's the job of congress, not the SC.
Prime excample is Roe vs Wade. The SC legislated on the issue of abortion with their decision. They made abortion legal throughout the country with their decision, when in fact it should have been sent back to the states to be legislated within the states congressional systems.
Originally posted by Tigeress
The US Federal Government is not the master of We The People, rather the servant.
TIGERESS
Originally posted by lazs2
I suppose that if they can make you wear a seat belt or a helmet of a life jacket in the river... they can make you do about anything.
lazs
Originally posted by Tigeress
They can't really make anyone wear a seatbelt or a life jacket.
All they can do is provide some form of penality for not doing so.
Originally posted by Hornet33
I agree, but the current crop of politicians probably don't see things that way. Anyone who thinks it's a good idea to regulate any freedom given to us in the Bill of Rights is not trying to serve the people, they are trying to control them.
Passing laws that tells people what they cannot say because it might be considered hatefull to someone else = control.
Passing laws that tells people that they cannot own a certain type of gun, or magazine for a gun, or ammunition for a gun = control.
I'm just wondering when the people in this country are going to say enough is enough and get rid of all the idiots that have been elected to office. I'd love to see a law passed that makes it illegal for a politician to accept money from any lobbiest, and to put a maximum amount cap on what they can accept from a private citizen, say $2000. I hate watching the news and seeing all the reports talking about who is going to win the ellection because that person raised the most money for their campain. It makes no sense to me why that should be used as an indicator of anything.
What we need in this country is a serious canadate that is not affiliated with any party, that can slam the party line doctrine and show it for what it truely is.
Originally posted by Toad
I'm just pointing out that the only thing that matter is what the SC thinks.
We can have all the opinions on the Constitution that we care to have. Our opinions do not make the law.
The opinions of the SC make the law. All one has to do is look around the nation and see the restrictions on gun ownership at the state and local levels that DO exist to see what stands as the law right now. Clearly, the states and locals CAN restrict (infringe) the right to bear arms. They are doing so.
Originally posted by lazs2
It is encouraging that at least 3 and probly 4 of the SC judges know their real job.. that of upholding the constitution as it was written.
I do believe that they will wimp out tho.. I do hope that they rule it as an individual right. I imagine that they will.. how can they otherwise? I think that they will rule that states and cities have the right to have some restrictions so long as people are able to own arms that are useful in the defense of themselves and the country.
Look at the swiss... they have their service full autos in the closet at home.. nothing bad happens.
I am not sure that I have ever understood the left and why they want gun control so badly.... Is it because they fear that they can never impose their kind of restrictions on an armed society?
All government is clumsy and brutal.. you obey or they take everything you have... if you resist... they kill you. all governments... some just have fewer rules.. so.. people don't get to the point of resisting till they kill or be killed.
The government did a study once and found that 16% of the population.. and an even higher percent of gun owners would be willing to take up arms against the government if they had to. It scared the crap out of em.
They also realize that there are close to 300,000,000 guns out there in private hands. most of which.. they have no idea who owns.
lazs
Originally posted by Bingolong
That is what I've been trying to point out.
Originally posted by lazs2
I have no problem with restrictions on bombs, rockets tanks etc.. these are not "arms".. there is also the danger that can't be controlled by the owner... a bunch of explosives in an apartment for instance.. in the event of a fire say..
No matter how safe the owner of the explosives was.. no matter his intentions.. the ordinance itself is a danger beyond his control and it is only right that he not be allowed to endanger others with it.
lazs
Originally posted by lazs2
Obviously you are not paying attention... even in colonial times.. arms were not considered to be cannon and rockets.
Now.. let's take your point.. that unless you can have rockets and bombs.. you are useless as a militia.. that is like saying a rifle company without rockets and bombs should just give up their small arms too. silly.
Any battle would not be over in some eye blink. weapons would be captured. Of course.. you would have to have small arms to do so. You are basically saying that the ak 47 is useless in the conflicts across the globe.
We have lost our rights because the SC has refused to rule and allowed these things to happen. It is not impossible to roll back the laws. If nothing else..it is good to stop new ones. the trend to ban firearms in cities for instance.
I am not getting your point I guess. You seem to be saying that if we can't have rockets then why have anything for... if an M4 (m16) or m60 is not good enough to defend freedom then why have anything? that seems to be your point. that since we can't have nukes that we really don't have rights other than what our gracious government allows us at the time.
My thinking is just as the founders.. no standing army.. no matter what can long stand against an armed populace.... 100,000,000 men with m16's will be 100,000,000 armed with tanks and rockets within a week.
My point was not so much if it were legal to own rockets and bombs but that it would be legal to restrict their storage. Their storage is restricted in our own military.. not because we are afraid a soldier will get one and go berserk..
but because they are a hazard in and of themselves. they can cause great damage without human involvement.. fire etc. Your freedom to be secure in your home would be infringed if the neighbor had 2 tons of c4 in his garage for instance.. A fireman would be in grave danger if a home was full of RPG's
If m16's and ak47's and handguns were useless then they would not be issued to every army in the world..
I do not believe that you are a supporter of the second in any way but... What firearms would you allow me to have?
I have asked this before.. I believe you are being dishonest in this debate and that you are a gun control advocate.
lazs
Originally posted by AKIron
I hope you're not expecting consistency from the left. From those who think the ends justify any means consistency means nothing.
Originally posted by bustr
All government(s) ultimatly hing on the power to kill its citizens. Or to coherce them with the threat of death or the loss of freedom backed by the use of whepons.
Originally posted by Arlo
Here's another shot of .... perspective:WMDs in Iraq, no wait, Al Queda, no wait, regime change and enforcing Democracy, no .... wait .... .
Just sayin'. Extreme right and extreme left character broadsides on each other from the vantage point of glass fortresses in the midst of claiming to know the answers and have the fixes have always impressed me as the most efficient method to an American nirvana.
:D (obligatory smiley)
Originally posted by Arlo
Here's another shot of .... perspective:WMDs in Iraq, no wait, Al Queda, no wait, regime change and enforcing Democracy, no .... wait .... .
Just sayin'. Extreme right and extreme left character broadsides on each other from the vantage point of glass fortresses in the midst of claiming to know the answers and have the fixes have always impressed me as the most efficient method to an American nirvana.
:D (obligatory smiley)
Originally posted by Hornet33
There is no way the government will be able to take all the guns out of the hands of the citizens. Not in this country.
Originally posted by john9001
i have no idea what you just said, explain please. No, never mind, you have no idea either.
(no obligatory smiley)
Originally posted by Arlo
Why aren't people up in arms over requiring licensing and registration on automobiles?
Originally posted by john9001
that's something else that should be eliminated.
Originally posted by john9001
that's something else that should be eliminated.
Originally posted by Arlo
Ok ... then make that ... why aren't the majority of people ....
:D
Originally posted by Tigeress
Something that has always irked me is that no one has a government defined "right" to drive a car... rather it is defined as a "privilege."
TIGERESS
Originally posted by Arlo
All governments? I'm not seeing an understanding (historically nor contemporary) of the U.S. system of government in the above quote. :cool:
Originally posted by AKIron
Because Rush or whatever local talk radio host hasn't rallied support for the cause.
Seriously though, talk radio reaction is exactly what got the attention of the senate recently, humbling them before the will of The People.
Originally posted by Arlo
I'm sure it was merely an oversight on the part of the framers of the constitution. ;)
Originally posted by Arlo
Really?
Originally posted by bustr
Arlo,
When governments on this planet enforce their tax collection code's upon their citizens who willfully choose not to pay, who does these governments send to enforce the tax law?
1. A troop of girl scouts begging you to pay your fair shair for the common good.
2. Men with guns to kill you if you resist being arrested and all of your worldly goods and monies confiscated.
All governments on this planet exist ultimatly by the threat of force as thier final solution to controling the actions of thier citizens\subjects\slaves. Try not paying your taxes for the next 3 years. Then keep us updated on how you avoid direct cohercion by the presence of armed agents of the government.
Originally posted by AKIron
Sure, just ask Nancy Pelosi.
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/06/28/pelosi-talk-radio/
Originally posted by Arlo
And you think it a likely scenario regarding drivers licenses and registration of automobiles?
Originally posted by john9001
licenses? we don need no steekn licenses.
Originally posted by lazs2
By asking if more bad guys than good have been killed... what do you mean by "bad guys"? Would that include people with criminal records? say... fellow gang members? would that include the man who has beaten his girlfriend or wife for what is now the last time?
Would that include suicides? not bad or good and nothing to do with guns anyway.
I would say more bad guys than good died but even more... I would say that with firearms being used from 1.5-3 million times a year to prevent crime.. to stop it... if even 1% of those would have been a killing of an innocent... then... you would have to factor into the equation the amount of lives saved.
The people who have made bad guys run off but were sure they would have been killed had they not had a firearm. The bad guys wounded.. the bad guys just running off or being held till the police showed up.
Originally posted by Arlo
I suggest reading up on our representative democracy. If you're attempting to equate prosecution and enforcement of law as legislated by duly elected representatives .... with oppressive government .... you're skipping a hell of a lot of dots. ;)
Originally posted by Arlo
Nor is that the goal of defining the 2nd amendment. Quite plainly (imo, I suppose, though I'd wager not just I). Any form of gun control being the first step toward gun elimination has always been an exaggerated argument.
To borrow a favorite correlation from anti-gun control groups: Why aren't people up in arms over requiring licensing and registration on automobiles? Why aren't people insisting no limits to what is and isn't street legal?
;)
Originally posted by Hornet33
Because owning and driving a car is not a right under the consitution. Owning a gun is. THAT is the differance.
Originally posted by bustr
Arlo,
You are playing verbal games for the sake of playing the games.
Originally posted by lazs2
Oh.. and if you have never heard of a single case of legal guns being confiscated then you aren't paying attention... look up hurricane katrina... those guns have still not been returned.
lazs
Originally posted by lazs2
perhaps it would be more to the point to ask arlo why him and his anti second amendment types ....
Originally posted by Arlo
Hurricane Katrina confiscated guns?
Originally posted by john9001
arlo, you can't be that stupid, well maybe you are.
Originally posted by Arlo
As stupid as those struggling with the concept of sarcasm? Relax ... I'm not. :D
Originally posted by john9001
instead of trying to show how clever you are (you are not), just post straight answers.
Originally posted by lazs2
I really didn't expect you to answer on the guns you would allow me tho... that would be far toooooo honest for "you guys."
I have asked other gun control nuts in the past and never really got an answer.. mostly because.. I feel that they don't want everyone to see what is behind the mask.
lazs
Originally posted by john9001
instead of trying to show how clever you are (you are not), just post straight answers.
Originally posted by Arlo
They're pretty damn straight. I can tell by how offended you get. :)
Originally posted by Arlo
Ahhhh ... another priceless piece of rhetoric. "Anti-seond emendment types" ....
Whooeee. (Shakes head)
Get a grip. :D
Originally posted by Tigeress
Not wanting to spoil anyone's joyful smackmanship, but just to set the record straight, you in favor of the Second Amendment, as written?
A yes or a no or an eloquent oration with copious innuendo works! :rofl
TIGERESS
Originally posted by Tigeress
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Arlo
Why aren't people up in arms over requiring licensing and registration on automobiles?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Something that has always irked me is that no one has a government defined "right" to drive a car... rather it is defined as a "privilege."
TIGERESS
Originally posted by john9001
you can not offend me, i have a great tolerance for mentally disadvantaged people.
Originally posted by Tigeress
Not wanting to spoil anyone's joyful smacksmanship, but just to set the record straight, you in favor of the Second Amendment, as written?
A yes or a no or an eloquent oration with copious innuendo works! :rofl
TIGERESS
Originally posted by Arlo
Yes.
To be followed by copius "innuendo":
Of course. The issue is interpretation. Some people want it to mean one thing. Some people want it to mean another. Others realize the world's changed and that the constitution is amendable .... for that very reason. What I'm against is bogus reasoning:
1. The framers of the constitution specifically penned it to support my "God given" right to own a tank.
2. I need a fully automatic belt-fed heavy machinegun to protect me and mine from criminals and the government.
Such rationalizing Rambos could just tell me they got more money than sense, enjoy dangerous toys and leave it at that and I'd probably cheer `em on and wish `em luck.
:)
Originally posted by lazs2
I am not getting your point at all. You seem to be saying that any threat to liberty that is not a new threat is ok?
Originally posted by lazs2
Do you wish to continue to compare guns and cars? maybe guns and free speech? no? how bout other rights?
The fact that civil rights for negros were ignored and stepped on for a long time does not mean that it was just and that the jim crow laws should not be rolled back.
Originally posted by john9001
arlo, i was going to say "you mentally disadvantaged people", but i thought it would look like a attack on you personally so i edited it to remove the "you" knowing that you would try to turn it back on me, as you did.
you think you are clever, but you come across as a fool.
Originally posted by lazs2
tigress he will not say.. he is afraid he will be dismissed if he says what he really thinks...
look at the exaggeration... "tanks" the framers did indeed see the difference between arms and ordinance. they had rockets and bombs and cannon.. those were not protected.
So what small arms would arlo ban? I don't think there is a gun in the world that he could not find a reason to ban. I don't think there is a registration or restriction for possesion that would be too onerous for him.
I don't believe that he thinks the second is an individual right and that therefore it can be infringed.. I think it obvious that he thinks the constitution is a flexible document that old hippies like himself can interpret to mean anything he wants. that it is a "suggestion" to be tempered by whatever is the current whim and fad.
lazs
Originally posted by john9001
arlo like Internet, arlo having fun.
Originally posted by john9001
watching the DIY channel.
Originally posted by Xargos
Ever notice how the people who are most willing to raise your taxes are also the ones most opposed to the Second Amendment? Criminal never want their victims to be able to defend themselves.
Originally posted by Arlo
Timothy McVeigh thought he was part of a "militia." ;)
Originally posted by Xargos
But I guess taxes going to people who are unwilling to work is OK?
Originally posted by Xargos
And Hillary Clinton thinks she's human.
Originally posted by Arlo
Well that was just a random neuron misfire moment. Keep up with me here. ;)
Originally posted by Xargos
Arlo, I never thought we should have gone into Iraq to began with, but since we are somewhat stuck their I believe our troops should have the best gear that money can buy. I have no problem with my taxes protecting them, but I'd rather see them withdrawn.
Originally posted by Arlo
Freud would have a field day here. :)
Xargos, where does the funding for the war come from? Which taxes really represent the war tax? And with that much investment couldn't the government give every adult in the nation a free M-16 along with a monthly clip of ammo and have quite a bit left over? Wait a sec ....
$586.00 a rifle ....
Age structure: (2007 est.)
0–19 years: 27.4% (male 42,667,761; female 40,328,895)
20–64 years: 60.1% (male 89,881,041; female 90,813,578)
65 years and over: 12.6% (male 15,858,477; female 21,991,195)
Leaving out 19 years of age and younger .... round up to 230 million souls ....
Almost 135 billion ... for the rifles, anyhow.
Cost of Iraq war to date: 471 billion and counting.
Hell, Halliburton pizzed off more than the cost of arming the entire citizenry with "the modern day equivilant of muskets."
Granted, I haven't taken into account felons or the mentally disabled.
I could see a tax. But who gets their M-16 first? How does one apply? Is there a seperate tax for body armor? Do public schools make bootcamp mandatory?
:aok
Originally posted by Xargos
You're Militia, you have to supply your own gear. You and I are not a Standing Army.
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
Hey Arlo...What happens' when you factor in illegal aliens??? :lol
Just joking. I know that there's no way to get a reliable number on those-It would be best guess. But they seem to be working alotta the menial jobs' that would normally be paying taxes' back into the system, aren't they?
Originally posted by Xargos
I withdrew that post Arlo because I misread a statement of yours.
Originally posted by lazs2
bingalong... I don't think it is too much to ask if you are from this country or not. I think it sheds light on the arguement and... gives me a point of reference.. If all you know about semi autos and handguns is what you have read or seen in movies for instance.. it gives you a distorted view.
You have a distorted view! I live right here in the good ole USofA.
I fall in the same category as Hap I guess. owned them, now dont.
among them:
Mossburg 500 pump
Ithaca .22 lever SS
Remington .22 semi
My fathers M1 30carbine "Genral motors 1943"
Glenfield/Marlin 30A 30/30
and a Freedom Arms Casul .454 71/2" w/ a 4x4 leupold on top with pachmiers.
Puts that to bed!
"I believe that I have argued all the points you have made. I don't really think your points hold water. Please tell me where you think I am wrong."
Ah you think I'm a lefty well im not a righty either.
I like to think of my self as a Demican or a Republicrat
The laws and judgements maybe?
So far you have not shown me one law/act/article/amendment that supports the way you think only tried to attack mine with your version/interpretation of existing law... which amounts to nothing.
"But... I am intrigued by your comment... Why do you think the timing is no coincidence?"
Well I think one of two things will happen,
1. they want to make sure the SC address this before they are removed from office making sure the 2nd stays in tact.
2. Or, something to to do with the patriot act and more rights get taken away.
Never can tell with those "rightys".
Either way its being addressed now before the Democrats take over the WH.
I see the 9th is not real just a bunch of sissy "lefty" blowhards who's opinion means nothing... hehe okay lazs:rolleyes:
Originally posted by lazs2
arlo.. you are right.. (and he shoulda stopped there but the ocd whine mode kicked in).
Originally posted by Bingolong
I fall in the same category as Hap I guess. owned them, now dont.
among them:
Mossburg 500 pump
Ithaca .22 lever SS
Remington .22 semi
My fathers M1 30carbine "Genral motors 1943"
Glenfield/Marlin 30A 30/30
and a Freedom Arms Casul .454 71/2" w/ a 4x4 leupold on top with pachmiers.
Originally posted by AKIron
Of course the citizens of the US really wouldn't have to fire a shot to bring our government to it's knees. All we really need is an organized tax revolt.
Originally posted by Arlo
Unknot the wet panties,
Originally posted by john9001
arlo has wet panties?
Originally posted by Arlo
Unknot the wet panties, Lassie. .....Dago is offering a free remedial reading and basic comprehension course. Just thought you needed to know
Originally posted by john9001
why don't you drop the sophomoric humor and just state your facts.
Originally posted by Bingolong
They will be just as indangered with cases < I mean you wouldnt want to run out right?> of "ammo" in the house.
Originally posted by Slash27
Been in many house fires have ya?
Originally posted by lazs2
ok... so a "million" rounds were being stored and everyone was "forced" to evacuate after the rounds cooking off killed and maimed.. how many firefighters and neighbors?
Oh wait.. that number would be.... zero.
But... I have no problem with city or state ordinances that call for safe storage of ammo past a reasonable amount. 1 million rounds would indicate sales. A business in a residential area is already covered.
I have not found one case of people being killed or seriously injured by ammo stored for private use.
Contrast that with paint and gasoline and kerosene and any of a number of quite legal flammables.
You are going to have to do better if you want to make me give up keeping and bearing arms.
Oh.. I touched on the "gun owner that no longer owns guns" thing. It is always interesting to see that and the reasons why. they often taint the arguement... often it is because of a loved one who forces the issue.. the man then acts like he agrees.. and even argues with others.. in order to save his dignity.
lazs
Originally posted by Bingolong
NORCO CA -- More than a million rounds of ammunition, numerous weapons and a tunnel were found in a man's home after a fire that exploded bullets and forced a neighborhood evacuation, authorities said Friday. Eppler said that when firefighters arrived he convinced McKiernan to come to the front of the house but the man didn't think they were doing a good enough job because they weren't hosing down the roof, and he tried to re-enter the home. After McKiernan was restrained and put in a police car, ammunition began exploding, Eppler said. The explosions forced evacuation of the area and kept firefighters at a distance. The blaze caused the roof to collapse before the fire was extinguished.
Tempe Arizona:
I live at the complex." and I was awoken by ammo going off it sounded like a war. The ammo was going off for a good two hours. What in hell would a man be doing with that much ammo? And the wepons were they for hunting? or for killing men? there is more to thise story then being told. i too live at this complex and was lying in bed talking to my 8 year old daughter when the ammo started going off right outside my window!! at first we weren't sure what is was then after about the 3rd or 4th shot, i grab my 3 kids (all under age 9), their shoes, and my cat and ran for cover. we barely made it out before the smoke from the fire filled my apartment since my windows were open. there is no feeling in the world like running b/c you're afraid a stray bullet is going to hit you!
ORTING, Wash. --
Firefighters took a defensive stance against a house fire near Orting after flames set off ammunition stored in the garage, firefighters said. Fire destroyed a house and two vehicles in the driveway at a gated development south of Orting. "Upon our arrival, we did a defensive attack for firefighter safety purposes. As the ammunition was continuing to go off we used a large hose and ground monitors to attack the garage and try to cool that down and stop that ammunition from going off," said Jesse Mitchell of Orting Valley Fire & Rescue. It wasn't clear how much ammunition was in the garage, but firefighters said a lot of rounds went off.
Listen at the end of this film
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsfwiRfvB80
Ummm ... no I have not ...why slash?
Originally posted by Slash27
Always use the extreme example and try to pass it off as normal.:aok
Yes I guess every normal fire has amunition in it :) your right. It explodes goes off etc.... is the point.
And what am I supposed to be impressed by in the video exactly?
Originally posted by lazs2
arlo.. you are making a fool of yourself with your pitiful jon stewart imitation.
You have no point. You have not explained why an M16 is not a good choice for some defensive situations..
Originally posted by Maverick
Bingalong,
There was a mythbuster episode that dealt with ammunition in a fire. Their experiments indicated while it ain't the most healthy thing to have in a fire, small arms ammo is also not the major hazard your opinion pieces have portrayed it. Bullets and brass will not have the energy and velocity anything like when it's fired in a gun. Lotsa noise but not that much danger from it.
Originally posted by john9001
the Russians left Afghanistan because of the length and cost of the war and the use of American stinger missiles by the (Taliban).
Originally posted by john9001
the Russians left Afghanistan because of the length and cost of the war and the use of American stinger missiles by the afgans.
Originally posted by Arlo
Gawddam, W ... where's my Stinger Missle!:D
Originally posted by john9001
the Russians left Afghanistan because of the length and cost of the war and the use of American stinger missiles by the afgans.
Originally posted by Rich46yo
I get an even bigger kick out of people saying how we created Al Qaeda and empowered Bin Laden, and Saddam too.:lol Such statements show a total ignorance of actual history. My apologies if I veered to far from the subject at hand.
Originally posted by Bingolong
Good points :aok
I found all your weapons bye the way:D
http://www.musictoyz.com/images/jpg/slash3.jpg
:aok
Originally posted by Arlo
Freud would have a field day here. :)
Xargos, where does the funding for the war come from? Which taxes really represent the war tax? And with that much investment couldn't the government give every adult in the nation a free M-16 along with a monthly clip of ammo and have quite a bit left over? Wait a sec ....
$586.00 a rifle ....
Age structure: (2007 est.)
0–19 years: 27.4% (male 42,667,761; female 40,328,895)
20–64 years: 60.1% (male 89,881,041; female 90,813,578)
65 years and over: 12.6% (male 15,858,477; female 21,991,195)
Leaving out 19 years of age and younger .... round up to 230 million souls ....
Almost 135 billion ... for the rifles, anyhow.
Cost of Iraq war to date: 471 billion and counting.
Hell, Halliburton pizzed off more than the cost of arming the entire citizenry with "the modern day equivilant of muskets."
Granted, I haven't taken into account felons or the mentally disabled.
I could see a tax. But who gets their M-16 first? How does one apply? Is there a seperate tax for body armor? Do public schools make bootcamp mandatory?
:aok
Originally posted by john9001
the democrat candidates have already said they will tax the rich.
Originally posted by Arlo
(http://www.faireconomy.org/images/CBOIncomeChangeChart.gif)
http://www.faireconomy.org/estatetax/ETWealth.html
Just info. Never hurts, eh? :)
Originally posted by Tigeress
Correct me if I am wrong, but...
Looks to me like the war has been put on the Country's credit card instead of raising taxes to pay for it. The national debt has almost doubled since Bush took office.
Someone sometime will have to pay it down eventually; I doubt the righties or lefties want to do that on their turn at watch and want the other party to have to raise taxes and take the heat.
TIGERESS
Originally posted by soda72
Should you be at work?
:cool:
Originally posted by Arlo
I didn't say anything about raising taxes. I said for what the war costs we could have armed everyone above the age of 19 in the U.S. with M-16s and had plenty enough left over. Cut Halliburton loose from leeching/contracting and there'd be enough still left for the GWOT. :)
Originally posted by Arlo
(http://www.faireconomy.org/images/CBOIncomeChangeChart.gif)
http://www.faireconomy.org/estatetax/ETWealth.html
Just info. Never hurts, eh? :)
Originally posted by Tigeress
I know... It wasn't directly in reference to your post... more on the lines of when the price of the IRAQ War will be paid. I started a thread on the subject.
http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=220612
TIGERESS
Originally posted by EagleDNY
Here's a little more relevant info:
Originally posted by Maverick
Can you name any war we've been in that was paid for up front?
Originally posted by EagleDNY
Here's a little more relevant info:
Tax Burden Paid by Income Percentage (http://www.taxfoundation.org/press/show/22652.html)
Oh, and on the estate tax - here's another interesting number:
Amount in Estate Taxes Paid by the Kennedy Family on a 500-Million Dollar Estate (after going through a fiji-islands trust set up by their high-paid tax lawyers): $134,330.90 (0.04%)
That number, incidentally, is the same amount that would normally be charged to the estate of some farmer or small business guy with assets of 2.26 million who didn't have an army of high-paid tax lawyers working for him.
Originally posted by john9001
the longest govt bond is 30 years, so if the govt stops borrowing money they could pay off the debt in 30 years, but it will never happen.
the govt needs one of them debt counseling services.
Originally posted by EagleDNY
The feds took in 2.4 TRILLION dollars in revenue last year - then entire defense dept, with war funding bills included, spent just under $700 billion. It aint the war that is going to break the bank folks, it's what the government does with that other 1.7 trillion dollars.
Originally posted by Arlo
Someone make you my boss? ;)
Originally posted by soda72
Dick Cheney said he might put you up for sell.... He's a little worried about not making it through surgery..
I told him I'd think about it...
:D
Originally posted by john9001
don't forget the big govt jet to fly Pelosi from cal to DC and back couple times a week.
Originally posted by Arlo
Actually, your opinion of relevancy is relative to prespective. Ain't it? No different than mine. But your argument still seems to beg more taxation on the rich, by your Kennedy family example. (Wait .... you thought I was a Democrat, didn't ya? ;)). And the top five percent makes equivalently more. You act as if their paying more in taxes is a real tragedy. Guess I'm not seeing reason to weep. :D
Originally posted by EagleDNY
The real relevant point was that the "tax the rich" gag is just that - a gag. The super-rich have the lawyers and loopholes to avoid the taxes. The guys that end up paying the big tax bills are the middle class and small business guys who are just out there earning a living.
Originally posted by john9001
you were telling us where the money went, i was just helping you.
Originally posted by Arlo
Not doing a very good job, though. Keep trying. ;)
Originally posted by john9001
i don't want to bore people with pages of text, so i will just post a link.
http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reports_pigbook2007
Originally posted by Arlo
I understand. But the whole Ted Kennedy thing is a bit of a "I don't like Ted Kennedy" distractor. Kinda like something irrelevant added to your relevancy. :)
Originally posted by EagleDNY
Being as Ted Kennedy is the champion of the estate tax, and one of the biggest bloviators on making the rich "pay their fair share", I thought illustrating the hypocrisy was relevant.
The super-rich have the lawyers and loopholes to avoid the taxes. The guys that end up paying the big tax bills are the middle class and small business guys who are just out there earning a living.Thats an incredibly ignorant statement, even more so the last decade or 2 with the 'tax-breaks-for-the-rich' mantra that has resulted in middle and lower paying even LESS taxes. I may be the only one who finds it troubling that the voting majority can now TAKE money from high-earners and use it for themselves
Originally posted by Maverick
Can you name any war we've been in that was paid for up front?
Originally posted by EagleDNY
The feds took in 2.4 TRILLION dollars in revenue last year - then entire defense dept, with war funding bills included, spent just under $700 billion. It aint the war that is going to break the bank folks, it's what the government does with that other 1.7 trillion dollars.
Originally posted by lazs2
bingalong.. like mav.. I am starting to think that you are either a troll or... to be kind.. you simply don't know the first thing about firearms and ammo.
This is pretty common with those who hate or are afraid of firearms.
the second does not protect "ordinance". Storage of dangerous chemicals and amounts is a city by city thing and perfectly legal so long as it does not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms... the DC thing is perfect as an example.. they required that the arms be locked and/or taken apart with the ammo stored seperately.
The court rightly ruled that a firearm that was in peices and/or locked with no ammo... was not a firearm at all and violated the second.
The extreme examples that you and arlo throw out are nothing but manufactured hysteria.
I was also interested in the fact that you thought criminal would steal my half ton safe by ripping it out of the floor and removing a wall of my home and then drive it to their shop where they would cut into it with thousands of dollars of tools. hysteria... aren't you worried they will steal my big block elky and run over a crapload of kids? that really does happen you know.
You guys are looking like little old ladies and simpering jon stewart wannabees..
Pick a point and I will tear it a new one for you or.. simply be sarcastic and hysterical and prove to everyone that you really don't have anything worthwhile to say about the subject.. that it is too complex for you to understand or that your prejudice and fear make it impossible for you to make sense or hear it,
lazs
Originally posted by Chairboy
Bingolong, out of curiosity, what do you think is more danger
ous in a house fire, a propane tank or a cabinet of ammo?
Originally posted by Bingolong
I'm not talking about your safe. I was talking about mine and it was pulled through the wall.
Originally posted by lazs2
bingalong... I am sure that I am not the only one that wonders why in the hell you had a 2 ton safe for the three or four guns that you own... and.. that a criminal mastermind team would bother to tear out a wall in your house to steal the entire safe and take it somewhere to cut open just to steal what would be a street value in guns of less than $1,000 and would be so useless to criminals as to probly not be saleable.
As to your whole arguement that the second is not an individual right and that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is somehow conditional on them being part of some government army... you have proved no such thing.
I asked you to show me any paper or document from the time of the founders that hinted at anything other than an individual right and you could not.
I told you that ammo was not ordinance and that it was, in reasonable quantities... not in the least dangerous compared to more common combustables that we all own.
in short... you appear to know little or nothing about firearms and ammo and ordinance and...
If the SC judges the case based on the original intent.. they have no choice but to go with the very latest court decision... and the miller decision that state that it is indeed an individual right.
sooo... I don't really think you have much of anything.
lazs
Originally posted by bj229r
I may be the only one who finds it troubling that the voting majority can now TAKE money from high-earners and use it for themselves
Bottom 50%.............................<$30,881..............................3.07%
link (http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6)
Originally posted by lazs2
arlo... what makes you think that the second gives you the right to demand that other people pay for your gun of choice? (Then sideissue) I guess you think it is like that amendment that says that everyone is entitled to free health care..
which one was that again? (Who knows, that's a different subject entirely)
lazs
Originally posted by Arlo
As I've obviously illustrated, for what my government pays for the war in Iraq they could arm everyone in the nation with an M-16 and have plenty left over.
Originally posted by john9001
you lost me, what does arming every american with a M16 have to do with the "war" in Iraq?
Some things do not change, your rights are not one of them.
Originally posted by lazs2
bingalong... I guess that you have lost me.. you give an example of how dangerous normal guns and ammo are to store that... well... doesn't prove your point at all... you give an example of how easily a safe can be pulled through the wall of a house and dragged away by criminals that is no example at all.
You get mad at me when I point out that you have no point and "answer" your error filled statements and then say... "you have an answer for everything"
reminds me of my ex (see a pattern there?)
lazs
Originally posted by john9001
Bingolong, you misread the 2nd amendment.
the militia and ownership of guns are two different things, what the 2nd says is, because we need a militia the people should have guns.
it does not say because we need a militia the militia shall be armed, because that makes no sense.
arming of the military is covered in the main part of the constitution, they did not need a separate amendment to say that.
Originally posted by Bingolong
The title of this thread is "what is a militia." not ownership of guns.
Keep up please.
The SC did not ask what is the meaning of owenership of guns, they ask, AGAIN, “violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with with any state-regulated militia , but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes.”
Originally posted by lazs2
bingalong.. the acts still refer to the militia as both the organized and the unorganized militia. for instance... you and I are part of the unorganized militia.
Again.. there is nothing in any federal ruling or anything in the constitution that says that the militia is anything other than every free man.
Also.. as was stated.. the militia was not the conditional to having the right to keep and bear arms but simply one reason.. it is obvious that the militia is every free man and that the second protects the god given right of every citizen to keep and bear arms.
Again... The original intent and purpose of the Second Amendment was to preserve and guarantee, not grant, the pre-existing right of individuals to keep and bear arms. Although the amendment emphasizes the need for a militia, membership in any militia, let alone a well-regulated one, was not intended to serve as a prerequisite for exercising the right to keep arms.
The Second Amendment preserves and guarantees an individual right for a collective purpose. That does not transform the right into a "collective right." The militia clause was a declaration of purpose, and preserving the people's right to keep and bear arms was the method the framers chose to, in-part, ensure the continuation of a well-regulated militia.
There is no contrary evidence from the writings of the Founding Fathers, early American legal commentators, or pre-twentieth century Supreme Court decisions, indicating that the Second Amendment was intended to apply solely to active militia members.
lazs
Originally posted by lazs2
and... I do not think that the court will hear on "who is the militia". The ruling will be on once and for all explaining to those who have no concept of the written word that the founders indeed meant for it to guarantee an individual right.
That is what is in question here. the lower court ruling was that having a firearm dissasembled or locked up made it not a firearm and thererfore infringed on the individuals right to keep and bear arms.
lazs
Originally posted by john9001
then again , the state of florida may just say every one with a florida CCW is now in the florida militia. :D
Originally posted by lazs2
for instance... you and I are part of the unorganized militia.
Originally posted by lazs2
holden.. the right is not dependent on being in any kind of militia. It simply says that if you ever need one... it is great that we have the right to keep and bear arms so that you can draw from that pool... it is not a conditional right based on if you are in or if the country even need or even who is the militia.
Originally posted by lazs2
holden.. you have it.. you are seeing the only logical way.
Originally posted by lazs2
arlo... you are off in pot land I fear... You are saying that you have paid enough taxes... taxes that were never intended by the constitution in the first place...
That you have paid enough taxes that you should get an M16 from the government? I have paid enough taxes that the government should buy me a new vette... what is your point?
Originally posted by lazs2
holden.. you have it.. you are seeing the only logical way. This is not just your opinion nor is it open for debate if you take it in context of what the founders intended. Their intent is quite clear..
They did not mean for rights to be conditional. The stated them so that the government would keep their hands off.
I think that if you read what the founders wrote then the intent is clear
We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;
---Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. Memorial Edition 16:45, Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.
No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
---Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.
The thoughtful reader may wonder, why wasn't Jefferson's proposal of "No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms" adopted by the Virginia legislature? Click here to learn why.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
---Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
To model our political system upon speculations of lasting tranquility, is to calculate on the weaker springs of the human character.
---Alexander Hamilton
Quotes from the Founders During the Ratification Period of the Constitution
[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
---James Madison,The Federalist Papers, No. 46.
To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.
---John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)
John Adams recognizes the fundamental right of citizens, as individuals, to defend themselves with arms, however he states militias must be controlled by government and the rule of law. To have otherwise is to invite anarchy.
The material and commentary that follows is excerpted from Halbrook, Stephen P. "The Right of the People or the Power of the State Bearing Arms, Arming Militias, and the Second Amendment". Originally published as 26 Val. U. L.Rev. 131-207, 1991.
Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.
---Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).
Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
---Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
During the Massachusetts ratifying convention William Symmes warned that the new government at some point "shall be too firmly fixed in the saddle to be overthrown by anything but a general insurrection." Yet fears of standing armies were groundless, affirmed Theodore Sedwick, who queried, "if raised, whether they could subdue a nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty, and who have arms in their hands?"
[W]hereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.
---Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
The Virginia ratifying convention met from June 2 through June 26, 1788. Edmund Pendleton, opponent of a bill of rights, weakly argued that abuse of power could be remedied by recalling the delegated powers in a convention. Patrick Henry shot back that the power to resist oppression rests upon the right to possess arms:
Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.
Henry sneered,
O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone...Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation...inflicted by those who had no power at all?
More quotes from the Virginia convention:
[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually...I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor...
---George Mason
Zacharia Johnson argued that the new Constitution could never result in religious persecution or other oppression because:
[T]he people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.
The Virginia delegation's recommended bill of rights included the following:
That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
The following quote is from Halbrook, Stephen P., That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right, University of New Mexico Press, 1984.
The whole of that Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals...t establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of.
---Albert Gallatin to Alexander Addison, Oct 7, 1789, MS. in N.Y. Hist. Soc.-A.G. Papers, 2.
Gallatin's use of the words "some rights," doesn't mean some of the rights in the Bill of Rights, rather there are many rights not enumerated by the Bill of Rights, those rights that are listed are being established as unalienable.
Roger Sherman, during House consideration of a militia bill (1790):
[C]onceived it to be the privilege of every citizen, and one of his most essential rights, to bear arms, and to resist every attack upon his liberty or property, by whomsoever made. The particular states, like private citizens, have a right to be armed, and to defend, by force of arms, their rights, when invaded.
14 Debates in the House of Representatives, ed. Linda Grand De Pauw. (Balt., Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1972), 92-3.
Originally posted by lazs2
arlo.. now we are getting somewhere...
You are trying to "help" me in the only way you know how... get the government to give me something.
Originally posted by Arlo
Prozac probably the cheapest.
Laz, darlin' .... .
Beech on, honey. :D
Originally posted by john9001
arlo at his best.
Originally posted by sgt203
In WWII do you think one armed citizen with the opportuinity to kill Hitler would not have made a difference??
Originally posted by sgt203
Did all the resistance fighters in both Europe and the Pacific, with inferior firepower, not make a difference??
Originally posted by sgt203
I believe in my right to possess a firearm [snip] for the defense of myself, my family and my loved ones.
Originally posted by sgt203
We have guns, the world has guns, the criminals have guns. To take away my right to own and possess a firearm leaves me and those I love at the mercy of those who choose to prey on the weak and defenseless.
Originally posted by ArloEDITED...
Who's outlawing all firearms in the U.S.? Who's even suggesting it?
Exotic guns should be legal cause Americans like dangerous toys and we're all about liberty. But they should be damned hard to get cause Billy Jo Bob's as crazy and pizzed as a socially retarded whacked out college student in Virginia.
Originally posted by lazs2
bingalong... washington was no fan of the militia and... I don't care what "serious thinker" today dismisses an armed populace giving trouble to an army.. a few thousand arabs here and there have done wonders tho against armies..russians might tell you.
The afgan militia? Backed bye the US government?
"Be that as it may.. you have not disproven the fact that the militia is or isn't outdated"...
Yes I have Its outdated.
"So far as me being in the militia or even worrying about the government.. It is moot.. I don't worry and.. I don't care to join a militia other than by default. I don't think that any war.. civil or revolution would be good for anyone."
There is no defualt. If you read the 1792 militia act. You would know your not in/a militia defualt or otherwize. You have no regiment, commanding officer, training , hell I bet you dont even have your napsack.
Anyway following the law to it's current place , which you cant seam too, the militia belongs to the government now and is used to supply the standing army or reserves.
Originally posted by lazs2
Arlo and his lefty friends thrive in the world of hysteria and lies and exaggeration..
Originally posted by john9001
"exotic" weapons?
must be a new buzz word for the gun ban people.
Originally posted by lazs2
oh wait.. he doesn't want to say other than the M16... which.. so far as I know.. has killed no one in this country.
Originally posted by lazs2
arlo.. what is a "militia mentality"? I have never even thought about the militia.. you are the one who seems worried about it.
There is no defualt. If you read the 1792 militia act. You would know your not in/a militia defualt or otherwize. You have no regiment, commanding officer, training , hell I bet you dont even have your napsack.
The powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves... Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
[T]he people, without exaggeration, may be said to be entirely the masters of their own fate. Power being almost always the rival of power, the general government will at all times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments, and these will have the same disposition towards the general government. The people by throwing themselves into either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate. If their rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress. How wise will it be in them by cherishing the union to preserve to themselves an advantage which can never be too highly prized!
In this light, the Second Amendment could be understood as an example of very careful drafting indeed: a government obligation (to maintain a militia) coupled with an individual right (to keep and bear arms) that ensures that the key element of a universal militia (an armed citizenry) cannot be extinguished by government neglect.[129] At the very least, the clear constitutional statement regarding the necessity of a well-regulated (universal) militia for the security of a free state should give us pause. The logical consequence of this statement is that a state lacking such a militia is either insecure or unfree.[130]
Which brings me back to something you said... the CMP is far from disbanded and is selling surplus guns and ammo... even drawing from stores of greek ammo.. to sell to the civilian population.
Silveira v. Lockyer 2002
Second Amendment Showdown in the 9th Circuit Cloakroom
Less than three months ago, the Center for Individual Freedom took aim at the latest misfire from über liberal Judge Stephen Reinhardt and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit -- namely, 69 pages of anti-gun propaganda masquerading as a constitutional decision in which the oft-overturned judge opined that "[t]he historical record makes it ... plain that the [Second] Amendment was not adopted in order to afford rights to individuals with respect to private gun ownership or possession." To read more about "Judge Reinhardt's Ricochet," click here. Now, even Reinhardt's own judicial colleagues on the West Coast are unwilling to remain silent in the face of his tendency to substitute personal political prejudices for the rule of law.
In a new Second Amendment ruling issued by the 9th Circuit on Tuesday, three of Reinhardt's brethren, Judges Arthur L. Alarcón, Ronald M. Gould and Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain, took the highly unusual step of criticizing a fellow sitting jurist in a published legal opinion for the entire world to see. The judges forcefully reminded Reinhardt that even life-tenured federal jurists cannot exercise unlimited power and are bound to follow precedent, at the very least. These legal warning shots reduced Reinhardt's freshly published musings about the Second Amendment to mere "dicta" because "[t]here was simply no need for [his] panel's broad digression."
The new case, Nordyke v. King, No. 99-17551 (9th Cir. Feb. 18, 2003), would have passed wholly unnoticed if it were not for Reinhardt's judicial activism a few months earlier. After all, the Nordyke panel didn't need to break any new constitutional ground to affirm an Alameda County, California, ban on the possession of guns on county property, which had the effect of preventing gun shows from using the public fairgrounds. Instead, the panel only had to follow past precedent. Nevertheless, Reinhardt had refused to do the same just a few months prior on the very same issue, so the judges took the opportunity to put him back in his place.
In a "passing" footnote weighty and lengthy enough to span good parts of 2 pages in the concise 10-page decision, the judges took apart Reinhardt's analysis of the Second Amendment, noting it was "both unpersuasive and, even more importantly, unnecessary." Reinhardt's "decision to re-examine the scope and purpose of the Second Amendment was improper" since his "panel was [already] bound" by prior 9th Circuit precedent established six years earlier in 1996, the judges explained.
The footnote went as far as judges ever do in accusing Reinhardt of taking the law into his own hands. The Reinhardt panel's "rather lengthy reconsideration of [a 9th Circuit precedent] was neither warranted nor constitutes the binding law of this circuit," the judges wrote, reminding the activist judge that "'only the court sitting en banc may overrule a prior decision of the court.'"
In non-legal speak, the oh-so-polite footnote admonished Reinhardt that a renegade judge out to further his own political mission cannot single-handedly rewrite the law. Instead, under the rules of the appellate court, only the 9th Circuit judges sitting "as a whole," or "en banc," could change a legal rule established in a prior decision.
The judges also took aim at the merits of Reinhardt's political maneuvering designed to reduce the Second Amendment to little more than a historical curiosity. Openly inviting the full 9th Circuit or the Supreme Court to finally recognize that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right "keep and bear arms," Judges O'Scannlain and Alarcón praised the 5th Circuit's decision in United States v. Emerson as a "very thoughtful and extensive review of both the text and historical record surrounding the enactment of the Second Amendment."
Judge Gould went even farther in his own special concurrence, explicitly refuting Reinhardt's historical and constitutional twisting of the Second Amendment. "I conclude that an 'individual rights view' of the Second Amendment is most consistent with the Second Amendment's language, structure, and purposes, as well as colonial experience and pre-adoption history," Judge Gould wrote, while at the same time urging that prior 9th Circuit precedent subscribing to the collective rights theory "can be discarded by our court en banc or can be rejected by the Supreme Court."
It seems there's a gun fight out West -- a Second Amendment showdown in the 9th Circuit cloakroom.
http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/legal_issues/legal_updates/other_noteworthy_cases/second_amendment_showdown.htm
Originally posted by lazs2
"Collective rights theorists argue that addition of the subordinate clause qualifies the rest of the amendment by placing a limitation on the people's right to bear arms. However, if the amendment truly meant what collective rights advocates propose, then the text would read "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the States to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." However, that is not what the framers of the amendment drafted. The plain language of the amendment, without attenuate inferences therefrom, shows that the function of the subordinate clause was not to qualify the right, but instead to show why it must be protected. The right exists independent of the existence of the militia. If this right were not protected, the existence of the militia, and consequently the security of the state, would be jeopardized." (U.S. v. Emerson, 46 F.Supp.2d 598 (N.D.Tex. 1999))"
lazs
This is what Scalia concludes form emerson.
Justice Scalia concludes by stating that "t is very likely that modern Americans no longer look contemptuously, as Madison did, upon the governments of Europe that ‘are afraid to trust the people with arms,’ The Federalist No. 46; and the . . . Constitution that Professor Tribe espouses will probably give effect to that new sentiment by effectively eliminating the Second Amendment. "
. Justice Scalia concludes by stating that "t is very likely that modern Americans no longer look contemptuously, as Madison did, upon the governments of Europe that `are afraid to trust the people with arms,' The Federalist No. 46; and the . . . Constitution that Professor Tribe espouses will probably give effect to that new sentiment by effectively eliminating the Second Amendment. But there is no need to deceive ourselves as to what the original Second Amendment said and meant. Of course, properly understood, it is no limitation upon arms control by the states." Id.
The first is from Laurence Tribe's famed treatise on the Constitution, the latest version of which Tribe altered in recognition of the growing power of the individual-rights view of the amendment—a view he had long rejected. The second is by Sanford Levinson, who—before he stopped believing in the Constitution altogether—wrote an illuminating law review article called "the embarrassing second amendment." The final quotation is from Akhil Reed Amar's ambitious history, The Bill of Rights. One can still muster strong arguments in favor of a collective-rights conception of the Second Amendment, the view that has prevailed in most other circuits; and the individual-rights view does not necessarily doom all gun control (though it probably does doom the most sweeping bans). But the simple truth is that the individual-rights view is in intellectual ascendancy, and not just among gun-loving wing nuts. If Silberman is a radical with blithe disregard for public safety, he is in exceptionally strong company.
http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2007/0319governance_wittes.aspx
Originally posted by Charon
Yeah, what a surprise coming from Stephen Reinhardt on the 9th Circus court in San Francisco.
Here's the an alternative view on his "impartiality" and judgement where the 2nd is concerned:
That is why Parker is so important.
Charon
Originally posted by Charon
Dude, you missed an important part of that quote:
It the comes down to balancing what might be considered reasonable restrictions (as noted in Parker) and the fairly absolute sounding "shall not be infringed..." Other cases will decide that.
Then there is the fact that Lawrence Tribe has changed his mind since then:
Even the liberal Brookings Institute, which noted the above, accepts the individual rights position but, of course, calls to amend the Constitution. And, that is the hones option.
Charon
What a surprise form the 5th rightytightys cant wait to critique who they do not agree with.
"How can you tell a judge is a liberal?" Reinhardt asked law students during a speech at Georgetown University. "Liberal judges believe in a generous or expansive interpretation of the Bill of Rights. We believe that the meaning of the Constitution was not frozen in 1789; that, as society develops and evolves, its understanding of constitutional principles also grows.
"We believe that the Founding Fathers used broad general principles to describe our rights," Reinhardt continued, "because they were determined not to enact a narrow, rigid code that would bind and limit all future generations."
Reinhardt is not shy either about trying to influence other judges. In 1994, he urged then-Supreme Court nominee Stephen Breyer to "do justice, not just administer law," if confirmed. Regarding the Constitution, Reinhardt wrote to Breyer that he should "Carry on the work of the court's great progressive thinkers.
"It was progressive justices with a view of the Constitution as a living, breathing document who gave full measure to that instrument," Reinhardt wrote, "not the legal technocrats, not those whose view of the Constitution was frozen as of 1789.
"When lawyers and judges adhere too rigidly to legal rules," according to Reinhardt, "they lose sight of the broader purposes for which those rules were created: to do justice."
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=%5CSpecialReports%5Carchive%5C200511%5CSPE20051117a.html
I didnt miss it. I just deemed it unimportant as you do the 9th's decision.
Originally posted by Charon
I just figured you deemed it inconvenient to your argument.
Charon
Originally posted by lazs2
"Another way... a simple way to look at the second is simply... the way it is written... "
Well regulated militia?
"In WWI and WWII and.. on the southern side of the civil war.. it was said that the American troops were better than other green troops simply because we were marksmen. I believe that the founders point out that this was a good thing.. that in order to form a well regulated militia you needed to draw from an armed populace."
Armed, trained, commanded, populace?
Which brings me back to something you said... the CMP is far from disbanded and is selling surplus guns and ammo... even drawing from stores of greek ammo.. to sell to the civilian population.
also.. on the militia...
"Collective rights theorists argue that addition of the subordinate clause qualifies the rest of the amendment by placing a limitation on the people's right to bear arms. However, if the amendment truly meant what collective rights advocates propose, then the text would read "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the States to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." However, that is not what the framers of the amendment drafted. The plain language of the amendment, without attenuate inferences therefrom, shows that the function of the subordinate clause was not to qualify the right, but instead to show why it must be protected. The right exists independent of the existence of the militia. If this right were not protected, the existence of the militia, and consequently the security of the state, would be jeopardized." (U.S. v. Emerson, 46 F.Supp.2d 598 (N.D.Tex. 1999))"
Yes well..
The Second Amendment protects “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.” Contrast this language with that of the Fifth Amendment (“no person shall”) and the 6th Amendment (“the accused shall”). The Bill of Rights makes a meaningful distinction between the rights of “the people” and of “persons.” This distinction is especially clear in the 4th Amendment, which states that the collective “people” have a right “to be secure” in their individual “persons.” The Second Amendment contains only the collective language: “the right of the people.” Despite any protestation to the contrary, the text of our Constitution does draw a significant distinction between collective and individual rights.
When the 2nd Amendment was ratified, the “Militia” did of course consist of virtually all adult (white) males , we should understand the “the Militia” and “the People” as roughly equivalent. But using such an understanding to justify unlimited gun rights grossly oversimplifies the 2nd Amendment language referring to a “well-regulated Milita.” It’s difficult to argue that a populace with unlimited access to guns constitutes a “well-regulated Militia” for the simple reason that such a populace is not “regulated” at all where weapons are concerned. The inclusion of the words “well-regulated” in the 2nd Amendment should leave us with two questions: Regulated by whom? And what sorts of regulations are permissible?
The Bill of Rights was an anti-Federalist measure designed to place explicit limits on the Federal government, generally in favor of state governments. Indeed, the 1st Amendment (at the time of its ratification) did not invalidate state-established churches or state sedition laws, it refused federal Congress the ability to establish an official religion and restrict freedom of speech. Considering that at the time of the Founding functional militias were often organized by states, and considering that the Bill of Rights as a whole was originally intended to protect the states from federal excess, it is reasonable to say that “well-regulated Militia” can be understood as one organized by and subject to the regulations of a state or local government. It’s much more difficult to claim that a mass of citizens armed with whatever weapons they desire constitutes in any way a “well-regulated Militia.”
The Constitution does not permit “regulation” that would effectively ban weapons, such laws would violate the right to “keep and bear Arms.” But should we believe that state and local governments can therefore pass no laws regulating the kinds of weapons that their people are permitted to own and carry? Such a holding would threaten anti-terrorist statutes prohibiting the ownership of bomb-making materials. Doesn’t it stand to reason that local governments can pass laws restricting ownership of certain categories of dangerous weapons? Shouldn’t elected officials be permitted to make legislative findings that unlimited handgun ownership poses a risk to public safety and legislate accordingly? The Supreme Court has historically shown broad deference to the “police powers” of local governments to protect the health or safety of their citizens. The law at issue in D.C. v. Heller does exactly that. Some people may contest the findings underpinning the law, or they may believe that it’s simply bad policy, but our democratic system provides recourse for those folks: elect new leaders.
The Second Amendment has never been subject to the Fourteenth Amendment doctrine of incorporation, a long-term judicial effort to protect certain enumerated rights from both state and federal infringement. Perhaps the right to keep and bear arms is conspicuously absent from the incorporation doctrine because the Second Amendment does in fact explicitly permit local regulation of the “Militia.” Much as the First Amendment right to assemble is constrained when it threatens public safety (You have no constitutional right to stage an anti-gun protestin the middle of I-95, for example), so too the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is constrained by the right and duty of local governments to protect their citizens. This is hardly a radical view. It’s a notion that comes straight from the language and history of the Second Amendment and previous Bill of Rights jurisprudence.
Originally posted by Bingolong
I didnt miss it. I just deemed it unimportant as you do the 9th's decision.
Originally posted by sgt203
NO Bingolong you didn't "deem it unimportant" you deemed it to be detremental to your argument.. so you left it out. Blow smoke elsewhere... You didnt think you would get called on it now your back peddaling.
This is unfortunately alot of what we see when our politicians "debate" a point. The careful and calculated misconstruing, misstating, or flat out omission of the facts all in the name of supporting their point of view.
Your points up till now I have read listened to and tried to understand. However you have now made yourself irrelevant as it is obvious you are not debating a point of view you are pushing for a specific agenda.
You and those like you are what is wrong with our Jurists "legislating from the bench" and the FAR LEFT in general. The end justifys the means.
Pity really.
Originally posted by Bingolong
As I told lazz I will tell you, I dont have an agenda and I could just as easily taken the other side of the argument and I am for the 2nd. Just because you dont like the law
Originally posted by wrag
Next are you going to say you're just trying to make the world safe for Democracy?
Originally posted by wrag
Next are you going to say you're just trying to make the world safe for Democracy?
Originally posted by Bingolong
Look I have posted the "Militia" subject because i think thats the hindge. If you dont like the way the law reads today not in 1776 well I dont know what to tell ya.
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
That law didn't read anything in 1776...
Originally posted by Bingolong
Look I have posted the "Militia" subject because i think thats the hindge. If you dont like the way the law reads today not in 1776 well I dont know what to tell ya.
Today's truth is not yesterdays ideal. I have said what I think the SC is going to possible do and why I think they ask all I've heard is a bunch of bloviating :).
So I got a littleShoot me!
Originally posted by lasersailor184
I'm going to declare that any who attempt or actually do take any gun from any legal american is guilty of treason, with the punishment of Death, with no chance of reprieve, ever. Then I will enact it.
Originally posted by Bingolong
You getting the idea or should I continue?
Originally linked by Bingolong Nov. 20 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Supreme Court will consider whether individuals have a constitutional right to own firearms, agreeing to decide an election-year fight over the District of Columbia's decades-old handgun ban.
Originally posted by lazs2
"ok.. now we are making some progress... seems that the only points that we differ on is what is the militia and what arms you think I "need" (read can be banned)."
I think you went backwards again.
"need" has nothing to do with it.. the people who like to shoot 2,000 yard competitions "need" a .50... If there is a tyrant in power..you "need" a .50 to take out his and his henchmens limmo's.
Okay I like to shoot 3 mile competitions . There is a new gun out that can shoot that far .75 caliber all the sudden I have a "Need" for that gun, NO, thats laughable. What did they "need" to kill the tyrant when the constitution was written? Hinckley didn't need a 50, either did Booth or Oswald. Are you saying you only "need" a 50 for a tyrant? So you can shoot him at 2000 yrds, you cant shoot him at 1000?
"Machine guns? they are fun... fun fulfills a "need" for some.. no one "needs" to climb mountains for instance. I don't want you or anyone else defining "need" so far as recreation and defense goes."
Again nice try. Mountains don't shoot people. You don't have a need for those Guns . You do have a "want" I want to shoot 2000, and I "Want" a 50 that can do it. Hell I "want" to shoot 3 miles guess I need a cannon? My Dad had a good saying for "want". "Want in one hand, crap in the other, see which one fills up first."
"As to the militia.. the earlier act that you are so fond of still puts me in the militia as it is every able bodied free man.. It is not my problem that my state is lax in organizing it.
this was exactly the problem... the states didn't do it. soooo.. the current defenition.. the one we are bound by right this minute... says that I am in the "unorganized militia" either way.. I am in the militia.. as are you. The age and physical stuff would not stand civil rights scrutiny. "
No, its not but until the state does organize it you aren't in it!
Nope, the framers state what your duty as a militia men is. If it was not fully implemented is "Not my problem".
"Further.. I have a draft card. At one time we all did. It said that I could be called to service... even thou I did nothing but sign up. In fact.. the draft still looms over all of us. it could happen again next week. If a militia is so outdated then so is the draft. we don't need to draw from the citizens."
Yep me too, are you trying to say that draftees are the militia?
when you get drafted for whom do you serve?
"We will see a relaxing of gun bans but we will see more differences in the states gun laws but the feds will have to protect our absolute right to keep and bear arms.. no DC bans for instance."
I think some guns will be outright banned. Not allowing you to have 50 is not an intrusion of your rights/needs. You have the right to be armed, just with what will be answered, you don't need a 50 or a machine gun, you want them and again I don't see "Need/Want" to have "Fun" at a "competition" in there as a reason for a gun either. Lets stick to what the documents say huh? I have proven your not the militia. Now lets work on your "Needs".
Originally posted by john9001
who will decide my "needs", Barbara Boxer? :rofl
boxer at senate news show, "with this gun you don't have to aim, you just spray and shoot." Then she tries to insert the magazine in backwards.
:lol
Originally posted by john9001
Bingolong, the question i asked was who would decide my needs, you side stepped the question.
Un-organized Militia dose not mean no organization its the difference between Fed/State and the people... however it still has organized, trained and registered componets thats what the contitution says!
Originally posted by lazs2
Further.. I have a draft card. At one time we all did. (At one time?) It said that I could be called to service... even tho I did nothing but sign up. In fact.. the draft still looms over all of us. it could happen again next week. If a militia is so outdated then so is the draft. we don't need to draw from the citizens.
Originally posted by lazs2
And.. as for the militia.. the current defenition.. is the organized and the unorganized militia. it is two part. Those not in an organized militia are by default, in an unorganized one.
It's not what I will allow, why do you feel the need to make this personal.
You dont need a 50 or a machine gun to hunt! you want it!
The law states that you are not the militia anymore Go sign up show me your enlistment in your militia.
During his first term as president, George Washington worked with Secretary of War Henry Knox to reorganize and strengthen the militia. They sent their plan to Congress, and after heated debate Congress, on May 9, 1792, passed what became known as the Uniform Militia Act (1 Stat. 264). This law, which remained the basic militia law until the twentieth century, stated that all free, able-bodied white men, age 18 to 45, were required to serve in their state militias and that they were obligated to supply themselves with the appropriate firearms and equipment. The law provided certain specifications for how militia units were to be organized, but Congress left many details to the states and declined to include sanctions for states or individuals who failed to comply with the law. As a result, the act had little legal weight and served mostly as a recommendation to the states.
http://law.jrank.org/pages/8571/Militia.html
Originally posted by Charon
Well, right there you say:
"You dont need a 50 or a machine gun to hunt! you want it!"
That's a personal opinion, in a similar vein to others you have made in this thread. People do hunt with .50s btw
Tell me charon what is the law today as it relates to you and a militia. Again go sign up! I think I have followed the law right up to today... no?
Nice history lesson I posted a " " from 29 a few pages back thanks.
Alexander Hamilton, Here I expect we shall be told that the militia of the country is its natural bulwark, and would beat all times equal to the national defense. This doctrine, in substance had like to have lost us our independence. It cost millions to the United States that might have been saved. The facts which from our own experience forbid any reliance of this kind are too recent to permit us to be the dupes of such a suggestion. The steady operations of war against a regular and disciplined army can only be successfully conducted by a force of the same kind. Considerations of economy, not less than of stability and vigor, confirm this position. The American militia, in the course of the late war, have, by their valor on numerous occasions, erected eternal monuments to their fame; but the bravest of them feel and know that the liberty of their country could not have been established by their efforts alone, however great and valuable they were. War, like most other things, is a science to be acquire and perfected by diligence, by perseverance, by time, and by practice. (-- Rossiter, p. 166)
So, please tell me that you don't find Bingo's opinion a practical one? A practical opinion is not a personal attack.
Tell me why do you think the SC ask the question the way they did?
Here is the way the Court phrased the granted issue:
“Whether the following provisions — D.C. Code secs. 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 — violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?”
The first listed section bars registration of pistols if not registered before Sept. 24, 1976; the second bars carrying an unlicensed pistol, and the third requires that any gun kept at home must be unloaded and disassembled or bound by a lock, such as one that prevents the trigger from operating.
The Court did not mention any other issues that it might address as questions of its jurisdiction to reach the ultimate question: did the one individual who was found to have a right to sue — Dick Anthony Heller, a D.C. resident – have a right to challenge all three of the sections of the local law cited in the Court’s order, and, is the District of Columbia, as a federal enclave, even covered by the Second Amendment. While neither of those issues is posed in the grant order, the Court may have to be satisfied that the answer to both is affirmative before it would move on to the substantive question about the scope of any right protected by the Amendment.
The D.C. Circuit ruled that the Amendment does apply to the District because of its federal status, subject to all provisions of the Constitution. At this point, therefore, it appears that the Court’s review may not reach a major question — does the Second Amendment also protect individual rights against state and local government gun control laws? But a ruling by the Court recognizing an individual right to have a gun almost surely would lead to new test cases on whether to extend the Amendment’s guarantee so that it applied to state and local laws, too. The Court last confronted that issue in Presser v. illinois, in 1886, finding that the Amendment was not binding on the states.
Some observers who read the Court’s order closely may suggest that the Court is already inclined toward an “individual rights” interpretation of the Second Amendment. That is because the order asks whether the three provisions of the D.C. gun control law violate “the Second Amendment rights of individuals.” But that phrasing may reveal very little about whether the Amendment embraces an individual right to have a gun for private use. Only individuals, of course, would be serving in the militia, and there is no doubt that the Second Amendment provides those individuals a right to have a gun for that type of service. The question the Court will be deciding is, if there are individuals who want to keep pistols for use at home, does the Second Amendment guarantee them that right. Just because the Second Amendment protects some individual right does not settle the nature of that right.
One of the interesting subsets of the question the Court will be confronting is whether the 1939 case of U.S. v. Miller is a precedent for what the Second Amendment means — individual or collective right. If that decision did find in favor of a collective right, the current Court would have to decide whether this was a binding precedent, or whether it should be overruled. Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., has already taken a stand on that question. At his nomination hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, he said that “the Miller case sidestepped” the issue of whether the Amendment protected a collective or an individual right. He added: “An argument was made back in 1939 that this provides only a collective right, and the Court didn’t address that….So people try to read into the tea leaves about Miller and what would come out on this issue, but that’s still very much an open issue.”
The local law at issue in Heller has been discussed widely as a sweeping ban on private possession or use of handguns. But the Court order granting review took it a step further: the one section that will be at issue that goes beyond handguns is the provision that requires that any gun kept at home be unloaded and disassembled, or at least be locked. Thus, that provision also applies to rifles and shotguns kept at home, in terms of whether those weapons would remain “functional” in time of emergency if that provision were upheld. That part of the order appeared to widen the inquiry in a way that the local residents who challenged the law had wanted.
Originally posted by Charon
The weapons in question are the bolt action or semi auto .50 cal rifles. Weighs 30 lb., costs $8000. A belt-fed M2 is still a highly regulated Class III weapon that may, or may not, be covered as a right under the 2nd even if it is established fully as an inalienable right. The reason being that this is a crew served weapon on the edge of being ordnance.
What is practical, though, about highly regulating a weapon like a .50 Barrett that is about last on the list of weapons used by criminals? That, regardless of the hype, is no more likely to be used by a terrorist to shoot down an airliner than a far lighter, easier to conceal and easier to track (moving target) .30 cal hunting rifle? Even an M2 would be fairly marginal against an airliner. A 40mm Bofors perhaps, of course also likley covered under ordnance, though there are die hards that would argue otherwise.
Let me counter with what game is it used to hunt in North America? Are the large clubs of owners that habitually use it for such? What practical purpose does it serve a "militia" as defined by any yokel who wants to buy one and play "Army sniper" (Mr. Black), for isn't the weapon designed to be the mother of all military sniper rifles? How does one defend their home from criminals with one? How does one conceal it? Why is it "neccessary?"
Originally posted by Charon
Why is it necessary? So your position is that we essentially start from a position of having no rights and we are then granted rights by the BOR?[1] And I have to justify why I could own such a weapon vs. the Govt. making a case as to why it should be restricted?[2] It's actually the opposite.[3] We have unlimited rights but those restricted by law, and those restrictions fall under Constitutional scrutiny.[4]
Originally posted by lazs2
It is not my definition. it is the current federal code 311 and it is the one used by the founders.
Now.. if the militia is every able bodied man... of which there can be no arguement right?
lazs
Originally posted by midnight Target
I deleted everything that didn't relate to my point.
Of course there is an argument! Here is 311 one more time:
(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."
If well regulated means the same as organized then (b)(1) is saying you are wrong.
Originally posted by lazs2
in 41 law review articles published since 1980... only four do not subscribe to the individual right model.
lazs
Originally posted by midnight Target
hehe..
But lazs, you hate this argument when it pertains to global warming.
Actually I own 2 nagants now.
Originally posted by lazs2
"glad you do mt.. do you think you have a right to keep em or is it up to bingalong make that decision for ya?"
Lazetta,
Your gonna trip on yourself again
"The second did not make up a right.. the right to keep and bear arms... The right already existed before the constitution.. the amendment merely pointed out that it was a right and was not to be infringed."
Where did you get that right.... "The king"
and then you say
"If that is not the meaning then the amendment was a waste of space. much like englands... in england.. you had the right to keep and bear arms... .so long as the government said it was ok... as you can see... a worthless (for the people) waste of ink."
:rofl
Thanks
Originally posted by Hornet33
Bing the differance Laz was making is that our 2nd ammendment right was not granted to us by anyone. When we became our own country our founding fathers understood that the 2nd is a right of the people not the government and the government shall not infringe on that right. It's there as a birthright granted by the Constitution alone, not a person. If your an american citizen it's your's and no one can take it away.
England on the other hand said it's your right as long as we think you deserve it. Well not to long ago they decided that the English people didn't deserve it anymore. The citizens had no recourse because it was a right granted by the government i.e. the King or Queen.
Laz didn't trip himself up, your just looking for an excuse to promote your ideals and project your morals on those of us who don't agree with you.
You don't like guns. You don't want to own guns. You don't want anyone else to own guns. Fine, you have that right to believe what you want. You DO NOT however have the right to tell me that I can't own guns. You don't get to decide what I can or cannot own anymore than I can decide what you can or cannot own.
You don't want to see me walking down the street wearing a pistol, look the other way.
Originally posted by Bingolong
Oh I thought we were under English Law before the Constitution subjects of the King?
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
That has nothig to do with whether rights are recognized as inborn, only to be infringed by their regulation by government.
Your "God" given rights?
When were the rights recognized as inborn? Before or after?
Originally posted by BingolongQuoteOriginally posted by lazs2
"glad you do mt.. do you think you have a right to keep em or is it up to bingalong make that decision for ya?"
Lazetta,
Your gonna trip on yourself again
"The second did not make up a right.. the right to keep and bear arms... The right already existed before the constitution.. the amendment merely pointed out that it was a right and was not to be infringed."
Where did you get that right.... "The king"
and then you say
"If that is not the meaning then the amendment was a waste of space. much like englands... in england.. you had the right to keep and bear arms... .so long as the government said it was ok... as you can see... a worthless (for the people) waste of ink."
:rofl
Thanks
The King?
"There are three reasons to own a gun. To protect yourself and your family, to hunt dangerous and delicious animals, and to keep the King of England out of your face." - Krusty the Clown
"Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense?" - Patrick Henry
Perhaps the King should have read this.............
"When you disarm your subjects you offend them by showing that either from cowardliness or lack of faith, you distrust them; and either conclusion will induce them to hate you"~~Niccolo Machiavelli, "The Prince"
Where did you get the right?????????
"The defense of one's self, justly called the primary law of nature, is not, nor can it be abrogated by any regulation of municipal law." - James Wilson, The Works of James Wilson, 1896
A birthright?
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American." - Tench Coxe, of Pennsylvania, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788
Historic conclusion?
"The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the Second Amendment ... as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner." - U.S. Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution, 1982
Legal stuff................
"The plain meaning of the right of the people to keep arms is that it is an individual, rather than a collective, right and is not limited to keeping arms while engaged in active military service or as a member of a select militia such as the National Guard." - U.S. vs. Emerson, 5th Circuit Federal Court
We are NOT talking the Dodge City Wild West Hollyweired KAKA here! This is one of the closest written statements of how it's SUPPOSED to work I can recall seeing.......
"The necessary consequence of man's right to life is his right to self-defense. In a civilized society, force may be used only in retaliation & only against those who initiate its use. All the reasons which make the initiation of physical force an evil, make the retaliatory use of physical force a moral imperative. If some 'pacifist' society renounced the retaliatory use of force, it would be left helplessly at the mercy of the 1st thug who decided to be immoral. Such a society would achieve the opposite of its intention: instead of abolishing evil, it would encourage & reward it." ~~Ayn Rand "The Nature of Government" , The Virtue of Selfishness ( 1961 ), pg 108
Perhaps this is more along the lines of what the 2nd Amendment SHOULD have said...........
"Every man, woman, and responsible child has a natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil, and Constitutional right (within the limits of the Non-Aggression Principle) to obtain, own, and carry, openly or concealed, any weapon -- handgun, shotgun, rifle, machinegun, anything-- anytime, anywhere, without asking anyone's permissin"~~The Atlanta Declaration-- L. Neil Smith
Perhaps Bingolong thinks maybe would should have a Queen?
"We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society."~~Hillary Clinton, 1993
Many of you are well enough off that... the tax cuts may have helped you... We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good. -- Sen. Hillary Clinton, San Francisco, June 28, 2004 ~ or...
"...from each according to his means, to each according to his needs." -- Karl Marx, 19th Century
Always liked this statement and those like it.............
"Men who deny individual rights cannot claim, defend or uphold any rights whatsoever. ... The liberals are guilty of the same contradiction, but in a different form. They advocate the sacrifice of all individual rights to unlimited majority rule - yet posture as defenders of the rights of minorities. But the smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." ~~ Ayn Rand
And these also more clearly help those who think people carrying firearms around cause wide spread shootings, or the Dodge City Wild West at a fender bender in an intersection..............
"Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it."
"In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some."
"When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender."
"There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly."
"Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable."
"When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act."
Originally posted by Bingolong
Your "God" given rights?
When were the rights recognized as inborn? Before or after?
Originally posted by wrag
The King?
"There are three reasons to own a gun. To protect yourself and your family, to hunt dangerous and delicious animals, and to keep the King of England out of your face." - Krusty the Clown
"Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense?" - Patrick Henry
Perhaps the King should have read this.............
"When you disarm your subjects you offend them by showing that either from cowardliness or lack of faith, you distrust them; and either conclusion will induce them to hate you"~~Niccolo Machiavelli, "The Prince"
Where did you get the right?????????
"The defense of one's self, justly called the primary law of nature, is not, nor can it be abrogated by any regulation of municipal law." - James Wilson, The Works of James Wilson, 1896
A birthright?
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American." - Tench Coxe, of Pennsylvania, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788
Historic conclusion?
"The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the Second Amendment ... as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner." - U.S. Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution, 1982
Legal stuff................
"The plain meaning of the right of the people to keep arms is that it is an individual, rather than a collective, right and is not limited to keeping arms while engaged in active military service or as a member of a select militia such as the National Guard." - U.S. vs. Emerson, 5th Circuit Federal Court
We are NOT talking the Dodge City Wild West Hollyweired KAKA here! This is one of the closest written statements of how it's SUPPOSED to work I can recall seeing.......
"The necessary consequence of man's right to life is his right to self-defense. In a civilized society, force may be used only in retaliation & only against those who initiate its use. All the reasons which make the initiation of physical force an evil, make the retaliatory use of physical force a moral imperative. If some 'pacifist' society renounced the retaliatory use of force, it would be left helplessly at the mercy of the 1st thug who decided to be immoral. Such a society would achieve the opposite of its intention: instead of abolishing evil, it would encourage & reward it." ~~Ayn Rand "The Nature of Government" , The Virtue of Selfishness ( 1961 ), pg 108
Perhaps this is more along the lines of what the 2nd Amendment SHOULD have said...........
"Every man, woman, and responsible child has a natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil, and Constitutional right (within the limits of the Non-Aggression Principle) to obtain, own, and carry, openly or concealed, any weapon -- handgun, shotgun, rifle, machinegun, anything-- anytime, anywhere, without asking anyone's permissin"~~The Atlanta Declaration-- L. Neil Smith
Perhaps Bingolong thinks maybe would should have a Queen?
"We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society."~~Hillary Clinton, 1993
Many of you are well enough off that... the tax cuts may have helped you... We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good. -- Sen. Hillary Clinton, San Francisco, June 28, 2004 ~ or...
"...from each according to his means, to each according to his needs." -- Karl Marx, 19th Century
Always liked this statement and those like it.............
"Men who deny individual rights cannot claim, defend or uphold any rights whatsoever. ... The liberals are guilty of the same contradiction, but in a different form. They advocate the sacrifice of all individual rights to unlimited majority rule - yet posture as defenders of the rights of minorities. But the smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." ~~ Ayn Rand
And these also more clearly help those who think people carrying firearms around cause wide spread shootings, or the Dodge City Wild West at a fender bender in an intersection..............
"Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it."
"In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some."
"When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender."
"There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly."
"Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable."
"When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act."
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
From memory, so if not wfw, I at least am close...
"We recognize that these truths are self evident. That all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. That among these rights are life liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
This on some document dated July 4, 1776
There were other documents used as reference material by Jefferson that predate that date.
Now this doesn't prove that the bill of rights enumerate inborn rights of the individual, but it does show the mindset of an important thinker of the period.
Originally posted by Bingolong
Oh I thought we were under English Law before the Constitution subjects of the King?
Originally posted by Hornet33
Yeah before we won our independance we were subject to the King of Englands laws. Not anymore. The 2nd Ammendmant is there so that the people of this country NEVER again fall under the rule of a tyrant king or government.
Originally posted by Bingolong
Find me somthing before 1776
Originally posted by Bingolong
Find me somthing before 1776
Originally posted by Hornet33
Why should he??? This countries current form of government was started on July 4th 1776, the date the Consitution of the United States was ratified. Anything before that has no bearing on the 2nd Ammendment today. On that date the citizens of this country were guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms and that this government would not be allowed to infringe on that right.
Originally posted by Hornet33
What freaky reality do you live in???
Yes we were subjects of the King before we won our freedom. You know the English settlements and all?? That's no longer the case. We beat the British, kicked them out of North America, and created the USA with our own government and our own laws all based off the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights.
The King of England did not grant me my right to keep and bear arms. The 2nd Ammendment does however grant me that right because I am an American citizen and the Constitution and the Bill of Rights recognizes the fact that I am just as equal under the law of this land as the President of the United States and no one has the authority to take away my guns without cause.
Originally posted by Hornet33
What freaky reality do you live in???
Yes we were subjects of the King before we won our freedom. You know the English settlements and all?? That's no longer the case. We beat the British, kicked them out of North America, and created the USA with our own government and our own laws all based off the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights.
The King of England did not grant me my right to keep and bear arms. The 2nd Ammendment does however grant me that right because I am an American citizen and the Constitution and the Bill of Rights recognizes the fact that I am just as equal under the law of this land as the President of the United States and no one has the authority to take away my guns without cause.
Originally posted by Bingolong
Okay Okay I'm not disagreeing with you.
You further make my point to laz
Originally posted by Bingolong
Okay Okay I'm not disagreeing with you.
You further make my point to laz
Originally posted by Chairboy
I disagree with Wrag on just about anything, and I'm pretty sure we both think the other is a jerk, but I agree with his post above.
Originally posted by wrag
I'm starting to think you're bored or just don't like to read or perhaps you just like to stir things.
Originally posted by Bingolong
Okay Okay I'm not disagreeing with you.
You further make my point to laz
Originally posted by wrag
HUH??????????
Just what is your point?
Have you been ignoring all my post?
I've answered your question several times in several ways so what is your point?
The post I made just before this one answers your question about WHERE the 2nd Amendment originated!
Originally posted by wrag
2nd Amendment GRANTS nothing!
It acknowledges and reserves, or preserves, a right all creatures have! The right to DEFEND yourself and your family among other things!
It is a right that was FULLY recognized by the Founders as NOT being given by anyone, but existed since the beginning of time for all creatures.
Originally posted by Hornet33
And what point would that be???
Originally posted by Bingolong
Can you please tell me the laws/rights at that time? before 1776. Or were there any? and if they were who's law were they? Please!
Originally posted by lazs2
Perhaps it is a judo christian thinking ....
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Bingolong:
Before the Constitution the right to arm onself, speak ones mind, and worship freely existed. "
Originally posted by Arlo
As they still do "after." Much ado `bout nuthin' regarding extremist rhetoric either direction. :D
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
That's what I was gettin at in the Bush OK facts not in evidence thread, but you hammered me for it. (or at least attempted to)
Originally posted by lazs2
arlo... flight sim folk or not they are just people. just like the people at your treckie conventions are people.
You should probly not look down on em since you are.. after all.. here.
as for the judochristian thing... I got no problem with beating my plowshares into swords.. harder to beat one into a rifle tho once they are taken away from us.
The main thing is that if our "right" to keep and bear arms is "found" to be nothing more than the right of the government to tell us what we can and can't have depending on who is in power..
Then it is no right at all. England had the exact same right to keep and bear arms... so long as the government said it was ok.
Guess what.. the government said it wasn't ok.
It's like when a democrat says he just wants to keep guns out of the wrong hands..
guess what... you have the wrong hands.
lazs
Originally posted by lazs2
did you just call me darlin? ok..
You are saying that our right to keep and bear arms is not in danger?
Originally posted by lazs2
tigress.. it matters not what bush did.. it was way better than his opponents. we really had no choice... lesser of two evils. and.. he was the one who put in two friends of the constitution on the supreme court.. would you want this latest second amendment case being heard if gore had put his two on?
sure.. their are anti gun republicans and pro gun democrats.. on a local level that might help but... when it comes to a federal level.. all bets are off...
if it is a gun bill that restricts our rights... the republicans will almost unanimously be opposed and the democrats will almost unanimously be for it.. the names may switch around in the parties depending on who is vulnerable in the next election or not but it is just a big scam.. wink and nod... the real result is... more democrats... more gun laws.. less democrats... less gun laws.
It is naive to think that these guys posses anything like integrity.
lazs
Originally posted by lazs2
It shows a real lack of simple research on your part to think otherwise.. [1]
Democrats have never stopped and never will till it is almost impossible to have most of the guns we are allowed to own now.
They constantly introduce legeslation to ban semi autos of all kinds.. You don't think that is going a little far?
lazs
Originally posted by lazs2
arlo.. try this one.. actual voting records.. not rhetoric like your sites..
http://www.a2dems.net/campaign2006/senatevote109.htm
your sites are just more democrats posing with shotguns at the club.
But then.. you are pretty easy to fool so I am not surprised that you were.
lazs
Originally posted by Arlo
Denial's an ugly thing, sister. I started by illuminating your dark recesses with the fact that Democrats (not just politicians) like and own guns. That would be both of my WWII vet grandads, as well. And I found proof without even breaking a sweat that there's even Dem politicians, today, that like guns, own guns, don't want to take away Lazzies guns. But you can't believe that without it wrecking the house of cards you've built around yourself "for protection."
Do you really think I should be worrired about your delusional state? I'm just publically offering a more rational element to your agenda. No need for hiking the skirt in panic, Alice. Curb the paranoia and just deal with reality. The voting record of a few does not make a party out to ruin your gun fun. :D
Originally posted by wrag
I'm getting the impression that Arlo is trying VERY HARD to upset Laz?
Anyone else consider that to be the case?
Originally posted by Arlo
Trying very hard? Laz upsets himself. I just point at the holes and he urinates through them. :D
Really. If there's not enough there to upset him to the point of the hissy he wants to throw he'll spin it in to rile himself up more. Hell, he's scared I want to take his guns away and give all his money to crack mothers. Cause we all know there's no ground between Laz's hyperbo-reality and anyone who challenges it. So you be sure to avoid deviation, wrag, if you really fear the wrath of Laz. :aok :lol
Originally posted by wrag
He gonna come hunt me down and maybe shoot me? :rofl
Hunting you down and shooting you ...
Originally posted by wrag
NOW he MIGHT remember and insult and should he meet up with you some day he just might get in your face and request that you repeat those words to his face. At which time, should you be so foolish as to repeat the insult, you would PROBABLY find his boot up your keester!
Originally posted by wrag
Or why should I fear you or anyone else on this board?
Originally posted by wrag
As to you pointing out holes? I don't see that.
Originally posted by wrag
Where? Because you found a few Dem polies that SAY yes the 2nd Amendment means what it says?
Originally posted by wrag
I VOTE for the politician that SUPPORTS my Rights! Their political party does NOT matter!
Originally posted by wrag
People DISCUSS things.
Originally posted by wrag
I have difficulty SEEING that in your post.
Originally posted by wrag
They SEEM aimed kinda like in grade school
Originally posted by wrag
Am I wrong?
Originally posted by Maverick
No Wrag you are not wrong. Arlo has degenerated to a beetle style of posting. Obsessed with gun threads and nothing of real substance just nothing more than constant trolling. His only purpose is to try and irritate, not discuss.
Originally posted by lazs2
arlo.. I am not in the least scared that you will do anything. I am pointing out tho that your thinking is flawed. enough people with flawed thinking like yours is a danger. I am also pointing out that you are not all that honest and/or that you use "feelings" a lot instead of good solid facts.
Originally posted by lazs2
I seen your score in the libertarian site.. you come in about like the worst of the brit liberals so I don't think I have characterized you wrong at all. Not unless who you claim to be here is different than who you really are.
Originally posted by wrag
Arlo
IMHO you have proven nothing.
You have pointed something out? Yes.
Does that change viewpoints? NO.
Assumptions that IMHO are incorrect.
Originally posted by Arlo
And that, in a nutshell, pretty much explains it all. ;)
Originally posted by lazs2
arlo said..
"Ain't it a rather amazing thing that I don't model myself based on your opinion of me? "
no.. but it is amazing that you are so transparent yet..... think you are so complex. You take a test and then you are the only one who is amazed that you come out as a liberal socialist.. That is pretty amazing.
I believe it is called denial or some such these days... There are less PC terms tho that are more accurate in my opinion.
lazs
Originally posted by wrag
AHHH GOOD!
Perhaps you finally understand the information posted?
BTW the technique you appear to be using in your attempt to communicate SEEMS a little off or possibly incomplete................
Originally posted by lazs2
wrag.. you may have noticed a decline in arlo's humor quotient.. it is either frustration or.. the writers strike or... more likely.. he has used up all his witty little comebacks and pet names.
lazs
Originally posted by Arlo
Ahhhhh ..... to recognize a "decline" you trip over your previous complaints that I was never funny at all. ;)
Originally posted by wrag
Care to give some input as to why the referring to males in the feminine gender SEEMS so essential to your posts in this thread?
Originally posted by lazs2
well.. I started out as as a number guy in air warrior like everyone else in the bad ol dos days.. then warbirds and the changes in how many letters or whatever.. was lazerus when it could be and lazs when it was the four letter thing... have been ever since. lazs2 here cause the BB burped a long time ago and it was easier.
bingalong is... long and.. it sounded feminine to me in any case so... bingie seemed ok.. shorter and more to the point.
lazs
Originally posted by wrag
That would be IMHO extremely correct! You were not IMHO funny.[1]
Are you guys trained by someone to try your best to be offensive rather then to discuss things?[2]
Wait! Is it that they don't believe the way you do and that makes you ANGRY?[3]
Originally posted by Bingolong
Why dont you ask your pal lazzetta? who starts it :)
Originally posted by lazs2
well.. I started out as as a number guy in air warrior like everyone else in the bad ol dos days.. then warbirds and the changes in how many letters or whatever.. was lazerus when it could be and lazs when it was the four letter thing... have been ever since. lazs2 here cause the BB burped a long time ago and it was easier.
bingalong is... long and.. it sounded feminine to me in any case so... bingie seemed ok.. shorter and more to the point.
lazs
Originally posted by lazs2
.. I just never paid that much attention..
Originally posted by BingolongTechnically, I'm in a militia (Virginia State Guard)....and WE aren't chartered to have guns at all (lol if it ever became necessary, society would have degenerated into one of any number of Bruce Willis movies:rofl )
Yes Lazzie you have been answered too :) we wll have to just wait and see. I still say the militia is the port hole that the 2nd will get attacked thru.
The only question that has not been answered will be! I do not think as you do and will not. I see your position thats really about it :).
Athough I think were close on the Indian issue.
:cool:
-STATUTE-
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, 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.
-SOURCE-
Originally posted by Toad
According to the U.S. Code, THIS is the militia:
However, you continue to ignore the fact the the militia clause of the 2nd Amendment is a subordinate clause. The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia.
The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence
Originally posted by Bingolong
It stated that there would be two National Guards: the National Guard of the several States, and the National Guard of the United States. The former would be the individual State militias, employed in local emergencies and national defense. The latter would be a deployable reserve component of the Army.
Originally posted by Bingolong
Repeat preformance here:
Originally posted by john9001
where does the Army Reserve fit in here?
Originally posted by Toad
Indeed it is. You seem determined to ignore the facts offered to you here.
BTW, the quote from US Code (The United States Code is the codification by subject matter of the general and permanent laws of the United States. ) is from the current US Code. It defines the current meaning of the word militia as used in general and permanent laws of the US. Hope that helps you.
As for your misunderstanding of the 2nd Amendment and the subordinate militia clause, I have high hopes that the US Supreme Court will set you right on that one in the near future, although I suspect you would argue with them and tell them they're incorrect if the ruling is for individual right.
Originally posted by lazs2
A fireman would be in grave danger if a home was full of RPG's
lazs
Originally posted by Arlo
Can you seem to remember the source? And all residents of a state are technically "answerable" to their governor. But they're all not automatically authorized by the governor to equip themselves with modern military hardware when they feel like. ;)
Originally posted by john9001Representative legislation and civilized law are such a hard concepts to grasp. No ... wait .... they're not. ;)
i thought the governor and government was "answerable" to the people.
Originally posted by ArloThat isnt what I said--no need to do such bs trying to make a point
Representative legislation and civilized law are such a hard concepts to grasp. No ... wait .... they're not. ;)
bj said, "I seem to remember reading that even the 'unorganized' militia/cadre is answerable to the governor"
bj is illustrating a claimed default chain of command existing between the governor and any group of hillbillies wanting to own M-60s ... as well as such authorizing the equipment. I illustrated authority given the governor to execute law in their jurisdiction as legislation by the elected representatives of the people (and yes, all of which are answerable for their acts - not unlike the POTUS) allows.
:aok
1. Such volunteers who of their own volition agree to service in conformity with regulations prescribed by the Adjutant General who are (i) citizens of the Commonwealth, (ii) at least sixteen, provided that any volunteer under the age of eighteen shall have the written consent of at least one parent or guardian, and (iii) less than sixty-five years of age may join the Virginia State Defense Force.
2. Such persons of the unorganized militia who may be drafted to fill the force structure of the Virginia State Defense Force or who may be ordered out for active duty until released from such service.
Originally posted by Toad
Again, the militia clause is a subordinate clause.
The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence.
The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia.
That's really all there is to it, although I understand it will take an SC ruling to make plain words understandable to some of you people.
No one that as read the actual history of the writing of the 2nd amendement, coupled with the writings of the founders of this nation can honestly have any doubt about what the amendment means or the intent of the founders in writing it.
That does not mean there isn't a shipload of weasle-word lawyers that won't try to obfuscate plain language and twist the Constitution into something it was never intended to be.
Originally posted by Toad
You simply fail to grasp the basic truth: The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia.
Study on those two sentences until the SC rules on it as an individual right.
Cheers!
Originally posted by lazs2
bingie and arlo.. you keep avoiding
Originally posted by Bingolong
I guess we will find out.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a6J5sVRt9a4g&refer=home
Originally posted by Toad
From the very first post in this thread, it was clear you didn't know what this was all about.
It's not about a militia at all. As I mentioned before I doubt you'll realize that fact even after the SC rules on the 2nd as a collective vs individual right.
Originally posted by Toad
It doesn't matter if you agree with me or not; I really don't care. The only guys that matter are on the SC.
OTOH, I see no point in discussing it with someone that doesn't really understand the basis of the case.
Originally posted by lazs2
exactly... The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. One of those reasons is because one day we may need a militia (composed of all of the people).
The point is that the founders recognized that the people had a right to defend themselves from any kind of tyranny including that of their own government if needed.
The point is that the militia was meant to be all of the people. any defenition of militia that does not include all of the people is a false one. That is probably why the current code, 311 defines both an organized and an unorganized militia.
The unorganized militia according to current federal code is just as it was in 1776.. it is all of the people.
and bingie.. as for me going around armed and claiming constitutional militia status... I am no martyr. It would be right but it would be expensive and dangerous... Just because their is a law that does not make it right.
I am sure that you would have told the negros who wanted to attend white schools that they were wrong because the law said they couldn't and that if they didn't believe it then they should just go and attend and see what happened.
Some brave ones did.
lazs
Originally posted by Bingolong
hard to have a battle of wits when your unarmed.
Originally posted by Toad
It doesn't seem to keep you from posting. I suppose I should admire your effort.
Originally posted by Maverick
Toad, a troll is not something to be admired, pitied maybe, contemptible certainly, but definitely not admired.
Originally posted by john9001
Bingolong=arlo?
their posts seem so similar. When someone does not agree with them, they use a personal attack.
Originally posted by Bingolong
speaking of trolls, where's your bridge?
Originally posted by Bingolong
I bet I've read alot more than you have on this case
Good Day sir,
The Justices chose to write out for themselves the constitutional question they will undertake to answer in Heller. Both sides had urged the Court to hear the city’s case, but they had disagreed over how to frame the Second Amendment issue.
Here is the way the Court phrased the granted issue:
“Whether the following provisions — D.C. Code secs. 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 — violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?”
Originally posted by Bingolong
No I wouldnt have stole the Africans from their homeland in the 1st place.
“Whether the following provisions — D.C. Code secs. 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 — violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?”
Originally posted by midnight Target
That seems to be the implication. You probably wouldn't have any trouble passing laws limiting books to people who did not own land or who weren't white males... if this were still the 18th century.
Originally posted by john9001
Bingolong=arlo?
their posts seem so similar. When someone does not agree with them, they use a personal attack.
Originally posted by Arlo
Anything more abrasive than a sponge seems to skin you raw. You're surrounded by Arlos. Good luck with that. :D
Originally posted by indy007
Purchased. They were a commodity, sold by other Africans.
Originally posted by john9001
don't flatter yourself, your about as abrasive as whipped cream. :lol
Originally posted by Arlo
Then what's with the regular tears, dear. ;)
Originally posted by john9001
tears of laughter, laughing at your futile attempts to insult people.
Originally posted by john9001
<>>
Originally posted by midnight Target
And why did you change the subject Toad?
Originally posted by Toad
The subject is individual vs collective rights in the Bill of Rights. From the way the SC framed the question they will address, it is clear they are looking at to determine if it is an individual right.
That last about books illustrates the nature of the dependent clause in the 2nd.
Originally posted by Arlo
So futile you're fixated on whining about it all the time? *poke* :D
Here's a hint:
A: Some people are just naturally prone to feeling insulted and complaining about it more than others, bless their hypersensitive, bruise-prone souls.
B: Some people aren't in the habit of bubble-wrapping everything they post to protect group A, damn their evil, bully, mean, heartless "troll"-souls.
C: Some people waffle between A and B and don't seem sure if they want to cry or laugh in between proving how "brilliant" they are with every post, may medication eventually help their bi-polarness.
D: Some people aren't worried about how "bad" the other guy is and are better at concentrating on their own character and not deviating from the root of the argument, pity their sensible natures.
Originally posted by midnight Target
Actually we were discussing the specificity of the question the SC would be reviewing. You changed the subject.
Lazs admits I'm right, you may as well follow along. The right of a militia is already decided, the rights of the individual will be decided... maybe.
Originally posted by lazs2
MT.. what you are saying is not what bingie is saying.. you are interpreting the ruling the court will make as decieding if the second is an individual right or just a worthless government right.
This would be fine with me as they have always come down... at least implied.. that it is indeed an individual right just like every other right.. that a "collective right" is no right at all.
bingie believes that the question has already been settled and that all they are going to do is decide what a "mitia" is. That only a militia has rights. in his opinion.. the second is only as good as what the government tells you it is.. he perscribes to the "no right at all" theory.
quite a difference.
I can't help but feel the SC will skirt the issue yet again... implying that it is indeed an individual right but the right of the government to decide what guns are appropriate... pretty much as it stands now with one exception.. a gun that is locked up or all apart with no ammo is not a gun... A total ban on guns would not be acceptable.
The ruling will probly stop total gun bans but not restrictions. I can't really see em going much farther than that. Too many gun owners and constitutional scholars on the one hand who feel it is indeed a real individual right and too big a precedent to set to say that "the people" simply means any organization the state says it recognizes and not individuals.
On the other hand.. an outright admission that the government has no right to restrict would mean that thousands of gun laws would have to be looked at again. It might open the floodgates and people might start getting uppity and think that they had some say... some rights..
lazs
Originally posted by john9001
Bingolong, what does inalienable rights mean?
Originally posted by Bingolong
Who said you have inalienable rights?
Originally posted by lazs2
bingie.. we shall have to see. I don't believe that there is such a thing as a collective right.. that is no right at all. I don't think that such a thing was ever even dreamed of up till a few decades ago by liberal socialists and activist judges.
I believe that either we have rights or that we don't.. if we can have them spelled out as to "not be infringed" and that not be worth the paper it is printed on then.. you are correct.. we are only fooling ourselves that we are a free people and that we are nothing more than subjects of our government.. the grand experiment ends now.
As for militia? well.. it matters not but.. the current code and the original intent are the same.. it is everyone. every able bodied man. The current code gets a little more detailed than the founders ever cared about but.. it is all just saying the same thing.. the "unorganized militia" is by the code...311... everyone.
Now you can squirm and twist all you want but even by your own logic.. until they change the code then we are all the "unorganized militia"
There are few besides yourself tho that even care since almost everyone agrees that the first part of the amendment about the militia is not conditional to the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
The only thing the militia part does is help my case.. it pretty much says that you can't take away guns that would be good for use in war. That is really what the miller case said.. they only made his sawn off shotgun illegal because it was not "useful as a military arm" (they were of course wrong).
The case won't have anything to do with the militia. What is the militia... will not even be discussed except in passing.
lazs
Originally posted by Bingolong
What is the militia... I bet we will find out.
Its the Main reason you get to keep and bear arms.
Originally posted by Bingolong
311 says Members laz! Members of a group.
I have been saying you want the militia to stay all along as it does boost your case.
What is the militia... I bet we will find out.
Its the Main reason you get to keep and bear arms.
Originally posted by john9001
now you are confused, i keep and bear arms and i never joined a organized/disorganized/unorganized militia.
how do you explain that?
Originally posted by wrag
MY MY MY :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
This kinda stuff must make you feel real good about yourself.:rofl
IMHO [you're] nothing more [than] a troller looking for a reaction so here you go [:] :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
So all betters now[,] are you?
Originally posted by wrag
Your an American right?
Your over 14 right?
Your under 60 right? (or is it 50?)
YOU ARE IN THE MILITIA!
IF you ever served in the military HONORABLY you're in the militia as an OFFICER until active military arrive and releave you of command and this continues until you're nearly in the grave age wise!
Originally posted by lazs2
... that "the people" simply means any organization the state says it recognizes and not individuals.
Originally posted by Arlo
Is that a yes or a no? ;)
Who's taking your right to defend yourself away by requiring you to register a gun in the event you use it for more than just that? Gun control isn't just about taking your guns away, john. Gun control can also be tools that help the authorities investigate and prosecute a criminal. We can't have that, can we? :D
Originally posted by john9001
So you think it's OK to register guns? That's what the German republic said in the 1930's, "register your guns to help fight crime", sounds good huh, who is against fighting crime? When the Nazi's came into power they got the registration lists and just collected all the guns.
Originally posted by lazs2
wrag explained it to you guys quite well. The militia is everyone.. they don't have to do a thing to be in it. by bingies flawed reasoning then you really can't say you are a "member of the human race" unless you have a card and pay dues to the "human race" or.. worse.. that the government tells you if you are allowed to join the human race.
311 simply recognizes that organized militias can exist and can be under some control.. it says.. at the end tho that everyone else is part of the unorganized militia.. it has the exact same spirit and defines it the same way as the founders.
just as we are all members of the human race.. we are, all of us able bodied citizens, members of the unorganized militia..
To ask for rules and regulations and organized out of the "unorganized militia" is silly on the face of it.
arlo is trying to say that "the right of the people" can mean the rights of not the people but of groups of people only with the ability to exclude anyone the government wants from being "the people" that would not bode well for all the other amendments. The constitution is very clear on what is the people and what is the state.
The 1982 congressional study was important since.. it made of mockery of bingies whole arguement.. it stated that the right could not be seen as anything but an individual one.
That throws out.. or puts in perspective.. the whole militia thing in the second... it pretty much means that a militia sure would be nice sometimes but it has nothing to do with if we are allowed as individuals to have guns or not.. that part is spelled out quite plainly.. the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
"the right of the people to be secure in their persons...." is that a collective right too? how does "people" mean one thing in one amendment and the oppossite in another?
A right of "the people" is an individual one.. an individual right is a real right.
A "collective right" is no right at all. It is 1984 newspeak it is the same as saying slavery is freedom.
lazs
Originally posted by Bingolong
every citizen, so "enrolled" and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock....
After he enrolls he gets a gun.
[/B]
Originally posted by john9001
thats not what it says, it says after enrollment he has six months to get a gun, it does NOT say he cannot have a gun before he enrolls.
read what it says, not what you want it to say.
Originally posted by Bingolong
It says he shall provide a musket to What john? Be in the Militia!
Sit down!
Originally posted by john9001
you sit down , you have it backwards, he needs a gun to join the militia, he does not need to join the militia to have a gun.
Originally posted by Bingolong
Btw laz, you are over 17 and under 45 correct?
Originally posted by lazs2
Nope... 57
As I have said in earlier posts.. or could it be threads? As I have said... you might have a little trouble with the whole gender and age discrimination thing.
There are laws against age and gender discrimination. Plus.. Like nearly everyone else in the world.. I know that the second is not conditional on militia anyway so.. no matter how you look at it.. I am in the clear.
lazs
Originally posted by lazs2
and...it would never be all of us in any case. "able bodied" means sound of mind and body. A felon has had his citizenship rights restricted... a minor has no rights.
but women and people over 45? you might have some problems on that one due to current law.
but... as I said. the seconds pointing out of our rights has nothing to do with membership in a militia.
lazs
Originally posted by lazs2
bingie.. again.. being in the militia.. no matter what.. is not a condition of the second.. the "people" have the right not the militia.
but... I don't think that if I wanted to be considered part of the unorganized militia.. that being told that I was too old would stand up in any court. just as telling a woman she couldn't be would.
Originally posted by lazs2
bingie.. again.. being in the militia.. no matter what.. is not a condition of the second.. the "people" have the right not the militia.
but... I don't think that if I wanted to be considered part of the unorganized militia.. that being told that I was too old would stand up in any court. just as telling a woman she couldn't be would.
But.. even so.. this may be one area where people have changed since the 1700's.. a 30 year old was an old man back then but he was still probly ten times better shape than some 30 year olds now.. still.. by the time he was 45.. he was pretty broke down. today.. it is a matter of genetics and exercise etc.. I am for sure fit enough for any unorganized militia.
It is also fair to note that many front line combat troops today are over 45.
but.. if they told me I couldn't be part of the militia.. no big deal.. don't really care... I am still "the people" and as such.. my right to keep and bear arms is supposed to be protected... to not be "infringed".
lazs
Originally posted by john9001
again you are reading into it what you want to read, it is not giving the people the right to have guns, it is protecting the right the people already have to have guns. Shall not be infringed.
Originally posted by Bingolong
It also does not assume that every one own's a gun. It says why you have the right to.
Originally posted by AKIron
No it doesn't. However, the SC will soon settle this argument, legally anyhow. No doubt there will be others like you up in arms, uh, well, opposed to their likely ruling.
Originally posted by ArloInteresting---not necessarily YOU Arlo, (not sure where you are on this) but the Left in general, DOESN'T want us to provide I.D. when voting, but has no problem creating a national database of every gun-owner/gun in the United States:confused:
Is that a yes or a no? ;)
Who's taking your right to defend yourself away by requiring you to register a gun in the event you use it for more than just that? Gun control isn't just about taking your guns away, john. Gun control can also be tools that help the authorities investigate and prosecute a criminal. We can't have that, can we? :D
Originally posted by lazs2
bingie... you don't even know what the amendment says.
"wrong laz,
It says
"a well regulated militia , as being necessary {"a necessity"} to the security of a free state,". It is the only thing that is a necessity in the whole amendment. Because of that necessity. the people "have the right" to keep and bear arms."
It does not say "as being necessary" what it says is that " 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.
Now, they sure seem to know the difference between state and people since they use both words in the same amendment to mean two different things. People.. and ... government...
No one but you and a couple of far left professors would ever think that the militia was conditional.. it would be conditional the other way around if anything... if the right of the people to keep and bear arms were taken away then there would be no militia nor would it be "necessary"... It would simply not exist.
To say that the militia is simply the government and that "the people" is who they allow.. and then to say that the amendment was written so that the government could arm itself against the people... well.. that would not have made sense when the amendment was written and it doesn't make sense now..
But.. if you want the SC to define "people" and peoples rights in the constitution to mean a "collective right" (no right at all) well.. the whole constitution would be just so much toilet paper. With the government giving and taking rights at whim.. no inalienable rights at all save those granted by a government.
I do not believe the court wants to go down this path.. Like a lot of lefties tho.. I am sure the 2nd is unpopular with you but.. most of the left is smarter than you and can see past their nose.. they see that.. much as they hate the second.. to go down your totalitarian path would open the floodgates on any other amendment that used the word "people". Or...for that matter.. "state".
You might not want the fourth defined in your newspeak way for instance.
lazs
Originally posted by Arlo
The left doesn't want voter's registration and picture I.D. shown a the polls? Or is it a specific kook or subset that want this? News to me. But then, I don't subscribe to their newsletter.
I'll concede this: I understand why some fear certain types of legislation. And it's not like I lack all sense of foresight. I think it's just that I don't feel the urgency to be proactive against something that's really been around, in one form or another, since long before I hit this rock and doesn't register on my threat radar. Registering handguns .... background checks .... not a big deal to me. And the arguments made to date haven't driven me closer to thinking so. America's gonna stay well armed. A Nazi type gun roundup just isn't gonna happen until our society changes a lot more than the Republicans melodramatizing the Democrats and visa versa.
Originally posted by lazs2
bingie.please give the source for the opinion that you copied. It is just that.. some authors opinion of rulings. "a sophisticated collective model" means nothing. it is your authors opinion not the supreme courts
lazs
Originally posted by lazs2
In the original miller case miller was not part of any organized militia.. the court was not interested in that and did indeed rule that it was an individual right. there is no such thing as any other type of right other than a government right.
The reason miller was not allowed to own a sawn off shotgun was because the court was mislead by the government.. they were lied to. the government said that a sawn off shotgun had no military or defense (miltia) purpose.
they knew this to be a lie since the government had used sawn off shotguns in wars in the past.
Now.. I would ask you.. can you define "collective right" for me?
I don't think you can.
would you say that everywhere in the amendments where "right of the people" or the "people" is used.. it really only means the state? that the words are interchangeable?
You had better hope that the SC doesn't rule such. Lose the second and you lose em all.
lazs
Originally posted by AKIron
You have to be pretty out of touch with mainstream politics not to know that many prominent Democrats have spoken out loudly against voter ID.
Just one local example among many, many others. Why exactly do you think democrats are opposed to voter ID?
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/051607dntexvoterid.709d88f1.html
Originally posted by Arlo
Not so much. "Many a prominent" does not a party make. I know more Democrats with guns than Republicans. Which is all I was letting Laz know. Laz once claimed to not be partisan driven and to be more of an independant than I. I'm not seeing it. Nor am I with many here. *ShruG*
You're the one that brought up the opposition voter ID thing. Sounded kooky to me. Now I'm not sure which way you're deciding to go with it. I'm gonna wait until you do. :)
Originally posted by AKIron
Many may not but a majority might and I think you'll find if you study it for about 10 minutes that the majority of leaders in the democratic party are against voter ID.
I didn't bring it up, someone else did. You claimed ignorance. Ignorance on this rather important and debated topic renders your opinion on political leaders rather worthless imo.
Will save you the trouble of google, just read:
http://www.democrats.org/page/community/post/stevesouthwell/CqpN
In a vote of 228 to 196, the House Wednesday approved a bill that requires Americans to show proof of citizenship in order to vote, but Democrats said the measure amounts to a Republican voter suppression bill.
The Federal Election Integrity Act of 2006 (H.R. 4844), also known as the Voter ID Act, would take effect in 2010 and require voters to present a photo ID that could not have been obtained without proof of U.S. citizenship.
But Democrats were less than pleased with the bill's passage. House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer of Maryland said the bill is "tantamount to a 21st century poll tax."
"It will disenfranchise large numbers of legal voters," the Associated Press quoted Hoyer as saying.
Speaking on the House floor Wednesday prior to the vote, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California said that in approving the measure, her colleagues have undermined the "right to vote" and "our democracy." The bill would also disenfranchise voters, she said.
"Though the right to vote is the foundation of our democracy, the bill we debate today would in effect disenfranchise millions of American voters: the elderly, African Americans, Asian Americans, Latinos, Native Americans, people with disabilities; and the list goes on," Pelosi said.
She noted that more than a month ago, the president signed into law the Voting Rights Act Reauthorization. "We overcame many obstacles, even for the reauthorization of that legislation, to affirm the most precious right in our democracy -- the right to vote," Pelosi said.
"As the NAACP has said, this bill 'would disenfranchise many of the very citizens that the VRA [Voting Rights Act] is designed to protect.' And the Republicans call that integrity. I don't think so," Pelosi added.
Hastert responded that "the foundation of democracy is sealed in the promise of fair voting for the American people."
"I am disappointed that Leader Pelosi and 191 Democrats voted against the Voter ID Act and do not support a fair election process that our nation expects," Hastert said.
Originally posted by bj229r
OHHHhh very well Arlo:
link (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200609/POL20060920e.html)
(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/162/370451211_5da2041bf6.jpg)
The left doesn't want voter's registration and picture I.D. shown a the polls? Or is it a specific kook or subset that want this? News to me.
Kinda thought it was a nation-wide thing. Never met a Democrat who had a problem with it.
Originally posted by bj229r
You've obviously never met any members of the House;)
Originally posted by Arlo
What's the neccessity? Where does one slot the priority for such a perceived crisis? There's a lot more rotten meat on Congress's plate right now, even if this is a distraction worth attacking political rivals over.
Originally posted by Toad
Necessity? You question the necessity of having only citizens vote on issues that affect citizens? If it isn't necessary, why not just have online internet polls open to anyone in any country and use that to decide our issues?
Originally posted by Toad
(http://nukegingrich.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/thejudge.thumbnail.jpg)
Taurus Judge: .45 LC or .410 shotshell. Completely legal.
Originally posted by lazs2
Unlike you and arlo (and existing precedent) .. I don't think that they will say that "the People" means the state or that the state means the people. I don't think they will use the useless newspeak term "collective right" since it is "meaningless."
I don't think they are quite ready yet to turn the constitution into toilet paper and get "people" to upset...
Originally posted by Toad
Necessity? You question the necessity of having only citizens vote on issues that affect citizens?
Originally posted by Toad
Now, does it require a tattoo on the forehead? Nope. I think the elements of such a system already exist.
Originally posted by AKIron
If that would favor the democrats instead of the republicans I'm sure that's exactly what the democrats would be pushing for.
Originally posted by Toad
It's a hand-held shotgun; it shoots 2 3/4" or 3" .410 shotshells. It's perfectly legal.
Originally posted by Bingolong
Does the US Military issue them in 1939 or after NFA in 1934? has nothing to do with Miller decision.
Originally posted by Arlo
That would be an obvious no if you read what I posted closely enough without reading into it.
What's the accomplishment desired? What's the neccessity? Where does one slot the priority for such a perceived crisis?
Originally posted by Bingolong
Still falls under the NFA as "any other weapon" and requires registration.
From what I can tell its for law enforcement or the military only?
Originally posted by Toad
Nah, you state you're satisfied with your state's system, which does seem better than most.
However, in many if not most states, a driver's license alone will get you into the voter's booth one way or the other.
Twenty states do not require driver's license applicants to prove they are legally in the United States.
Clearly, there IS a need for proof of citizenship before voting and clearly there's no effective nationwide system in place.
Nor did you state that you agree with the need for such a nationwide system. You merely said the elements are pretty much in place. That's not the same thing at all.
And you DO question the necessity for such a nationwide system, it's priority, etc., etc..
Originally posted by Toad
Note it is a shotgun available with as short as a 3" barrel.
Originally posted by Arlo
Toad, I really don't care about your perceptional disability.
Originally posted by lazs2
As for the "judge" and the various shotgun revolvers and derringers.. they have rifling in the barrel so are not considered shotguns in any case.
lazs
Originally posted by Toad
I see. So, since the Miller gun was sawed off at both barrel and stock it was not a shoulder fired weapon either.
Thus it is just like your derringer?
Originally posted by Toad
Ahhhh, shoot. You told him.
I was going to let him display more of his in-depth research and all inclusive knowledge of this entire subject area. ;)
How long do you think it'd take to hone out the rifling? Maybe just a little longer than it takes to erase the microstamping from a firing pin? :)
Originally posted by lazs2
arlo.. the "people" is every citizen.. nothing you cited changes that... "collective right" means nothing. It would have no meaning in any amendment that used the words "the people" except to mean the every citizen.
Other than that.. "collective right" is jibberish... It can only mean every citizen.. not some sort of hive mentality.
bingie.. I think toad answered you.. the second does not mean nor did miller mean that only current arms used by the military or.. militia.. were protected..
As for the "judge" and the various shotgun revolvers and derringers.. they have rifling in the barrel so are not considered shotguns in any case. In fact... you can buy shot loads for many popular caliber handguns including .22
lazs
Originally posted by Bingolong
(http://www.4-10.freeuk.com/stevenspistol1a.jpg)
Originally posted by Toad
How even more Nash-like.
That's it Arlo; of course! It's not what/how YOU write. It's the inability of nearly everyone else on the BBS to correctly understand what you wrote.
Couldn't be you; has to be the other guy.
Originally posted by lazs2
arlo.. the "people" is every citizen.. nothing you cited changes that... "collective right" means nothing. It would have no meaning in any amendment that used the words "the people" except to mean the every citizen.
Originally posted by Toad
Is it your position that Miller is somehow linked solely to weapons that were US military issue in 1939?
Bingolong: just pointing out what makes a shotgun for ya, it also says smooth bore as well as shoulder fired.
Originally posted by Toad
And how do you explain Miller's gun being considered a shotgun? Clearly it wasn't shoulder fired. The buttstock was cut down to basically a pistol grip.
Originally posted by ArloI'm really hoping the SCOTUS gives you a big STFU smackdown, but these days, who knows...
Nothing I cited changes people=citizens .... all of them. Gotcha. Didn't think I presented anything other than. ;)
Originally posted by bsdaddict
I'm really hoping the SCOTUS gives you a big STFU smackdown, but these days, who knows...
Originally posted by ArloI was referring to your statement that "people=citizens .... all of them", which to me smacks of collectivism and socialism and is what I'm hoping the SCOTUS smacks down. I have no problem with you personally, sorry if I came across as if I did...
Pretty sure that the SCOTUS doesn't have as much a personal issue with me as you apparently do. ;)
Originally posted by bsdaddict
I was referring to your statement that "people=citizens .... all of them", which to me smacks of collectivism and socialism and is what I'm hoping the SCOTUS smacks down. I have no problem with you personally, sorry if I came across as if I did...
Originally posted by ArloMy only "agenda" is that rights belong to individuals, not groups. That concept is pretty core to libertarian philosophy.
Do individuals have rights? Of course they do. Rights to own a gun? No argument here. Right to not have government regulate certain types of weapons in order to insure tranquility? Under debate, it seems. A given, one way or another? Only to those with a hardset agenda.
Originally posted by bsdaddict
My only "agenda" is that rights belong to individuals, not groups. That concept is pretty core to libertarian philosophy.
Originally posted by bsdaddict
The Constitution and BoR DO NOT recognize the rights of GROUPS, they simply enumerate some INDIVIDUAL rights, admonishes the FedGov to not mess with said rights, defines the scope of the FedGov and leaves everything else up to the States. They even recognize that the list of rights they're covering isn't exhaustive, as a saftey net. They do not create rights, nor do SCOTUS rulings. They simply RECOGNIZE them.
Rights aren't "created" by anything, other than me being a living, breathing human being. That's the concept behind "inalienable rights" and "All men are created equal". I own them. So do you. They're ours. Gov't doesn't "give" them to us, nor can it take them away. Furthermore, accepting any Gov't interference with my exercising my rights (registration, permits, licenses, etc...) is akin to having to ask permission. If you have to ask permission to do something or register prior to exercising a right, then you're not truely free to do it, are you?
Originally posted by Bingolong
Shotgun.:The term "shotgun" means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder
Originally posted by ArloFirst of all, the Founders provided a means to alter the Constitution if required, via amendments... Secondly, IMO only a communist would debate that opinion. Thirdly, way to change the subject... :P
Debateable opinion and ranging in scale of reason depending on the specifics being argued. Automobiles and assault weapons didn't exist when this nation was formed.
Originally posted by Toad
Counterpoint of order.
I'm not the one who said it was a defining element.
Originally posted by bsdaddict
First of all, the Founders provided a means to alter the Constitution if required, via amendments... Secondly, way to change the subject... :P
Originally posted by Arlosay what?
First of all ... of course they did and such bears contextual application to all.
Secondly, there's lots of things been discussed with marginal relationship in this thread. I've not deviated anymore (or less) than anyone else. ;)That's OK, I thought WE were debating individual vs. collective rights. If you want to move on to the next topic that's cool...
Originally posted by bsdaddict
say what?
Originally posted by bsdaddict
That's OK, I thought WE were debating individual vs. collective rights. If you want to move on to the next topic that's cool...
Originally posted by ArloThe "The Constitution is a Living Document" propenents hardly endorse amending the Constitution, they prefer the judicial to the legislative. Amending the Constitution IS constitutional. If you want to twist that into implying support for the "Living Document" crowd then you're either being intentionally ambiguous or flat-out deceitful.
Living document ... yes. Making sure all arguments over this are viewed within that context .... wise. :)
Originally posted by bsdaddict
The "The Constitution is a Living Document" propenents hardly endorse amending the Constitution, they prefer the judicial to the legislative. Amending the Constitution IS constitutional. If you want to twist that into implying support for the "Living Document" crowd then you're either being intentionally ambiguous or flat-out deceitful.
Originally posted by lazs2
In fact... you can buy shot loads for many popular caliber handguns including .22
lazs
Originally posted by Toad
It makes no difference either way.
You still haven't explained this.
(http://www.4-10.freeuk.com/stevenspistol1a.jpg)
Is this a shotgun?
Originally posted by Toad
It makes no difference either way.
You still haven't explained this.
(http://www.4-10.freeuk.com/stevenspistol1a.jpg)
Is this a shotgun?
Originally posted by Toad
Is this a shotgun? 14" barrel, shoulder fired, fired the M576 buckshot round containing twenty pellets of #4 buckshot (M576E1) or twenty-seven pellets of #4 buckshot (M576E2).
(http://freepages.military.rootsweb.com/~bobw/M79.gif)
Originally posted by lazs2
bingie... actually, one of the judges asked the government toadie if a sawn off shotgun could have any martial use.. they lied and said no.
But.. If you want to use miller... then I would say that machine guns and automatic weapons would pass the miller muster as being weapons that are quite useful.
lazs
Originally posted by Bingolong
THAT is a Stevens .410
"And how do you explain Miller's gun being considered a shotgun? Clearly it wasn't shoulder fired. The buttstock was cut down to basically a pistol grip."
It wasnt, it was illegal, it was "any other weapon". So is the stevens 410.
Originally posted by Toad
You are almost right. It is a Stevens No. 35 Off-Hand Shotgun. Google it up.
It is, beyond doubt, a shotgun. It is classified by the NFA as "any other weapon", a typically legalese term used as a catch-all for those guns that didn't immediately fit into the other descriptions in the National Firearms Act of 1934. But it is a shotgun nonetheless. Your first hint might have been that it shoots shotgun shells.
As for registration, yes, that's true. However, other hand-held shotguns like the Taurus Judge do not have to be registered.
A Stevens No. 35 Off-Hand Shotgun can be purchased today by anyone that can muster up the whopping $5 transfer tax the NFA requires.
BTW, you seem to be confused about legal and illegal weapons. For example your response to my question about the Miller weapon being a shotgun was:
If the Miller shotgun was classified as "any other weapon" it wouldn't have been illegal at all. It would merely have required registration and a payment of the $5 tax.
But once again, you are simply wrong. The Miller gun would have been classified as a "Short Barreled Shotgun" under the NFA, not "any other weapon". As such, it could be legally owned if registered and the appropriate tax paid.
For example, you could buy this SBS right now:
(http://www.hatchergun.com/NFA/Coachgun_I-2.JPG)
From this site here (http://www.hatchergun.com/sbs.htm) for$780 + transfer fee.
Once again, I am reminded of the amount of study and depth of knowledge you show with regards to this entire subject.
Originally posted by Arlo
M79s are legal. Seems to be a trendy weapon of choice for survivalists as of late. But is ownership of 40mm grenades legal? There are plenty of optional types of rounds for that weapon:
Should they all be legal if the round's specific purpose cannot be defined as practical for defense? Guess that goes right back to the questions of militia and divine right to ownership of exotic weaponry.
Originally posted by bsdaddict
[edited in] Secondly, IMO only a communist would debate that opinion.
Originally posted by Toad
The M79 and its explosive rounds are classified as "Destructive Devices" by the NFA. You can own them, $200 tax on each item, as in $200 for the M79 and $200 for each round classified as a DD. There are some rounds out there that may not be classed as DD though.
Should they be legal? They ARE legal. I see no reason why they should not be legal.
Originally posted by Arlowas wondering when you would... :)
Just saw your edit. Heh.
You wouldn't be the first one who resorted to calling me a commie when you got a little too excited about an exchange with me.then continue the exchange and give me an alternative... ;) what points in my statement do you deem "debatable opinion"?
Did you serve alongside me in the Cold War or were you "defending capitalism" by avoiding such? :DNope, I didn't enlist 'till '94, missed the cold war. Got a ribbon for Iraq 1 though, even though I was never "over there"...
Originally posted by bsdaddict
was wondering when you would... :)
then continue the debate and give me an alternative... ;)
Originally posted by bsdaddict
what points in my statement do you deem "debatable opinion"?
Originally posted by bsdaddict
Nope, I didn't enlist 'till '94, missed the cold war. Got a ribbon for Iraq 1 though... :)
Originally posted by Toad
... owning an exact Miller-replica shotgun isn't illegal. It's merely a matter of registering it under the NFA and paying the transfer tax. The length of the barrel once under 18" is pretty inconsequential. You can own one of any length under 18" as long as it is registered under the NFA and the tax paid.
Originally posted by Arlo"debatable opinion".
Where did I leave you hangin'?
Anything not a written law or a definitively ruled on matter is opinion and up for debate. Hence practically every political thread on this forum. What points in your statement reflect anything that doesn't involve your opinion and not a court ruling or standing law without contest? Not that that's a bad thing (and you shouldn't jump to concluding you're under attack). I've my own and you shouldn't even presume mine always conflict with yours.well, my statement is based on my understanding of two documents, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution/Bill of Rights. I'm still hanging on what part of my statement (which is based on my opinion...) you consider up for debate.
Originally posted by Arlo
What's the goal of terrorism? Should tools to help achieve that goal be readily available without regulation or a method to track? Should we worry? Should we not? Is it a divine right? WWONFD? (What would our national forefathers do?) :)
Originally posted by bsdaddict
"debatable opinion".
well, my statement is based on my understanding of two documents, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution/Bill of Rights. I'm still hanging on what part of my statement (which is based on my opinion...) you consider up for debate.
Originally posted by Toad
Note that an M-79 (or any other destructive device) is not readily available, not unregulated or not tracked. Thus the questions you pose are moot.
As a DD, anyone legally purchasing one would have to have his chief of local law enforcement sign off on a Federal Form 4 that the purchaser is not wanted locally and that the official knows of no law which will be broken if the purchaser is approved by the government. Then The BATFE will examine the paperwork for completeness, it will be assigned to an agent, who will have a nationwide FBI background check performed on the purchaser.
Highly unlikely then that a terrorist would procure an M79 legally. It would probably be far to easier to smuggle some in should terrorists need them.
So no, I don't worry about M79's.. The last big terrorists seemed to have little trouble getting some really huge, fast destructive devices to fly into buildings. That terrorist loophole still exists and is probably easier to exploit than gaining an M79 through legal channels.
Is there a divine right (hmm... who's the one getting all excited here?)? I think the rights enumerated in the BOR exist prior to and independent of the creation of the government, as did Jefferson.
WWONFD? I would think they would probably allow the M79 as it is typical of "arms" as perceived in Colonial times.
Originally posted by Bingolong
in 1939 there was no "short barreled shot gun" definition
a double barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length, bearing identification number 76230, said defendants, at the time of so transporting said firearm in interstate commerce as aforesaid, not having registered said firearm as required by Section 1132d of Title 26, United States Code, 26 U.S.C.A. 1132d (Act of June 26, 1934, c. 757, Sec. 5, 48 Stat. 1237), and not having in their possession a stamp-affixed written order for said firearm as provided by Section 1132c, Title 26, United States Code, 26 U.S.C.A. 1132c (June 26, 1934, c. 757, Sec. 4, 48 Stat. 1237) and the regulations issued under authority of the said Act of Congress known as the 'National Firearms Act' approved June 26, 1934, contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the United States.
Originally posted by Arlo
So .... we're good with this? Good. :D
Originally posted by Toad
I was always good with it. You seemed to be the one with questions.
Originally posted by Toad
Bingolong,
I'm truly sorry you don't really study this stuff before you post. It would save a lot of electronic ink.
The point is Stevens manufactured it as a shotgun. The NFA merely classifies it as AOW. It's not illegal; it just requires registration/taxation.
You apparently still haven't figured out that owning an exact Miller-replica shotgun isn't illegal. It's merely a matter of registering it under the NFA and paying the transfer tax. The length of the barrel once under 18" is pretty inconsequential. You can own one of any length under 18" as long as it is registered under the NFA and the tax paid.
Study hard and good luck to you!
Originally posted by Arlo
Intent of 2nd: Arlo says the national forefathers weren't intending to imply divine right of any specific form of weaponry personally desired and that the term "militia" (which was carefully woven into the rationalization behind the amendment) had no rational meaning if it was all just about an individual's right to own an assault weapon. Nor does Arlo think the term "well-regulated" was accidently penned in when what they really meant was "gun and knife show supplied or on sale at K-mart."
Originally posted by Toad
You DO remind me of Nash. Absolutely.
If I read that hodgepodge correctly, you and I disagree on the 2nd.
Originally posted by Bingolong
I was trying to find shotguns in use by the military or before 1939.
Originally posted by Arlo
I'm sure one (if you're not feeling up to it) or both of us (if you are) will survive this. :)
Originally posted by Toad
Well, I'm certain I will. G'luck to ya.
Originally posted by Toad
IIRC, you were trying to find shotguns in use by the military on or about 1939.
That's pretty ludicrous in and of itself.
Shotguns, with barrels varying from pistol length to duck hunting length were used in every conflict from the American Revolution to the current affair in Iraq. The idea that short barreled shotguns (including pistol length; google Lemat revolver) are NOT historic US military weapons is laughable.
Originally posted by Toad
IIRC, you were trying to find shotguns in use by the military on or about 1939.
That's pretty ludicrous in and of itself.
Shotguns, with barrels varying from pistol length to duck hunting length were used in every conflict from the American Revolution to the current affair in Iraq. The idea that short barreled shotguns (including pistol length; google Lemat revolver) are NOT historic US military weapons is laughable.
Originally posted by Arlo
Trench clearing in WWI sticks out in my mind. ;)
Originally posted by Toad
Arlo, the 1897 Trench guns had "legal" barrels of over 18". Most were 20" but some were 18's. I have an 1897 riot gun with an 18"; used by the Federal Reserve until about 1970 and then sold off as surplus for $10. My dad should've bought ten of them. Anyway, the WW1 trench guns would not have been covered by the NFA. I'm sure Bingolong will be quick to point that out.
Originally posted by Toad
Just pointing out that the 1897 trench (or the riot version) is not an NFA firearm. Bingolong beat me to the post though; not suprising. He seems entranced with the NFA although it has nothing to do with the 2nd and is actually correctly seen as a part of the tax code.
The 1897's do sometimes exhibit a rather disconcerting trait of going off now and then without anything touching the trigger if you slam the action closed.
Pays to be very careful where you are pointing it when you work the action.
Originally posted by Toad
Bingolong, before you :aok me, please understand that when I posted
"The idea that short barreled shotguns (including pistol length; google Lemat revolver) are NOT historic US military weapons is laughable. "
that means I find the US V Miller SCOTUS decision an incorrect ruling that is so wrong in so many ways I can only laugh at its absurdity.
Arlo, the 1897 Trench guns had "legal" barrels of over 18". Most were 20" but some were 18's. I have an 1897 riot gun with an 18"; used by the Federal Reserve until about 1970 and then sold off as surplus for $10. My dad should've bought ten of them. Anyway, the WW1 trench guns would not have been covered by the NFA. I'm sure Bingolong will be quick to point that out.
The entire militia aspect of the 2nd is misunderstood by those who don't think the 2nd is an individual right. A little study into the writings of the Founders and into the actual history of the amendment should be enough to set the SC on a course to settle this once and for all as an individual right.
Originally posted by Toad
Just pointing out that the 1897 trench (or the riot version) is not an NFA firearm. Bingolong beat me to the post though; not suprising. He seems entranced with the NFA although it has nothing to do with the 2nd and is actually correctly seen as a part of the tax code.
The 1897's do sometimes exhibit a rather disconcerting trait of going off now and then without anything touching the trigger if you slam the action closed.
Pays to be very careful where you are pointing it when you work the action.
Originally posted by Toad
The NFA is about excise taxes; end of story Bingolong.
Originally posted by Toad
I have faith that this court ruling will find for individual rights.
I believe this because, as I said, any honest man of normal intelligence that actually reads the writings of the men that wrote the Constitution, that actually reads the history of the 2nd amendment as it was debated and finally approved, that actually studies the Bill of Rights as a whole can come to no other conclusion except that the 2nd delineates an individual right.
We find that the history of the Second Amendment
reinforces the plain meaning of its text, namely that it protects
individual Americans in their right to keep and bear arms whether or not
they are a member of a select militia or performing active military
service or training.
Originally posted by Toad
You honor me too much. I've met Laz and spent quite a bit of time with him at a Con. I hold him in high regard and count him amongst the more honest and perceptive individuals I know. Certainly far more so than most that post here.
As for your SC justices. Miller was a travesty of justice, with many obvious flaws. A short barreled shotgun NOT an historic US military arm? Come now.
US v Emerson in 2001 said it quite plainly.
Originally posted by Toad
You "honor" me too much. I've met Laz and spent quite a bit of time with him at a Con. I hold him in high regard and count him amongst the more honest and perceptive individuals I know. Certainly far more so than most that post here.
Originally posted by Arlo
Emotionally tied or opposed to your views and desires, I cannot justify that much hubris cushioning my own opinion.
Originally posted by Arlo
But Jefferson wasn't the only architect and more than his opinion counts (or counted). Hence the nature of an amendable constitution and the design of the three branch government.
Originally posted by lazs2
Never met you. You seem a little flighty tho.
Originally posted by lazs2
arlo.. sorry I upset you.[1] but.. this thing is getting a little far afield here. Bsd pretty much seen it.. we try to argue one point and when you and bingie start to lose (you more than him) you go off on a tangent and claim victim status and that your opponents are getting angry at you personally[2]
Never met you. You seem a little flighty tho.[3]
Bsd asked you to stick to the point.. the point in question was what you thought "collective rights" meant.. it is jibberish and it SEEMS that you admitted that it meant nothing more than each and every citizen.. or... another way of saying individual rights.[4]
You then talked of the constitution being a "living document" and it SEEMS that you agree that the amendment process is the real mechanism for change and not judge activism.. that a judge is only allowed to interpret intent?[5]
you jump to cars. there are no laws stopping you from buying a car. You do not have to register it and you can drive it without a licence and as fast as you want.. so long as it is on private property... many many cars have lived out their lives (or ended em) in such a manner.. cars are not a good example.. I am sure the founders would be happy with the way things are so far as cars.[6]
So.. what are we really talking about? do either you or bingie feel that the DC law is just and not an infringment?
It is a ban. you are good with this? that is why we will not come to an agreement... any ruling that said it was fine for a city to ban guns is no "sensible" gun law.. or do you not agree?[7]
I think you could understand why I am a little confused with yours and bingies opinion and what it means to me.. you both portray yourselves as "sensible" gun owners and profess to believe in the right of Americans to own firearms but...
I can't help wondering what guns I own today you would say I couldn't... I can't help wondering what new law that takes away guns I already own that you would find offensive. It seems that no ban would be too great for you if you are alright with the DC one.[8]
So tell us.... what gun laws do you think are "sensible" ones and why?[9]
lazs
Originally posted by Toad
How's your hubris on the Dred Scott, Plessy v Furgeson, Lum v Rice?
Bad decisions are bad decisions, no matter who wore the robes of a Supreme Court justice for over a century and had to deal with, debate, and rule on a particular issue.
Originally posted by wrag
OH WELL.......................
Had pretty much decided that Arlo and Bing were just trolling and stopped replying.
Still pretty much hold that opinion.
Originally posted by wrag
Now he's probably gonna come back and say something in as oily and insulting a manner as he can think of. WHICH IMHO makes him a troller looking to push buttons and create anger or at the very least irritation.
Hey Arlo No Problem I understand. Best to you Sir.
Originally posted by Edbert
I've met both of you, at separate cons, and consider you both as friends I'd have a beer or six with anytime. Speaking of which, has this year's con been announced?
Originally posted by lazs2
My beef with yours and arlos thinking is that neither of you can see past the end of your nose on the thing.
Originally posted by lazs2
bingie... you seem to want to have it both ways.. now you quote a judgement that pretty much says that no one can stop you from "bearing arms" so long as you do it out in the open... in any case.. it most certainly seems to point to an individual right to bear arms.
As I have said.. the state should and could have the right to restrict the manner that guns were carried or kept so long as it did not infringe on your individual right to "keep and bear arms"
The DC problem is that a firearm that is in pieces and locked up with no ammo is not a firearm according (rightly so) to the court and as such.. an infringement.
Some states say... no open carry and others say any open carry but no concealed carry... it is a matter of taste more than anything and no real benifiet has ever been shown in prohibiting one or the other.
with one exception... during wild west days.. where the duel was still popular.. open carry was tantamount to admitting that you were willing to participate in a gunfight.. open carry was prohibited but so far as anyone can tell.. concealed carry was not. This really did cut down on the number of barroom challenges.
In any case.. we will have to see. No matter how much the court points out that our INDIVIDUAL right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed tho... that does not mean that destructive devices or explosives can not be regulated.
My beef with yours and arlos thinking is that neither of you can see past the end of your nose on the thing. You would downgrade the right to a simple whim of the state. That was not the original intent nor.. is it a good path to go down. Turn "the people" into "the state" and there are no more individual rights for anyone or anything.
lazs
Originally posted by Arlo
And opinions on what's a good or bad decision are as worthwhile as opinions on a "good" or "bad" call during the superbowl from your easy chair. Then there's the practicality of recognizing the good thing about having a system that can constantly review itself, even if you don't like the rulings that happen during the process. :)
Originally posted by Toad
Nice dodge.
I suppose someone would have been exhibiting hubris if they had questioned the decisions in the Scott, Plessy and Lum cases at the and said that someday the obvious mistakes would be rectified in a later SC decision. Perhaps when Brown v Board of Education was first put on the SC docket, for instance.
I don't mind a system that has appeal to judicial review. However, I do prefer that those who want to change what the Constitution clearly says use the amendment system that is provided rather than making stuff up.
Like attempting to change the Constitution by pretending that a short-barreled shotgun is not a military weapon; that doesn't fit my understanding of a fair review. Of course, neither does rendering a verdict when one side of the case is not represented and not heard.
If some think the 2nd is not an individual right, I'm fine with those folks putting forth a Constitutional amendment removing that right and trying to get it ratified. That would be the correct procedure.
Originally posted by john9001
just a small point, the SC has made wrong decisions in the past, and they can be expected to do so in the future.
It is the duty of the people to correct the SC when they make a mistake.
Originally posted by lazs2
bingie.. again.. you have shifted points. I have never said that politicians have not tried to enforce gun control from the minute of the first matchlock.. some countries they did a really good job in fact. that is why our founders put the second amendment into the constitution.
Now.. you seem to be willing to give up one of your (and everyone elses) rights because it is not one of the ones you particularly care about.
england has a "collective rights" model.. if such a thing exists.. they have a "right" to keep and bear arms so long as the government says so.
This worked out ok for them for a pretty long time. I mean... who in their right mind would "ban" guns? the brits who thought the politicians would come after their guns were just paranoid right? I mean... what is the worst that can happen and why fight a few "sensible" gun laws?
You seem to think that our second is made of the same toilet paper that the brits "right to keep and bear arms" is made of..
I certainly hope not. it would mean all the others are too... it would set a precident for all the amendments that used "the people" to really just mean.. the state.
lazs
Originally posted by Arlo[/b]
Hubris does seem to fall within the range of someone having an opinion of themselves as superior in knowledge of Constitutional law than all the SCs to date
Why don't you help devise a campaign/candidate (or group of) that devote themselves to amending the Constitution (which is also a method of clarifying previous amendments) until it's as clear and unavoidable to the SCOTUS as it "is" to you?[/b]
doesn't seem to bother me as much as my challenging your claim to such[/b]
No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;
Originally posted by Toadhear hear! :aok
I personally find it amusing that so many people think of the Constitution as some cosmicly complicated, inscrutable arcane piece of writing that only some first-in-his-class Harvard law grad that grew up to be an SC justice can understand.
Oh, sure, some issues are really complex. Many others, however, are not.
I think it pays to remember that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written by farmers, merchants and sure, a few lawyers. For the most part they all had far less formal education on fewer subjects than the university grads that frequent this board.
They had one thing though that a lot of people on this board don't have. They had the balls to fight for their freedom from an oppressive government and the brains to devise a better system after they had won that freedom. The unifying aspect of all their divisive debates in creating this government was FREEDOM. Every aspect of their new form of government revolved around providing as much freedom as possible to the individual and as much restraint as possible on government power over the individual.
Bearing that in mind, one is never far wrong in deciding a Constitutional issue with the intent to provide as much freedom to the individual as possible while restraining the power of the government.
Does one need to be "superior in knowledge of Constitutional law" to determine the right decision in simple constitutional issues?
Hardly. If someone told you that Congress had just passed a law prohibiting Catholics from attending mass under penalty of imprisonment, just about any US citizen would realize that as a gross violation of the 1st Amendment before the issue ever reached the SC.
And you don't have to go far into the past to see such issues that have been incorrectly decided by the SC.
Medical marijuana, Raich v. Ashcroft, is one such decision. They found the Feds could take precedence over local marijuana laws based on the Commerce Clause which gives the government the following "limited" power..."to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;".
It's an uncredible, unbelieveable reach to find that growing your own for medical purposes threatens to swell the illicit drug market. It would seem to reduce the numbers of customers, not increase them.
It is an obviously incorrect usurpation of state power by the Feds. The amazing thing is the LIBERAL SC justices, whom you think would be less worried about medical marijuana, supported this government power grab whilst the Conservative judges, those you would think most likely to be favor government control over any illicit drug issue were against it.
Another obviously bad decision was Kelo v City of New London, which gave local government the power to force property owners to sell out and make way for private economic development when officials decide it would benefit the public, even if the property is not blighted and the new project's success is not guaranteed.
Say WHAT? The framers of the Constitution must have spun in their graves over that one. This is the freedom they fought for? A government that can steal your home, forcibly shifting land from one private owner to another?
Does this follow the intent of more freedom for the individual and restraint on the powers of government? I don't think so and I think that is obvious to even the most casual observer. This is the sort of judicial activism that many decry, that is clearly outside Constitutional intent.
If this be hubris, then it is hubris in the fine tradition of the men that had the audacity to rebel against England and create this experiment in government.
[/b]
As I mentioned before, Ii believe anyone that takes the time to read the writings of the Founders on firearms, that takes the time to read the history of the 2nd Amendment as it came to ratification, that takes the time to research the meaning of "the people" in the rest of the Constitution comes to the inescapable conclusion that the militia clause is a dependent clause. It can be no other way. All that is need is honesty. There are always those that will attempt to twist simple words, to convince the sheep that white is actually black, that will attempt to twist the Constitution to suit their own purposes. Again, which version of the 2nd gives the individual MORE freedom and restrains government power? It's not that difficult to determine.
[/b]
Doesn't bother me in the least. I don't think I'm the world's best Constitutional scholar. I do, however, think I have the common sense and basic understanding of the English language necessary to read history and interpret a pretty simple statement in the Bill of Rights.
Tell me, does this seem to difficult to understand to you?
Seems pretty clear to me. [/B]
Originally posted by lazs2
bingie... sorry.. where did you get that arguement? it is wrong.
If the "well regulated militia" is a reason then.. it is fair to say that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is the purpose.
The reason could be anything.. it could be.. "a profit to gunstores being... " it matters not.. if you ever want a well regulated militia... you can't infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
No matter how you cut it.. "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" means just what it says.
What do I hope? I hope that part will come out in the DC decision.. I know that all gun laws will not go away but...
DC is functionally removing the right by not allowing a real firearm.. it is infringing on our right to keep and bear (functional) arms.
I really hope that a city who said.. "you cant carry guns openly in town" would then be forced to say that concealed was allowed.. as you would not be functionally disarmed if you could carry concealed...
By the same token.. if you outlawed handguns and open carry.. your rights would be infringed since you could not functionally carry a long gun concealed.
It is pretty simple stuff and the states have been playing fast and loose with our right to keep and bear arms for decades...
Time to reign em in a bit.
lazs
1. They didn't address the QUESTION posed by the Court.
2. They affirmed the right of DC residents to own rifles/shotguns.
3. They affirmed the right of DC residents to have ready-to-use arms in the home, and that their goal was not disarmament.
4. They affirmed that disarmament by government is a "bad thing."
5. They affirmed that military-class weaponry is suitable to the militia.
Anyone wonder why DC counsel for this case was fired after the brief was filed?
Originally posted by Toad
The commentary BBS is fun to read.
Well, it will be interesting and it is long overdue.
More liberty or more government power; time to choose.
Originally posted by Toad
Bingolong, I truly am sorry, but I just don't feel you even understand the question posed by the SC. It's not like it hasn't been pointed out in this thread several times though.
Originally posted by ToadYou DO realize the counsel for the District's postion was fired after filing the brief with the SC to overturn the lower court's ruling right? The city FIRED him for filing this brief.
Originally posted by Toad
Peter Nickles, Fenty's soon-to-be interim attorney general, described his legal team as the "superheroes of Supreme Court practice." Nickles fired Alan Morrison, who wrote much of the brief as counsel to former Attorney General Linda Singer, in late December.
Originally posted by Toad
Must have fired him for doing such a good job on the brief as noted above.
The justices chose their own wording for what they want to decide in the Heller case.
What do you think the SC will say to DC's attorneys about not answering the question in the brief? You think the SC enjoys being snowed with unrelated blather instead of getting a direct answer to their question?
It will be interesting. You might want to research the actual question the SC posed in Heller; it will help you as this case unfolds I think.
Originally posted by Toad
Must have fired him for doing such a good job on the brief as noted above.
The justices chose their own wording for what they want to decide in the Heller case.
What do you think the SC will say to DC's attorneys about not answering the question in the brief? You think the SC enjoys being snowed with unrelated blather instead of getting a direct answer to their question?
It will be interesting. You might want to research the actual question the SC posed in Heller; it will help you as this case unfolds I think.
Originally posted by Toad
I personally find it amusing that so many people think of the Constitution as some cosmicly complicated, inscrutable arcane piece of writing that only some first-in-his-class Harvard law grad that grew up to be an SC justice can understand.
Originally posted by Toad
If this be hubris, then it is hubris in the fine tradition of the men that had the audacity to rebel against England and create this experiment in government.
Originally posted by john9001
as i said before the SC is not always right, IE dred scott.
Originally posted by Arlo
You sure `bout that? If so, apparently I hold our forefathers in higher regard than you:
Originally posted by Arlo
I find it equally amusing that some prize their opinion (and refuse to accept it as such) on meaning more than those vested with the responsibility of rendering the rulings. Even more than noteworthy scholars.
Originally posted by Arlo
As I said before, just because it's your opinion that doesn't make it a universal fact. Whether I agree or not, try not to confuse the two. It makes it so much easier to actually have a productive debate with another. That or you can just whine "troll" because you weren't entirely agreed with or because someone critisized your method of argument.
You're welcome. :D
Originally posted by Toad
More individual freedom or more government power? Which would the Founders favor?
Originally posted by Toad
No comment on Raich v Ashcroft or Kelo v City of New London? Nothing to add to your previous comments on judicial activism? Or do you agree with those rulings?
Originally posted by Toad
And if the Congress banned the practice of the Catholic religion would you think that was unconstitutional? Would you be certain about it either way?
Originally posted by john9001
what did he just say? :huh
Originally posted by Toad
I think the Brits viewed it as extreme hubris. The other side always does. :)
Originally posted by Toad
Lol, Arlo... all you do is dodge.
C'mon, take a stand man. Trust your own intelligence. Embrace liberty.
I get the distinct feeling you'd have been a Tory during the Revolution.
Originally posted by Arlo
*Yawn* (chuckle)
Again. Dodge? What part of my observation that your and my opinions are just opinions required you proving they're not .... by asking if my opinion matches yours? When you can figure out how to answer that I may be inclined to compare opinions (AND offer what I back it with).
Got feet? :D
Originally posted by john9001
is that a yes or no?
Originally posted by Arlo
yada yada yada yada yada
Originally posted by john9001
whimper whimper (I just don't understand!) whimper whimper
Originally posted by Toad
The idea that there is no judicial activism is foolish. You may not like the buzzword but rulings that are outside the bounds of the Constitution happen. (And the rest is about as impressive as you exhibiting you've finally learned how to tie your own shoes. - Arlo)
Originally posted by Toad
Shorter version: SCOTUS makes mistakes. There is a "clear history" of the SC doing so.
Pretending they don't is laughable.
Pretending their mistakes can't be recognized by normally intelligent people is even more laughable.
Originally posted by Arlo
Well glad to see you laughing all the way through your foamy
apoplectic (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/apoplectic) fit over "judicial activism."
Get over your opinion (of yourself) and present your opinion honestly and I may just manage to take your opinions (even of yourself) more seriously. :D
Originally posted by Bingolong
haha down to calling everything a mistake after being shot down all the way along. wonder whats next. The devil made me do it?
Incredible!
How bout the guy that got fired for doing such a crappy job Toad?
Its a mistake. It's a mistake I tell ya! Da Plane.
Laz? the argument still wrong?
Toad? still dont know what the case is about?
Will Arlo and Bing continue the smakdown?
Tune in tommorrow for more bloviated pontification, from the my way or the highway crowd knownaughts.
:rofl
Originally posted by wrag
Smakdown? You mean smack down?
No matter.
Sounds like you think your winning........
IMHO that doesn't seem to be the case.
IMHO This hasn't been much of a discussion.
If you honestly believe the SC is going to go a certain way, or not going to go a certain way, whats wrong with explaining WHY you think so, perhaps with LINKS to support your stance, without the name calling?
I confess I've read some stuff that suggest the SC may NOT decide the way supporter of the 2nd Amendment think they will.
I've also read some stuff that suggest the SC will come out in support of the 2nd Amendment.
My understanding of the 2nd Amendment comes from the military and the schooling I received when I was young. I admit that was some time ago :lol
Or is this one of those run it up the flag pole and see if anyone salutes it type post?
I didn't see many salute it!
Perhaps one other?
Arlo......
And he SEEMS to be using the if you don't agree with him your trailer park trash approach.
TROLL?
Lookin for support?
Originally posted by wrag
Hmmm..........
IMHO foam growl his VALID point!
IMHO foam growl NO AVAIL!
Woof word games and hissss legitimate answers IMHO growl hiss meow (pee diaper) mountains of misdirection B. S.
Go ahead and sob sniffle yada yada yada.
You must have an I.Q. whimper moan pizz cry?
Go ahead yardle yardle ...............
I'll tell you what I think wah wah wah wah wah wah...........
Originally posted by Toad
Arlo, I think you're just one of those guys that likes to hear himself talk. You are indeed just a basic drive-by poster in Nash's mold. Your supercilious (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/supercilious) attitude doesn't impress anyone but yourself.
Originally posted by john9001
sorry, I'm having a hard time keeping up with all this, what did Bingolong just say?
Originally posted by Bingolong
How bout the guy that got fired for doing such a crappy job Toad?
Originally posted by Arlo
You're pretty damned super-silly yourowndoofself. ;)
Originally posted by Toad
Do you ever have anything of substance to offer? It does not appear that you do.
Cya!
Originally posted by Toad
Hardly running for the door; I'll be around here for quite a while I think.
You just have nothing to add to the discussions in the threads to which you post. You're just a kibbitzer. I'm sure your own cleverness is a continual source of pride and amusement for you but you'll excuse me if I merely find it tiresome.
Your opinions? You don't offer any. You're just a sniper. You don't put anything of yourself out here on the BBS.
You had your opportunities in this thread but, as always, you sidestepped them. Discussing the rulings in Raich or Kelo are two examples.
So, I think I'll just pass on responding to any more of your yarp.
If you ever get around to something substantive, I'll probably see it and might respond if it's interesting.
Originally posted by john9001
obfuscate
to make obscure or unclear: to obfuscate a problem with extraneous information.
how you doing francis?:D
Originally posted by Toad
LOL, I haven't seen you make an honest effort in any thread on this board.
Buh-Bye!
Originally posted by Toad
Goodness! You are sooooooooo clever! How can you possibly type without spraying your drink all over the monitor?
You are The Yarper! Beyond doubt!!
Originally posted by Toad
Pointless sniping is so easy that I may snipe you now and then. It's cute watching you pound your chest like King Kong over your own cleverness.
:aok
Originally posted by Arlo
Ahhhh ... but am I cuter than you when you do it? Had I known this was a "Miss AHBB politics" contest I mighta been better prepared. Just remember ... when you win the thread you walk down the runway, crown on head, roses carefully caressed and ... for gawsh sake ... make the tears look sincere!
:aok :D
Originally posted by john9001
lighten up francis, your going to get your panties all bunched up.:D
Originally posted by Toad
Dunno.. I'm new to it. And you've got such a head start.
I think the crown is yours, honey.
:D
Originally posted by Arlo
Well then. No need for you to just keep surrendering and sobbing endlessly, then. Eh? Or are you thinking you're really going somewhere with this dance? Wasn't your "point" about how "insubstantial" my participation is? ;)
Originally posted by john9001
my god arlo, you are so pathetic. I'm starting to feel sorry for you.
Originally posted by Arlo
Your God Arlo appreciates your prayers. :D
Originally posted by john9001
good night francis.
Originally posted by Toad
No, I still don't think you know what this case is about. I think you haven't even read the question to be answered the way the Supreme Court wrote it.
Originally posted by Toad
Dunno.. I'm new to it. And you've got such a head start.
I think the crown is yours, honey.
:D
Originally posted by Toad
Sorry, I don't think you've understood the situation even now.
The brief does not address the question as the Supreme Court framed it.
Focus on that. The SC framed the question to be answered by both sides. The DC brief DOES NOT address the question the SC asked.
Got it yet?
Again, you need to search out and READ the question the SC is asking in this case.
Hope that begins to enlighten you.
Originally posted by Toad
Sorry, I don't think you've understood the situation even now.
The brief does not address the question as the Supreme Court framed it.
Focus on that. The SC framed the question to be answered by both sides. The DC brief DOES NOT address the question the SC asked.
Got it yet?
Again, you need to search out and READ the question the SC is asking in this case.
Hope that begins to enlighten you.
Originally posted by Arlo
Holy crap! Did I stumble across the apopleptic-conspiracy-theory-mad and just ain't gonna take it anymore support group or what? :D :aok
Originally posted by lazs2
geeze arlo... I guess this isn't going as well as it does around your friends eh?
Your not gonna cry are ya? wait... is that a tear? don't tell me that's a tear!
lazs
Originally posted by wrag
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
Couldn't deal with it without changing the words and ignoring what you didn't like HUH?
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
Originally posted by Arlo
Tears of joy for being announced runner up to your "Miss AHBB political primadonna" title. I surely gave it my best but I can't help but be happy for you winning the thread and all. I think it was the talent competition where you proved you could mentally masterbate straw and still measure yourself between strokes without missing a beat .. so to speak.
:D
Originally posted by Arlo
Ummmm .... yeah. You go with that. :D
Originally posted by john9001
what did he just say??:huh
Originally posted by Curval
Now I'm bummed. I thought the crown was mine.
What did Arlo do...poke fun at lazs...and then you came a-running?
:D
Originally posted by Bingolong
They more than answered the question very well I might add with plenty of case law behind them, but you might not see it through the peep hole.
Originally posted by wrag
OK :D :D :D :aok
Sure you don't want to reconsider?
:D :D :D:aok
Originally posted by john9001
what did he just say??:huh
Originally posted by Toad
As a drive by poster, you are a rookie when compared to Arlo. You've still too much character to really beat him out for the crown. You actually do contribute to some threads.
I've never seen Laz need any help around here. :)
Originally posted by Arlo
Ahhhh .... character assassination through comparitive character assessment from someone incapable of exemplifying. Good job you.
:D
Originally posted by john9001
where did arlo learn to talk like that? Must have been some liberal college.
Originally posted by john9001
run arlo run.
Originally posted by Toad
Post the question that the SC gave to both sides in this case. It's out there, it's easy to find. Then I'll at least know you tried to figure out what this case is about.
After you post it, I'll help you out a little with what's wrong with the DC brief.
Until you understand the SC question though, there's no point in even trying to help you.
Originally posted by Bingolong
United States v. Cruikshank 1875
Although the Enforcement Act had been designed primarily to halt the violence of the Ku Klux Klan in preventing blacks from voting, the Cruikshank court held that the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses apply only to state action, and not to actions of individuals
Presser v. Illinois 1886
But a conclusive answer to the contention that this amendment [the Second Amendment] prohibits the legislation in question lies in the fact that the amendment is a limitation only upon the power of congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state
Malitia Act 1903
Salina v. Blaksley 1905
The court said: "This view cannot be supported. The right to keep and bear arms for the common defense does not include the right to associate together as a military organization, or to drill and parade with arms in cities or towns, unless authorized to do so by law. This is a matter affecting the public security, quiet, and good order, and it is within the police power of the legislature to regulate the bearing of arms, so as to forbid such unauthorized drills and parades." The defendant was not a member of an organized militia, nor of any other military organization provided for by law, and was therefore not within the provision of the Bill of Rights, and was not protected by its terms.
The National Defense Act of 1916
The 1934 National Firearms Act
The Federal Firearms Act of 1938
United States v. Miller 1939
On May 15, 1939 the Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion by Justice McReynolds, reversed and remanded the District Court decision. The Supreme Court declared that no conflict between the NFA and the Second Amendment had been established, writing:
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than 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.
Describing the constitutional authority under which Congress could call forth state militia, the Court stated:
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 Court also looked to historical sources to explain the meaning of "militia" as set down by the authors of the Constitution:
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.
Maryland v. United States 1965
The National Guard is the modern Militia reserved to the States by Art. I. 8, cl. 15, 16, of the Constitution
The Gun Control Act of 1968
Burton v. Sills 1969
...Congress, though admittedly governed by the second amendment, may regulate interstate firearms so long as the regulation does not impair the maintenance of the active, organized militias of the states.
Lewis v. United States 1980
''Apparently, then, under the Second Amendment, the federal government can limit the keeping and bearing of arms by a single individual as well as by a group of individuals, but it cannot prohibit the possession or use of any weapon which has any reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia.''
The 1986 McClure-Volkmer Act
banned the sale of machine guns manufactured after the date of enactment to civilians, restricting sales of these weapons to the military and law enforcement
Perpich v. Department of Defense 1990
"The Dick Act divided the class of able-bodied male citizens between 18 and 45 years of age into an "organized militia" to be known as the National Guard of the several states, and the remainder of which was then described as the "reserve militia", and which later statutes have termed the "unorganized militia." ... " In 1908, however, the statute was amended to provide expressly that the organized militia should be available for service "either within or without the territory of the United States." Hence, the National Guard is not the same as the unorganized militia.
This case is significant for Second Amendment case law in that it recognizes that the National Guard is one modern form of the militia under federal law.
Silveira v. Lockyer 2002
The Court engaged in an extensive analysis of the history of the Second Amendment and its attendant case law, and it ultimately determined that the Second Amendment does not guarantee individuals the right to keep and bear arms.
These are documented. The question the Supreme Court pose is whether the provisions of the D.C. statute “violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes.”
Originally posted by bustr
So then after all of these pages of ego jousting, is this case the final bell weather in the ultimate argument:
Do We the People have protected inalliable rights per the constitution vs. The governments of the United States including federal, have evolved to the condition that their own interests superced the constitutions express limitations to their evolved "rights by power to control" their subjects in the name of thier own "Entity called GOVERNMENT or Stateism"?
If this case does not rule for an individual right, then it sets formal public precedence which will be trumpeted by the media that the U.S. constitution has finally been found fluid and of no material protection to We the People and our rights of self determination and individual freedom.
"GOVERNMENT\Stateism", it's needs and rights will hensforth be the supreme arbitor of We the People's lives. And we know the media will remind us at every turn in the future that the SCOTUS ruled We the People are no longer special and just shut up and toe the line like good ignorant pesants because we were stupid enough to let them and government prove we are too stupid to have individual rights and freedoms via the supreme court.
Originally posted by bustr
So then after all of these pages of ego jousting, is this case the final bell weather in the ultimate argument:
Do We the People have protected inalliable rights per the constitution vs. The governments of the United States including federal, have evolved to the condition that their own interests superced the constitutions express limitations to their evolved "rights by power to control" their subjects in the name of thier own "Entity called GOVERNMENT or Stateism"?
If this case does not rule for an individual right, then it sets formal public precedence which will be trumpeted by the media that the U.S. constitution has finally been found fluid and of no material protection to We the People and our rights of self determination and individual freedom.
"GOVERNMENT\Stateism", it's needs and rights will hensforth be the supreme arbitor of We the People's lives. And we know the media will remind us at every turn in the future that the SCOTUS ruled We the People are no longer special and just shut up and toe the line like good ignorant pesants because we were stupid enough to let them and government prove we are too stupid to have individual rights and freedoms via the supreme court.
Originally posted by Bingolong
Yes.... the right has to do with a/the militia
No... the right in inalienable /inherent
Originally posted by Arlo
Woof! Woof! Roughroughrough! Arf! Arf!ah-roo-roo-roo-ROO!
Originally posted by Bingolong
you mean hear on page 3 of this thread I wish you would keep up.
Originally posted by Toad
Actually, no, that is not what I meant.
The Justices chose to write out for themselves the constitutional question they will undertake to answer in Heller.
Both the defendants and the plaintiffs petitioned the United States Supreme Court to hear the case.
The questions posed for review by the petitioner (the District of Columbia) differed significantly from those posed by the respondent (Heller).
The District of Columbia's petition stated that the question presented was, "Whether the Second Amendment forbids the District of Columbia from banning private possession of handguns while allowing possession of rifles and shotguns."
Heller replied that the question was broader, to wit, "Whether the Second Amendment guarantees law-abiding, adult individuals a right to keep ordinary, functional firearms, including handguns, in their homes."
See if you can actually find the question the current SC justices have posed to both sides in the Heller case.
It will help you keep up.
Originally posted by Arlo
"Final bellweathers" tend not to be phrased in such a stilted manner. Let me give it some thought. :D
Originally posted by Toad
If you have, then you don't understand it and I can't help you in that event.
Originally posted by Toad
I am SO easy!
:D
Originally posted by wrag
Arlo SEEMS happiest when insulting people.
IMHO it's not worth the effort to discuss anything with him because he's not interested in discussion just insulting.
Guess it give him some kinda boost.
IMHO It's really sad when someone SEEMS to NEED such a boost.
BOOST YOURSELF Arlo I know you need it.
Originally posted by wrag
You go ahead and think but also think about this.........
who cares?
Originally posted by bustr
So then after all of these pages of ego jousting, is this case the final bell weather in the ultimate argument:
Do We the People have protected inalliable rights per the constitution vs. The governments of the United States including federal, have evolved to the condition that their own interests superced the constitutions express limitations to their evolved "rights by power to control" their subjects in the name of thier own "Entity called GOVERNMENT or Stateism"?
If this case does not rule for an individual right, then it sets formal public precedence which will be trumpeted by the media that the U.S. constitution has finally been found fluid and of no material protection to We the People and our rights of self determination and individual freedom.
"GOVERNMENT\Stateism", it's needs and rights will hensforth be the supreme arbitor of We the People's lives. And we know the media will remind us at every turn in the future that the SCOTUS ruled We the People are no longer special and just shut up and toe the line like good ignorant pesants because we were stupid enough to let them and government prove we are too stupid to have individual rights and freedoms via the supreme court.
Originally posted by Arlo
"A well regulated Militia (subject of the sentence), being necessary to the security of a free State (reason for it's existance), the right of the people to keep and bear Arms (Yes a right. "The people" is indeed a collective phrase. Once again, the words "individual, person and citizen were in common use and the authors were familiar with them), shall not be infringed (And it isn't. Anyone of sane mind and clean record can keep and bear arms. Go figure.)"
Originally posted by Edbert
...and therein lies the rub and the catalyst to the case...in our Nation's capital even the sane of mind and clear of record cannot keep and bear arms.
Originally posted by Edbert
They are, it just has to work it's way up the food chain, and the SC(R)OTUS is the top of said chain.
Originally posted by Arlo
You do. And you know it. ;)
Originally posted by wrag
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
nope
Originally posted by Arlo
You sure seem to be wasting a lot of your time "not" self-reaffirming. (ahem) ;)
Originally posted by wrag
I intend to ignore your post from this point on until you develop some manners.
And get over yourself.
Originally posted by Arlo
I won the BBS Special Olympics! :D
Originally posted by Arlo
"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."
One sentence. A singular statement. It starts by identifying it's subject "a well regulated militia." ...
Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a distinguished 17-year career teaching journalism at USC. Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for "Editor and Publisher", a weekly magazine focusing on the journalism field.
He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud's fifth book on usage, "American Usage and Style: The Consensus," has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publisher's Humanities Award.
[Copperud:] "The words 'A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,' contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying 'militia,' which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject 'the right', verb 'shall'). The to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for maintaining a militia.
"In reply to your numbered questions: [Schulman:] "(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to 'a well-regulated militia'?"
[Copperud:] "(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people."
[Schulman:] "(2) Is 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right 'shall not be infringed'?"
[Copperud:] "(2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia."
[Schulman:] "(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia, is, in fact necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' null and void?"
[Copperud:] "(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence."
[Schulman:] "(4) Does the clause 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,' grant a right to the government to place conditions on the 'right of the people to keep and bear arms,' or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?"
[Copperud:] "(4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia."
Originally posted by Toad
I guess it's back to English 101 for you.
The subject is NOT "a well regulated militia."
Maybe you can get a refund on your English class tuition.
:D
Copperund's politically slanted appraisal noted.[/b]
Originally posted by Toad
Oh, I was quite certain that you wouldn't accept ...........
:D
Originally posted by lazs2
we all speak english here and use it every day..
The USA today poll is saying that out of about half a million Americans who speak english and use it.... that 98% of em feel that the second is indeed a "right"... an individual right.
Is the supreme court gonna tell 98% of the population that they don't know what they are reading? I don't think so.. not to please the one percent like arlo and bingie that think it is some sort of non right... some sort of "collective right"
did the term "collective right" even exist before orwells book 1984? I doubt it.
No.. the second just says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because we will always need to fight tyranny and an armed populace is always best for that..
from the government being cautious about stepping on rights to japan not even thinking about invasion against an armed populace to burglars in the US being more afraid of armed citizens than even cops to concealed carry making stopping assaults on people...
all forms of tyranny against the individual and the state.
lazs
Originally posted by Arlo
I love to read what I type; it makes me feel a tingly in my special places.
Originally posted by Toad:D
Everytime I see an Arlo post my knee jerks. So far I've kicked the dog, my wife and the coffee table numerous times. :furious
Originally posted by lazs2
No one but him and arlo and some liberal lawyers think that the second is the right of the government to arm itself.
Originally posted by lazs2
No.. the second just says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because we will always need to fight tyranny and an armed populace is always best for that..
from the government being cautious about stepping on rights to japan not even thinking about invasion against an armed populace to burglars in the US being more afraid of armed citizens than even cops to concealed carry making stopping assaults on people...
all forms of tyranny against the individual and the state.
lazs
Originally posted by Toad
Jeez, Bingo;
You should at least put quotes around the stuff you borrow to substitute for your own input.
For any who care, Bingo clipped that first part from:
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/guncontrol/i/2ndamendment.htm
and the second part from:
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/guncontrol/i/2ndamendment_2.htm
Originally posted by lazs2
yep.. he uses a couple of lefty sites and doesn't give them credit.
I believe that the sc will do as they should and look at what the founders intended. there is nothing to say that the peoples right could be regulated based on what the feds or states felt was a milita.
No one but him and arlo and some liberal lawyers think that the second is the right of the government to arm itself.
lazs
Originally posted by Arlo
It is my greatest hope that Toad has the same reactions I have when I see a post of his. When I see him post my knee jerks. So far I've kicked the dog, my wife and the coffee table numerous times. I hope he's suffering as much as I am. Then my efforts will be worth the pain.
Originally posted by Bingolong
at least you looked something up :)
Originally posted by Toad
Overall, it looks like when pressed for a real argument you can't really muster one. When the wrongness and obviousness of your attitude and claim is challenged, you're too proud to back off.
:D [/B]
Originally posted by Toad
Trying to set a good example for you but I see you're still not following it.
Don't be afraid to do some research; you'll probably be able to enjoy particpating in the discussions in a meaningful way if you do.
Originally posted by Toad
I'm not all that imaginative. I'll just repeat what Arlo makes fun of me with back t him and kick more. :D
Originally posted by Arlo
If I had any imagination at all, I'd use it to actually participate in discussions and exchanges of ideas. Instead, I'll just spam threads with meaningless, vapid comments.
Originally posted by Toad
If I was capable of looking past my own two inch ego I could tell when someone does more than make fun of me and get over it. :D
Originally posted by Arlo
Someday I may dare to venture out into a real discussion. Right now though, my feminine side is far to fragile to countenance rejection.
Dennis P. McCann
Look, no one in America is going to be able to take people's guns away. It is too ingrained in our culture, for better or for worse. Your cherished second amendment right is protected. But can you not see that there could be reasonable limits on that right, like there are on all our rights. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater, you also shouldn't threaten to fire your gun in a crowded theater.
stevetherobot
That is a very poor argument and yet apparently you and nineteen others agree with it. Threatening to fire your gun in a crowded theater is a completely different thing than the right to possess a gun.
Deh Ehn
He wasn't comparing it to the right to possess a gun. He was comparing it to the right to free speech. You have freedom of speech but there are limits, such as not being able to yell fire in a crowded theatre.
And you have the right to possess a gun, but there are limits, such as not being able to own an Ak-47, or limited acess to automatic weapons or extended clips or whatever the case may be. Obviously unfettered access to guns for one and all as proposed by the NRA goes far beyond the simple right to bare arms.
Aunk (The Cultural Health Guy)
Hetep and Respect, Claus, I am "liberal" on most things. However, I support the 2 amendment. King Bush is a good example of the value of this amendment.
If we have a King we must have guns!
Let the Constitutionally healthy say Amen
Originally posted by Arlo
Dis-cuss. Does the Constitution's strength and validity revolve around the second amendment alone? If the second amendment is so "clear?" How come the way it's been clear up `til recently is so different from the interpretation of the most militant right?
Originally posted by Toad
Been there, done that, best you can do is finally respond to someone else showing that you can't tell a noun from a participial phrase. It was a lovely little piece, except of course that it started off wrong and wandered on into meaningless because of its unfortunate birth.
As for exemplifying, I'll just point out that the statement of mine and the rationale behind it that you find so entrancingly offensive covers three of the six approaches to constitutional analysis outlined in Constitutional Fate by Philip Bobbitt.
I've yet to see you attempt even one of those approaches.
But take comfort in the fact that you are probably a lock for the championship in the next AHBBS cleverly invented fake quotes with smilies tournament.
sumption. What can I say? Presumption being the choo choo leading the conclusion caboose just never sounded like a particularly impressive or compelling argument. So ... it hasn't won me over yet. Big deal. War ain't over, man. Shoot some better bullets. And if mine are missing you, that's fine too. Sooner or later one of us is bound to score, eh?
Fake quotes? Ahahahaha .... hope this isn't you thinking the responses portion of the blog discussion I brought into this thread for discussion were faked. That much paranoia deserves a thwackin'. If you're complainin' that my responses are "fake quotes" because you couldn't Google me borrowin' them from someone else ... that's not "fake" ... that's original. Feel free to borrow them, yourself. :D
Originally posted by Toad
As for your second post, the lesson for today is "Incorporation" as it relates to the Bill of Rights.
So what do the 2nd, 3rd and 5th Amendments have in common?
Originally posted by Toad
Apres vous, Alphonse.
Like Ulysses Everett McGill you're going to have to show your bona fide and worth the candle.