Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: bsdaddict on February 15, 2008, 10:24:22 AM
-
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080214/EDITORIAL/749172469/1013
According to the DOJ, the courts should consider the nature and functional adequacy of available alternatives. That may sound sensible at first blush, but it could be fatal to the Heller litigation.
Here's the rub: The Justice Department says the Court of Appeals ruling that overturned the D.C. ban might cast doubt on the constitutionality of existing federal legislation, including machine-gun regulations. So the administration urged that Heller be returned to the lower courts for appropriate fact-finding to determine whether rifles and shotguns in the home, as permitted by the D.C. Code, are an adequate substitute for handguns.
That came as quite a shock to those of us who believed the administration's professed fealty to gunowners' rights. What we got instead was a recommendation that could be the death knell for the only Second Amendment case to reach the Supreme Court in nearly 70 years.
Rather than a foursquare pronouncement that the D.C. handgun ban is unreasonable by any standard, the Justice Department has essentially endorsed years of depositions and expert testimony, and a rerun before a less hospitable Supreme Court.
In effect, a conservative administration has thrown a lifeline to gun controllers. Following the DOJ blueprint, they can pay lip service to an individual right while simultaneously stripping it of any real meaning. After all, if the D.C. ban can survive judicial scrutiny, it is difficult to imagine a regulation that would not.
more here: http://www.dcguncase.com/blog/
If I'm understanding this right, the DoJ is suggesting an "out" for the SCOTUS, a course that could have Heller returned to a lower court... Does the DoJ follow Bush's orders or are they doing this on their own?
-
Does the DoJ follow Bush's orders or are they doing this on their own?
====
its a good question. I believe those appointees to the DoJ operate more or less in concert with whatever admin appointed them.....
This is what living in a land with a consititution and laws is like. Very very frustrating, but what is the alternative?
Hopefully the court will simply here the case and make a decision.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Does the DoJ follow Bush's orders or are they doing this on their own?
====
its a good question. I believe those appointees to the DoJ operate more or less in concert with whatever admin appointed them.....
This is what living in a land with a consititution and laws is like. Very very frustrating, but what is the alternative?
Hopefully the court will simply here the case and make a decision.
I sure hope so... I'm just confused by "the administration" giving them a way out of hearing the case. Well, maybe not so confused as annoyed. I'd expect this from a Dem controlled "administration", but for this one to suggest anything that would prevent the SCOTUS from hearing the only 2nd amendment case in forever is... something else. I don't know what it is. It's depressing, that's for sure... Maybe it's just further evidence that the 2 parties are basically the same. Maybe it's just time for me to get apathetic about politics again, this isn't worth the stress!
-
Hmmm. I think this has to do with the republicans realizing what the different SC rulings would mean. A SC ruling to call the DC Handgun ban illegal would apply to ALL federal restrictions, regardless of weapon types.
Suddenly you analyze this from the perspective of a government, and the citizens are getting bigger guns with which to overthrow you. Very scary indeed.
-
The SCOTUS does not need "a way out" of hearing the case. If that were their intent they would never have decided to hear it in the first place.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
The SCOTUS does not need "a way out" of hearing the case. If that were their intent they would never have decided to hear it in the first place.
I agree, hence my confusion/annoyance... Why does the DoJ need to jump in and urge that "Heller be returned to the lower courts...", considering that they've already agreed to hear the case? If the SCOTUS agrees to hear a case, and the DoJ subsequently offers an alternative, isn't that suggesting a way out?
-
About what one would expect from the DOJ/BATF. Like the brief you would get from the IRS if the Constitutionality of tax law was being considered.
One imagines that Bush could have turned the screws, but then he is no real friend of the 2nd or most of the rest of the BOR for that matter. They did at least say it was an individual right :)
Charon
-
Since they have already agreed to hear the case it's like locking the barn door after the horse is gone. As I said, the SCOTUS does not need a way out and trying to provide one is silly at best for an interested party to the case. I think you are drawing a conclusion that is not necessarily the case.
-
Originally posted by bsdaddict
I sure hope so... I'm just confused by "the administration" giving them a way out of hearing the case. Well, maybe not so confused as annoyed. I'd expect this from a Dem controlled "administration", but for this one to suggest anything that would prevent the SCOTUS from hearing the only 2nd amendment case in forever is... something else. I don't know what it is. It's depressing, that's for sure... Maybe it's just further evidence that the 2 parties are basically the same.
Yep, Don't feel like I have a dog in the fight anymore.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Since they have already agreed to hear the case it's like locking the barn door after the horse is gone. As I said, the SCOTUS does not need a way out and trying to provide one is silly at best for an interested party to the case. I think you are drawing a conclusion that is not necessarily the case.
They have said it, but are they bound to it? I don't remember hearing anything other then them saying they wanted to do it.
-
They are already accepting briefs IIRC.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
They are already accepting briefs IIRC.
Yep and I bet we get a few more before March 18
Amicus briefs Heller Vs DC
http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/2007/3mer/1ami/2007-0290.mer.ami.pdf
Brief for Violence Policy Center and the Police Chiefs for the Cities of Los Angeles, Minneapolis, and Seattle in Support of Petitioner
Brief for Major American Cities, the United State Conference of Mayors and Legal Community Against Violence in Support of Petitioner
Brief for Jack N. Rakove, Saul Cornell, David T. Konig, William J. Novak, Lois G. Schwoerer et al. in Support of Petitioner
Brief for Law Professors Erwin Chemerinsky and Adam Winkler, as in Support of Petitoner
Brief for American Public Health Association, American College of Preventive Medicine, American Trauma Society, and American Association of Suicidology in Support of Petitioner
Brief for Former Department of Justice Officials in Support of Petitoner
Brief for Professors of Criminal Justice in Support of Petitioner
Brief for the City of Chicago and the Board of Education of the City of Chicago in Support of Petitioner(reprint)
Brief for DC Appleseed Center for Law and Justice, D.C. Chamber of Commerce, D.C. for Democracy, D.C. League of Women Voters, Federal City Council of Lawyers in Support of Petitioner
Brief for the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Society for Adolescent Medicine, the Childrens Defense Fund, Women Against Gun Violence, and Youth Alive! in Support of Petitioner
Brief for District Attorneys in Support of Petitioner (revised)
Brief for the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund in Support of Petitioners
Brief for the American Bar Association in Support of Petitioner
Brief for the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, Major Cities Chiefs, the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, the Hispanic American Police Command Officers Association, National Black Police Association, the National Latino Peace Officers Association, School Safety Advocacy Council, and the Police Executive Research Forum in Support of Petitioner
Brief for New York, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Puerto Rico in Support of Petitioner
Brief for Professors of Linguistics and English Dennis E. Baron, Ph. D, Richard W. Bailey, Ph. D, and Jeffrey P. Kaplan in Support of Petitioner
Brief for the United States of America in Support of Petitioner
Brief for the the American Jewish Committee et al. in Support of Petitioner
Brief for the National Network to End Domestic Violence et al. in Support of Petitioner
Brief for American Legislative Exchange in Support of Respondent
Brief for GeorgiaCarry.org, Inc. in Support of Respondent
Brief for the Congress of Racial Equality in Support of Respondent (reprint)
Brief for the Buckeye Firearms Foundation LLC, National Council for Investigationand Security Services, Ohio Association of Private Detective Agencies, Inc., DBA Ohio Association of Security and Investigation Services (OASIS), Michigan Council of Private Investigators, Indiana Association of Professional Investigators, and Kentucky Professional Investigators Association in Support of Respondent
Brief for the Disabled Veterans for Self-Defense and Kestra Childers in Support of Respondent
Brief for Criminologists, Social Scientists, Other Distinguished Scholars, and the Claremont Institute in Support of Respondent (reprint)
Brief for the Foundation for Free Expression in Support of Respondent
Brief for the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons in Support of Respondent
Brief for the Rutherford Institute in Support of Respondent (reprint)
Brief for the Pink Pistols and Gays and Lesbians for Individual Liberty in Support of Respondent
Brief for the Alaska Outdoor Council, the Alaska Fish and Wildlife Conservation Fund, SITKA Sportsman's Association, the Juneau Rifle and Pistol Club, the Juneau Gun Club, and Alaska Territorial Sportsmen, Inc. in Support of Respondent
Brief for Major General John D. Altenburg, Jr., Lieutenant General Charles E. Dominy, Lieutenant General Tom Fields, Lieutenant General Jay M. Garner, General Ronald H. Griffith, General William H. Hartzog, Lieutenant General Ronald V. Hite, Major General John. G. Meyer, Jr., Honorable Joe R. Reeder, Lieutenant General Dutch Shoffner, General John Tilelli, and The American Hunters and Shooters Association in Support of Respondent
Brief for the National Rifle Association and the NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund in Support of Respondent
Brief for Grass Roots of South Carolina, Inc. in Support of Respondent
Brief for the Libertarian National Committee in Support of Respondent
Brief for the Second Amendment Foundation in Support of Respondent
Brief for 55 Members of the United States Senate, the President of the U.S. Senate, and 250 Members of the U.S. House of Representatives in Support of Respondent
Brief for 126 Women State Legislatures and Academics in Support of Respondent
Brief for Virginia1774.org in Support of Respondent (reprint)
Brief for Paragon Foundation in Support of Respondent
Brief for the CATO Institute and History Professor Joyce Lee Malcolm in Support of Respondent
Brief for the International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association (ILEETA), the International Association of Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors (IALEFI), Maryland State Lodge, the Fraternal Order of Police, the Southern States Police Benevolent Association, 29 Elected California District Attorneys, the San Francisco Veteran Police Officers Association, the Long Beach Police Officers Association, Texas Police Chiefs Association, Texas Municipal Police Association, New York State Association of Auxiliary Police, Mendocino County, California Sheriff Thomas D. Allman, Oregon State Rep. Andy Olson, the National Police Defense Foundation, the Law Enforcement Alliance of America, and the Independence Institute in Support of Respondent(reprint)
Brief for the States of Texas, Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia, Washignton, West Virginia, and Wyoming in Support of Respondent
Brief for Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership in Support of Respondent
Brief for Organizations and Scholars Correcting Myths and Misrepresentations Commonly Deployed by Opponents of an Individual-Right-Based Interpretation of the Second Amendment in Support of Respondent
Brief for the President Pro Tempore of the Senate of Pennsylvania Joseph B. Scarnati, III in Support of Respondent
Brief for the American Center for Law and Justice in Support of Respondent
Brief for the Mountain States Legal Foundation in Support of Respondent
Brief for the Institute for Justice in Support of Respondent
Brief for Former Senior Officials of the Department of Justice in Support of Respondent
Brief for Foundation for Moral Law in Support of Respondent
Brief for Gun Owners of America, Inc., the Gun Owners Foundation, Maryland Shall Issue, Inc., the Virginia Citizens Defense League, Gun Owners of California, Inc., the Lincoln Institute for Research and Education, and the Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund in Support of Respondent
Brief for State Firearm Associations in Support of Respondent
Brief for the Southeastern Legal Foundation, Inc., Second Amendment Sisters, Inc., Women Against Gun Control, 60 Plus Association, Inc., Robert B. Smith, J.D., Christie Davies, M.A., Ph. D. Joe Michael Cobb, and Mrs. Minnie Lee Faulkner in Support of Respondent
Brief for Dr. Suzanna Gratia Hupp, D.C. and the Liberty Legal Institute in Support of Respondent
Brief for Academics in Support of Respondent
Brief for Academics for the Second Amendment in Support of Respondent
Brief for the Center for Individual Freedom in Support of Respondent
Brief for Retired Military Officers in Support of Respondent
Brief for the Heartland Institute in Support of Respondent
Brief for National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc., in Support of Respondent
Brief for Goldwater Institute in Support of Respondent
Brief for American Civil Rights Union in Support of Respondent
Brief for the Maricopa County Attorney's Office in Support of Respondent (reprint)
Brief for the Eagle Forum Education and Legal Defense Fund in Support of Respondent
Brief for Jeanette M. Moll et al. in Support of Respondent
Brief for Members of Congress in Support of Reversal
you can look them up here
http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/march08.shtml#07290
-
hmm.. bingie.. Looks like they have rounded up about every democrat and left wing organization in the entire U.S.
I think that should tell us something. Why do you think so many left wing and socialist groups want the second destroyed?
I do find it interesting that even the batf and the federal da in their brief want the court to find the second to be an individual right and that banning handguns in the home is a categorical ban of a commonly used firearm and is not constitutional.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
hmm.. bingie.. Looks like they have rounded up about every democrat and left wing organization in the entire U.S.
I think that should tell us something. Why do you think so many left wing and socialist groups want the second destroyed?
I do find it interesting that even the batf and the federal da in their brief want the court to find the second to be an individual right and that banning handguns in the home is a categorical ban of a commonly used firearm and is not constitutional.
lazs
Hey Lazie
OHH.. common theres more on gun owner side
yes the indivual rights that you can live with?
CONCLUSION
The Court should affirm that the Second Amendment,
no less than other provisions of the Bill of Rights,
secures an individual right, and should clarify that the
right is subject to the more flexible standard of review
described above . If the Court takes those foundational
steps, the better course would be to remand.
DoJ
wondering how much you could stand to read?
Check the bottom Brief.. Congress.
what about the militia?
here is one for you
http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/07-08/07-290_RespondentAmCuSenateHouseMembers.pdf
-
bingie.. admitting that it is indeed an individual right is the first step. It is an important step and one that needs to be out there to protect our other "rights"
You spend pages saying it was not an individual right.. it seems your supporters are retreating on that. I read a lot of the "briefs" (anything but).
They are interesting.. the anti gun rights nuts have a common theme.. they are saying that handguns are just evil. they miss a lot of common sense. Would you rather be shot by a homeowner with a handgun or a rifle or shotgun?
They get all mixed up.. they talk about handguns on the street and then mix that up with handguns in the home. They are desperate and most of the arguements are countered many times and are for the most part irrelevant to the case in question. They sound like they are begging in many cases.
lazs
-
I think there are two reasons why some want to eliminate handguns and possibly all firearms. For some of these people only one of these reasons apply, for the others, the second reason applies but they will never admit to it.
The only reason for eliminating private ownership of firearms that anyone will ever admit to is to take guns from criminals and children. These are the same people who place safety above all else including freedom. They are the ones that make seatbelt, bicycle helmets, various types of censorship, and gun control mandatory.
The other people are more devious in their motivation and want full control of the populace with less chance for revolt by citizens who feel powerless.
IMO there have been decades of encroachment on our second amendment right. Those who fear an individual right ruling by the SCOTUS are fully justified in fearing the undoing of this encroachment.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
bingie.. admitting that it is indeed an individual right is the first step. It is an important step and one that needs to be out there to protect our other "rights"
You spend pages saying it was not an individual right.. it seems your supporters are retreating on that. I read a lot of the "briefs" (anything but).
They are interesting.. the anti gun rights nuts have a common theme.. they are saying that handguns are just evil. they miss a lot of common sense. Would you rather be shot by a homeowner with a handgun or a rifle or shotgun?
They get all mixed up.. they talk about handguns on the street and then mix that up with handguns in the home. They are desperate and most of the arguements are countered many times and are for the most part irrelevant to the case in question. They sound like they are begging in many cases.
lazs
hahaha talk about mix ups guess these guys/gals/its have jummped ship:O
Go Team eh Lazie? :lol Gay gun toatin commies:rofl
http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/07-08/07-290_RespondentAmCuPinkPistolsGLIL.pdf
Once more the militia? That is what I spent pages on. You spent pages trying to tell me who I was and how I thought haha
-
You are pretty funny bingie.
generalizations are just that... they work tho because the majority (generally) the groups do such and such.
Jewish people in the US are liberal.. this is a generalization... it is like saying negros vote for democrats. It is true most of the time.
Of the liberal jews.. a small group is in support of firearms rights. same for gays.
In any case.. we are off track explaining the obvious. generally liberals are anything but when it comes to gun rights and they are anti individual rights when it comes to... at least the second amendment of the Bill of Rights.
You do not appear to be able to see the forest for the trees.
In any case.. it is heartwarming that so few of the hand wringers are using the "collective right" BS that you espouse so much.
They know it is a loser.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
You are pretty funny bingie.
generalizations are just that... they work tho because the majority (generally) the groups do such and such.
Jewish people in the US are liberal.. this is a generalization... it is like saying negros vote for democrats. It is true most of the time.
Of the liberal jews.. a small group is in support of firearms rights. same for gays.
In any case.. we are off track explaining the obvious. generally liberals are anything but when it comes to gun rights and they are anti individual rights when it comes to... at least the second amendment of the Bill of Rights.
You do not appear to be able to see the forest for the trees.
In any case.. it is heartwarming that so few of the hand wringers are using the "collective right" BS that you espouse so much.
They know it is a loser.
lazs
Please show me the land of JEW. You seam to be mixed up again lazie. Jewish is a faith. how about Christians, buhdists, Hindus's and countless other religions around the world, all having different stances. Most religions don't care for guns.
I wonder if other countries call us the Christew's?
You still wont answer will you, you know why? because in almost every brief the militia is mentioned as either not meeting the standard of militia or because being in a militia allows me my right to a gun.
you still think the militia will have nothing to do with the case?
I will say if your boys the DOJ gets its way, the fight will just go on. as for my lefty friends your wrong again. I will be wasting my vote for my beliefs on Ron Paul if he still in there.
espouse? you have a short memory. I'm for the 2nd for the umpteenth time. like I have said many time's ...point me too the line where i can get my F-22, my Abrams, my Stinger Missiles and my M-16. OH ... I'm sorry I know where the line is .... the military or the national guard.
the Doj explains what happened the militia as I have ..ad nauseam . How come you can't seam to get your brain around it? They way you do is to say "they should never have put that part in there". Well its there and it is the reason you have a gun.
-
bingie.. most of the briefs I have read say that the right is there even if the miltia did not exist. that it was common in those days to simply give an example of why a right needed to be protected.. that did not make the example exclusive in the least.
jew? are you saying that there are no groups in the US who consider themselves jews and that they are not predominantly liberal and anti gun and pro socialism? now who is being dense?
As for you being pro second amendment.. with friends like you... I'll stick with my enemies.
Your idea is that without a militia.. we have no right.. and the militia is only the government... which equals.. no "right" at all. the "right" for the government to arm itself is no right.. england had the same right.. look how "friends" of their right made that turn out.
you are no friend to the right of the people to keep and bear arms. You are a friend of governments right to tell us if we can have em or not.. that is how englands gun "right" bill was written.
lazs
-
When the government is taken away from the people and becomes a totalitarian entity of it`s own it aquires a new name, the enemy.
I`m just wondering that if and when such case comes to be, for those of us who believe in the constitution as it was written and the 2nd, how they plan on dealing with all of us outlaws.
Of course freedom can just be given away.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
I`m just wondering that if and when such case comes to be, for those of us who believe in the constitution as it was written and the 2nd, how they plan on dealing with all of us outlaws.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/04/ED5OUPQJ7.DTL
FEMA camps, REX-84, The Homegrown Terrorism Act, etc, etc... I think the answer to your question is obvious.
-
Originally posted by bsdaddict
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/04/ED5OUPQJ7.DTL
FEMA camps, REX-84, The Homegrown Terrorism Act, etc, etc... I think the answer to your question is obvious.
Maybe......but I don`t think so.
At least I hope that their are enough left that have the nads to stand the F up.
That would take quite a following to have a chance if carried to the fullest.
From what I see most of the very people that are in place now to do our bidding, both military and law enforcement would not stand for freedom to be taken away to this point. They are certainly not bound to do so........by anyone.
Then you have the crazies as we are called by the hand wringing liberals who are willing to give up freedom and personal rights at the drop of a hat.
Most of us crazies are just crazy enough to believe in the 2nd and the Constitution as it was written. There are a great, great many.
At least we can be secure in the fact that we are not the first.
There were them old crazy cats who designed and wrote it to begin with. :)
It`s just a question of how far the chipping will be allowed to go on.
That`s the dangerous point.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
Maybe......but I don`t think so.
At least I hope that their are enough left that have the nads to stand the F up.
I hope so to, but I'm not seeing any evidence that makes me confident in that hope. Was there an uprising, or even any resistance, to the gun grab in New Orleans? Lots of *****ing and moaning, but no one took a stand. We're frogs in a pot, the water's getting hotter and hotter and yet We the People stand idly by. 'Nads? Any patriot with the 'nads to stand up to an injustice in recent history gets slandered by the press and painted as a kook, if he's lucky. If he's unlucky the fedgov just kills 'em.
-
Originally posted by Bingolong
Please show me the land of JEW. You seam to be mixed up again lazie. Jewish is a faith. how about Christians, buhdists, Hindus's and countless other religions around the world, all having different stances. Most religions don't care for guns.
I wonder if other countries call us the Christew's?
You still wont answer will you, you know why? because in almost every brief the militia is mentioned as either not meeting the standard of militia or because being in a militia allows me my right to a gun.
you still think the militia will have nothing to do with the case?
I will say if your boys the DOJ gets its way, the fight will just go on. as for my lefty friends your wrong again. I will be wasting my vote for my beliefs on Ron Paul if he still in there.
espouse? you have a short memory. I'm for the 2nd for the umpteenth time. like I have said many time's ...point me too the line where i can get my F-22, my Abrams, my Stinger Missiles and my M-16. OH ... I'm sorry I know where the line is .... the military or the national guard.
the Doj explains what happened the militia as I have ..ad nauseam . How come you can't seam to get your brain around it? They way you do is to say "they should never have put that part in there". Well its there and it is the reason you have a gun.
Here I think you stepped on your pee pee!
There is a RACE known as Jew.
Hitler worked very hard to destroy that RACE.
It is NOT just a religion!
There really is a RACE known as the Jews.
The Romans got very upset with them. As did several other conquerors of their land.
As to their land? How about Israel? Which was basically DESTROYED by Rome back around 66AD and was only recently reformed/reborn/reestablished in 1948.
-
Here I think you stepped on your pee pee!
There is a RACE known as Jew.
Hitler worked very hard to destroy that RACE.
It is NOT just a religion!
There really is a RACE known as the Jews.
The Romans got very upset with them. As did several other conquerors of their land.
As to their land? How about Israel? Which was basically DESTROYED by Rome back around 66AD and was only recently reformed/reborn/reestablished in 1948.
Two peoples called them JEW, the romans and the nazis. Jewish people from Israel. WHO took the land from the Canaanite's in 1300 BC. and held it for 1300 years. so the Israel's are just like our own Natives right? Give them this reservation? on there own land?
Least I CAN step on mine.
-
A well balanced summation on the briefs.
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/national/2008/03/07/excerpts-from-friend-of-court-briefs.html (http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/national/2008/03/07/excerpts-from-friend-of-court-briefs.html)
one week to go
-
Lazie,
"jew? are you saying that there are no groups in the US who consider themselves jews and that they are not predominantly liberal and anti gun and pro socialism? now who is being dense?"
No... I am saying who would like to be called a name that only people that have only tried to destroy the existence of the Jewish race? Seams like a swear word to me. Its not JEW its Jewish. I no you dont like long names, but really do you need to be disrespectful?.
Not commenting on there gun beliefs.
"As for you being pro second amendment.. with friends like you... I'll stick with my enemies."
As you wish.... like I have said before, the intent that you prescribe too was lost long ago pal. if you think you can over run the goverenment with your kimber or you snub nose ... more too ya. As it is, the only thing you need your guns for IS for your own protection. Show me where it says that in the constitution.?
"Your idea is that without a militia.. we have no right.. and the militia is only the government... which equals.. no "right" at all. the "right" for the government to arm itself is no right.. england had the same right.. look how "friends" of their right made that turn out."
It's your government Laz, they make the rules, only a Police state will not allow you to have the same weapons as the government? Where we fall apart is around 1903 when the militia turned into the NG. The constitution says we are supposed to be equal to the military as the military is the Organized militia. As you say.. we are supposed to be the unorganized militia. In the constitution it does not make a distinction among the two. How come we cant have all the cool toys batman? WHY?....... Because the laws have changed.
"you are no friend to the right of the people to keep and bear arms. You are a friend of governments right to tell us if we can have em or not.. that is how englands gun "right" bill was written."
You are just wrong here.. like usual
-
No... I am saying who would like to be called a name that only people that have only tried to destroy the existence of the Jewish race? Seams like a swear word to me. Its not JEW its Jewish. I no you dont like long names, but really do you need to be disrespectful?.
Not commenting on there gun beliefs.
I don't know about that. My Jewish wife and her Jewish friends use the word "Jew" all the time when talking about individuals, or Jews for some groups of individuals or Jewish if appropriate. Example: "Yeah he's a Jew... You didn't know that?" or "It's a Jew thing... (should be grammatically Jewish though)" or "I didn't know there were Jews in Tulsa." or, as one of my wife's friends stated at dinner one night, before I corrected her: "Jews don't join the military." (In her defense, sort of, she grew up in the upscale north shore area of Chicago where virtually nobody joins the military, Jews perhaps somewhat less but probably not significantly so. A friend of hers actually is an Army Doctor and proud to wear the uniform.)
Do you hang out with any Jews?
Charon
-
I don't know about that. My Jewish wife and her Jewish friends use the word "Jew" all the time when talking about individuals, or Jews for some groups of individuals or Jewish if appropriate. Example: "Yeah he's a Jew... You didn't know that?" or "It's a Jew thing... (should be grammatically Jewish though)" or "I didn't know there were Jews in Tulsa." or, as one of my wife's friends stated at dinner one night, before I corrected her: "Jews don't join the military." (In her defense, sort of, she grew up in the upscale north shore area of Chicago where virtually nobody joins the military, Jews perhaps somewhat less but probably not significantly so. A friend of hers actually is an Army Doctor and proud to wear the uniform.)
Do you hang out with any Jews?
Charon
Some negros call themselves the N word... SO? does that make it okay for U?
-
sorry bingie.. the fact is that there is very little if anything that you are right about in this thread.
The militia part of the second is an example... one example for why we need the right.. it is not the exclusive reason. If it were.. then the feds blew it when they accepted states into the union and allowed their constituions to exist.. they would be contradictory. even if you were foolish enough to think that it was the only reason then you would have to go by what a militia was in 1776 (every able bodied person).. not what it morphed into.. You can't change the constitution by changing the meaning of words although.. you and your ilk do realize that it is worth a shot.. people are dumb after all.
laws do not exist to make the constitution moot.. the constitution exists to make laws.. bad laws.. moot.
You are of course... no friend of the second.. you wish to destroy it. You are no friend of our right to defend ourselves. You are the people the constitution protects us from.. those who would make bad law to take away rights.
lazs
-
sorry bingie.. the fact is that there is very little if anything that you are right about in this thread.
The militia part of the second is an example... one example for why we need the right.. it is not the exclusive reason. If it were.. then the feds blew it when they accepted states into the union and allowed their constituions to exist.. they would be contradictory. even if you were foolish enough to think that it was the only reason then you would have to go by what a militia was in 1776 (every able bodied person).. not what it morphed into.. You can't change the constitution by changing the meaning of words although.. you and your ilk do realize that it is worth a shot.. people are dumb after all.
laws do not exist to make the constitution moot.. the constitution exists to make laws.. bad laws.. moot.
You are of course... no friend of the second.. you wish to destroy it. You are no friend of our right to defend ourselves. You are the people the constitution protects us from.. those who would make bad law to take away rights.
lazs
Dumb people are people that dont understand that their right have all ready been taken away...such as yourself.
-
ok... lets put it this way... if they did manage to take away the right based on changing the meaning of words...
are you ok with that? given that you say only "dumb" people don't realize that they already have?
Face it.. you would be thrilled.. you would love to see any right you don't like taken away.
lazs
-
ok... lets put it this way... if they did manage to take away the right based on changing the meaning of words...
are you ok with that? given that you say only "dumb" people don't realize that they already have?
Face it.. you would be thrilled.. you would love to see any right you don't like taken away.
lazs
I will just simply point you here once more.
http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm
Have I not lost most of the right to be a militia?
Says I can have the weapons of the time? I can Not.
Your argument you need it for a tyrannical gov. is lost in the noise.
The only reason you need a gun is for your protection, not to protect others as that is not your job.
In order for you to be correct. You need to get the constitution changed. to exclude the militia.
It is not mine to prove the militia clause its there BOLD and is the basis for the second amendment.
Just becuase I can read and follow the progression of the Militia, does not mean that I'm a lideral whack job that is against gun rights.
Try to get that straight.
-
double post mistake
-
Some negros call themselves the N word... SO? does that make it okay for U?
You have no clue. None what so ever.
From Miriam-Webster
Main Entry:
Jew Listen to the pronunciation of Jew
Pronunciation:
\ˈjü\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English, from Anglo-French ju, jeu, from Latin Judaeus, from Greek Ioudaios, from Hebrew Yĕhūdhī, from Yĕhūdhāh Judah, Jewish kingdom
Date:
13th century
1 a: a member of the tribe of Judah b: israelite
2: a member of a nation existing in Palestine from the sixth century b.c. to the first century a.d.
3: a person belonging to a continuation through descent or conversion of the ancient Jewish people
4: one whose religion is Judaism
Notice there is NO reference to Jew being a derogatory term. Now, when my Jewish friends in High school occasionally, for a short period of time, called each other "Jewboy" -- that is in line with you N word reference. And yes, outsiders were not welcomed to use the term :)
Again, just how many Jews do you know and socialize with on a regular basis?
Charon
-
You have no clue. None what so ever.
From Miriam-Webster
Notice there is NO reference to Jew being a derogatory term. Now, when my Jewish friends in High school occasionally, for a short period of time, called each other "Jewboy" -- that is in line with you N word reference. And yes, outsiders were not welcomed to use the term :)
Again, just how many Jews do you know and socialize with on a regular basis?
Charon
You have no clue. :)
The romans gave the derogatory name JEW to the Jewish people not because they liked them mind you. Go tell your wife that every time she says it she is repeating the romans that wanted to slaughter her people and drove them from there home land. Same with Hitler.
Mater fact I have a few Jewish friends one with the last name Cohen who's name dates back to the beginning of the Jewish people. Calling them JEW is degrading. That is how I see it.
When you ask your wife a question about her faith. Do you say "hey honey when you Jews were in the desert all that time..." Or "Its because of you Jews that the middle east is in turmoil don't you think dear?" I doubt it. and why not its disrespectful. If your wife wishes to do that it's her choice. She should look up where the word came from.
I was taught bye my folks not to call them JEWS as there are Israelites people of Jeddah an ancient kingdom of the Hebrews.
-
As it is, the only thing you need your guns for IS for your own protection. Show me where it says that in the constitution.?
Amendment IX: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
-
The romans gave the derogatory name JEW to the Jewish people not because they liked them mind you. Go tell your wife that every time she says it she is repeating the romans that wanted to slaughter her people and drove them from there home land. Same with Hitler.
Mater fact I have a few Jewish friends one with the last name Cohen who's name dates back to the beginning of the Jewish people. Calling them JEW is degrading. That is how I see it.
When you ask your wife a question about her faith. Do you say "hey honey when you Jews were in the desert all that time..." Or "Its because of you Jews that the middle east is in turmoil don't you think dear?" I doubt it. and why not its disrespectful. If your wife wishes to do that it's her choice. She should look up where the word came from.
I was taught bye my folks not to call them JEWS as there are Israelites people of Jeddah an ancient kingdom of the Hebrews.
I would tell my wife, if I thought she needed a good laugh. It is not disrespectful. You are being unnecessarily politically correct. Even this Jewish writer with the 6 page article published in the New York Times on what it means to be considered a Jew in Israel apparently has it wrong, since he uses the word Jew about 10 times on each page.
How Do You Prove You’re a Jew?
...More than any other issue, the question of Who is a Jew? has repeatedly roiled relations between Israel and American Jewry. Psychologically, it is an argument over who belongs to the family. In the past, the casus belli was conversion: Would the Law of Return, which grants automatic citizenship to any Jew coming to Israel, apply to those converted to Judaism by non-Orthodox rabbis? Now, as Sharon’s experience indicates, the status of Jews by birth is in question. Equally important, the dividing line is no longer between Orthodox and non-Orthodox. The rabbinate’s handling of the issue has placed it on one side of an ideological fissure within Orthodox Judaism itself, between those concerned with making sure no stranger enters the gates and those who fear leaving sisters and brothers outside.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/magazine/02jewishness-t.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Apparently even the Knesset needs to be schooled on the word Jew.
In 1970, the Knesset defined the term “Jew” as meaning “one who was born to a Jewish mother or who converted to Judaism.”
Even orthodox rabbis have it wrong.
“If you don’t keep the Torah and the commandments, O.K., so I excluded you. In any case you weren’t a complete Jew,” is how Friedman explains the attitude.
"Complete Jew" ... that guy must be a real self loathing Israelite, person of Jeddah.
Charon
-
you are being silly bingie.. If in 2009 they decide there is no such thing as a militia.. does that mean to you that the second has no meaning at all?
That is suddenly, without any constitutional convention.. becomes moot?
None of this matters since only you and at best, 20% of the country think that the second is anything but an individual right. No serious scholar subscribes to your far left interpretation of the second.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-02-26-guns-cover_N.htm
To say that it is not an individual right would conflict with state constitutions that existed when those states joined the union..
Talk about change! if you suddenly said that the second was a "collective right" or... translated.. no right at all.. then you would have to change a bunch of state constitutions... send in the federal troops if they did not.
Nope.. if the states constitutions conflicted at the time then they should not have been accepted into the union.
None of this however is anything but common sense.. anyone reading the second can see that it was not written to give states the right to arm their army.
lazs
-
you are being silly bingie.. If in 2009 they decide there is no such thing as a militia.. does that mean to you that the second has no meaning at all?
That is suddenly, without any constitutional convention.. becomes moot?
None of this matters since only you and at best, 20% of the country think that the second is anything but an individual right. No serious scholar subscribes to your far left interpretation of the second.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-02-26-guns-cover_N.htm
To say that it is not an individual right would conflict with state constitutions that existed when those states joined the union..
Talk about change! if you suddenly said that the second was a "collective right" or... translated.. no right at all.. then you would have to change a bunch of state constitutions... send in the federal troops if they did not.
Nope.. if the states constitutions conflicted at the time then they should not have been accepted into the union.
None of this however is anything but common sense.. anyone reading the second can see that it was not written to give states the right to arm their army.
lazs
No.. Lazie I was just saying take out the militia part so it will read how you want it to. Without the militia part it would be an individual right. Right? The only one who need it amended is you and the rest of the whacko gun freaks.
I'm happy the way it is. At the moment it does not read as an individual right. There are no militias of one.
You get so bent about it, and have stated they should have never put the militia part in. The fact that you say that means, it is just a bumb in the road to your percived gun rights, that you know its not an individual right and wish it to be changed.
I would just like to see a definition of the unorganized militia as the organized militia is defined.
Na .... anyone who reads it from left to right can see that a militia is involved in the right to bear arms... Why did they frame the question the way they did? Who in this day and age is involved in a militia? Not to many folks.
-
I would just like to see a definition of the unorganized militia as the organized militia is defined.
The currently effective Militia Act -- 10 U.S.C. § 311 (enacted 1956, amended 1958).
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and . . . under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are --
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
-
The currently effective Militia Act -- 10 U.S.C. § 311 (enacted 1956, amended 1958).
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and . . . under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are --
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Go here Im not going to start over but thanks
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,220172.0.html
However you should include the whole provision
312. MILITIA DUTY: EXEMPTIONS
The following persons are exempt from militia duy:
(a) (1) The Vice President.
(2) The judicial and executive officers of the United States, the
several States and Territories, Puerto Rico, and the Canal Zone.
(3) Members of the armed forces, except members who are not on
active duty.
(4) Customhouse clerks.
(5) Persons employed by the United States in the transmission of
mail.
(6) Workmen employed in armories, arsenals,and naval shipyards of
the United States.
(7) Pilots on navigable waters
(8) Mariners in the sea service of a citizen of, or a merchant in,
the United States.
(b) A person who claims exemption because of religious belief is
exempt from militia duty in a combatant capacity, if the
conscientious holding of that belief is established under
such regulations as the President may prescribe. However,
such a person is not exempt from militia duty that the President
determines to be noncombatant.
[there are no sections 313-330]
331.FEDERAL AID FOR STATE GOVERNMENTS
Whenever there is an insurrection in any State against its
government, the President may, upon the request of its legislature
or of its governor if the legislature cannot be convened, call
into Federal service such of the militia of the other States,
in the number requested by that State, and use such of
the armed forces, as he considers necessary to suppress the
insurrection.
332.USE OF MILITIA AND ARMED FORCES TO ENFORCE FEDERAL AUTHORITY
Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions,
combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority
of the United States make it impracticable to enforce the laws
of the United States in any State or Territory by the ordinary
course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal
service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the
armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws
or to suppress the insurrection.
333.INTERFERENCE WITH STATE AND FEDERAL LAW
The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or
both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he
considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection,
domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it--
a) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and
of the United States within the State, that any part or
class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege,
immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and
secured by law, and the constituted authorities of the
State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right,
privilege, immunity, or to give that protection; or
b) opposed or obstructs the execution of the laws of the
United States or impedes the course of justice under
these laws
In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be
considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws
secured by the Constitution.
334.PROCLAMATION TO DISPERSE
Whenever the President considers it necessary to use the
militia or the armed forces under this chapter, he shall,
by proclamation, immediately order the insurgents to
disperse and retire peaceably to their abodes within a
limited time.
As to your 9th amendment argument, I have said the same and maybe the 10th and possible the 14th as well.
-
The currently effective Militia Act -- 10 U.S.C. § 311 (enacted 1956, amended 1958).
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and . . . under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are --
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
So then (2) accounts for everyone else not in the National Guard. Which means someone in 1956-58 understood "the right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed."
I doubt Heller at the SCOTUS can do anything other than 1.) send the case back to a lower court or 2.) clear up the language and intent of the 2nd.
If the SCOTUS chooses to clear up the language then it will be an "either or" affermation of individual right vs. the vital interests of the government; since the DOJ has openly played the Fed governments investment in this by trying a soft manipulation of the SCOTUS in front of the whole country. Hasen't the SCOTUS historicly stuck it to the Fed government when it's tried things like this in full view of "We the People"? After all the members of the SCOTUS have a certain amount of power they have historicaly guarded religiously against presidential interference.
Maybe Bush knows his SCOTUS and did this on purpose to get slapped in the face by the SCOTUS with an affermation of "We the People" on his way out of the White House? Coming outright with a stand for the individual right position would be a loosing bet at this point in his political popularity and lack of ability to control Clinton holdovers at the DOJ. One of his ongoing stratagies has been to own Democrat\Liberal initiatives to take away thier power. The outcome of that is for another disturbing discussion....... :huh
-
finally! at last we got you to admit that anyone (97% of the country in the USA today quick poll) that anyone who thinks the the second is an individual right is a "rest of the whacko gun freaks"
Why did you have to be so dishonest? why is the left always so prone to lie? to pretend to be either on your side or.. at least.. not your enemy? the basic dishonesty of all your posts is pretty sickening but.. typical.
It takes getting you angry before you blurt out how you really feel.. not that it was that difficult... it is just that you could have saved us a lot of time by stating your true position in the first place.
You are cornered.. the militia was every able bodied man when the second was written.. you can't change that to mean.. be meaningless.. to say it means that it is the right of the states to arm their soldiers...
It would be the same as if you changed the meaning of "peace" or "quartered" in the third amendment and made them moot without a constitutional convention.
but.. despite your fervent wishes.. I don't believe any supreme court short of one appointed by you is going to tell 98% of Americans that a right that they thought they always had if really no right at all.
lazs
-
Go here Im not going to start over but thanks
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,220172.0.html
However you should include the whole provision
you asked "to see a definition of the unorganized militia as the organized militia is defined." I answered. Your followup adds nothing to the answer.
As to your 9th amendment argument, I have said the same and maybe the 10th and possible the 14th as well.
Well, if you agree that the right to self-defense is covered by the 9th, why were you so adamant that it wasn't in the Constitution?
-
Thank you Laz,
For a moment I thought Bing had let someone else use his/her account since he/she had been supporting the right to keep and bare arms with restrictions.
Unless,, Laz,, his/her account is a shill for several persons trying to troll 2ndA discussions. This last posting of Bing's is out of character to the person who has been discorsing with you for most of the argument. It is 100% anti individual right as opposed to the previous postings were individual right but accepting the government has a vital interest in being able to control gun ownership for national security and public safety purposes. But the overall discource by the Bing account has read like anti 2ndA shills on other sites who were found out to be volunteers and staffers for anti gun public interest groups during election, bill passing and SCOTUS case review cycles.
posted by Bingolong
No.. Lazie I was just saying take out the militia part so it will read how you want it to. Without the militia part it would be an individual right. Right? The only one who need it amended is you and the rest of the whacko gun freaks.
I'm happy the way it is. At the moment it does not read as an individual right. There are no militias of one.
You get so bent about it, and have stated they should have never put the militia part in. The fact that you say that means, it is just a bumb in the road to your percived gun rights, that you know its not an individual right and wish it to be changed.
I would just like to see a definition of the unorganized militia as the organized militia is defined.
Na .... anyone who reads it from left to right can see that a militia is involved in the right to bear arms... Why did they frame the question the way they did? Who in this day and age is involved in a militia? Not to many folks.
-
During the mid 80's a study of the 2nd amendment was sponsored by a university (?). Out of 36 scholars of the constitution, 34 of them concluded that it was an individual right and the other 2 concluded it was a collective right. I think it's pretty telling that 34 out of 36 came to the same conclusion, overwhelming evidence that it is an individual right.
-
yep... get a liberal socialist mad enough and he will drop the phoney act and blurt out how he really feels...
then he will go away once he knows his covers have been pulled and.. try to find someone else to get all smarmy with.
lazs
-
finally! at last we got you to admit that anyone (97% of the country in the USA today quick poll) that anyone who thinks the the second is an individual right is a "rest of the whacko gun freaks"
Why did you have to be so dishonest? why is the left always so prone to lie? to pretend to be either on your side or.. at least.. not your enemy? the basic dishonesty of all your posts is pretty sickening but.. typical.
It takes getting you angry before you blurt out how you really feel.. not that it was that difficult... it is just that you could have saved us a lot of time by stating your true position in the first place.
You are cornered.. the militia was every able bodied man when the second was written.. you can't change that to mean.. be meaningless.. to say it means that it is the right of the states to arm their soldiers...
It would be the same as if you changed the meaning of "peace" or "quartered" in the third amendment and made them moot without a constitutional convention.
but.. despite your fervent wishes.. I don't believe any supreme court short of one appointed by you is going to tell 98% of Americans that a right that they thought they always had if really no right at all.
lazs
:noid Climbs drain pipe in corner :rolleyes:
Oh common lazie I put that in just for you. I am far from angry hehe nice try :)
Seams like your the one who is upset. Your really reaching Laz :)
The militia was put into the NG in 1903 you know that .. common tell the truth. You have also said that the militia law was never really enforced from the time it was made and it was a kind of do it if you want thing. However there are still laws about it. We have been over it before.
Why wont you accept a definition of the unorganized militia? I mean why doesn't that work for you? You just assume it will be bad?
They might say "The Unorganized Militia is every able bodied person in the U.S. ."
Be honest your fear of losing your guns eats you.
As I have said before, I hope you don't.
-
yep... get a liberal socialist mad enough and he will drop the phoney act and blurt out how he really feels...
then he will go away once he knows his covers have been pulled and.. try to find someone else to get all smarmy with.
lazs
:aok
-
Seems these guys forgot that it is usually governments practicing bigotry that murder citizens en masse. How can we be so stupid as to trust our government without recourse?
http://www.nraila.org//Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?ID=3387
-
poor bingie... you are stuck with saying that "the people" means something different in the second than in every other part of the constitution.. you are stuck with saying that the "militia" that was written about in the second was then defined in 1903 and that... even tho in 1903 they defined the milita as pretty much every sane adult.. it somehow.. only means the first part.. the national guard. How do you define the unorganized militia?
you are stuck with the fact that the union accepted the states and their constitutions.. and still does.. that clearly give the individual a right to keep and bear arms... no state constitution says that it is not an individual right.. no state says that only the state can be armed.. how do you get around that?
What you are saying is that the constitution can be changed by simply writing an act that changes the defenition of a word that was in use when the constitution was written.
I know it irks you but.. you are in a miniscule minority of liberals who hate and fear the second.
The stretch you need to make to come up with a "collective right" is past the breaking point.
Can you, by the way, give the 18th century definition of a "collective right"?
I know that they had one for "people" and for "state" back then. I believe that if they had meant "state" they would have said that "the right of the state to keep and bear arms shall not..." I believe that if they had meant for the militia to be the sole and exclusive reason for having a right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms they would have said so.. it would have read.....
"for the sole purpose of having the state militia, the right of the state to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
What you are saying is that if some act next year defines "quartered" as any installing of troops in private houses where they are served a continental breakfast.. then.. the government could throw out the third so long as they didn't make you serve the soldiers coffee and a pastry in the morning.
You can't modify the constitution by some act defining a term. only a few pitiful liberals take that route.. you are in the extreme minority.
As for your outburst on how you really feel about people who believe in the individual right to own and bear arms... I don't think your dancing about how it only applied to me in some personal attack cuts it with anyone... pretty sure that every gun owner here was offended by your "whacko" outburst.
lazs
-
But.. it is useful to look at how people phrased things back then.. these from state constitutions...
" Some Other Contemporaneous Constitutional Provisions With a Similar Grammatical Structure
13
Rhode Island Free Press Clause: The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish sentiments on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty . . . . 14
Massachusetts Free Press Clause: The liberty of the press is essential to the security of freedom in a state it ought not, therefore, to be restricted in this commonwealth. 15
Massachusetts Speech and Debate Clause: The freedom of deliberation, speech and debate, in either house of the legislature, is so essential to the rights of the people, that it cannot be the foundation of any accusation of prosecution, action or complaint, in any other court or place whatsoever. 16
New Hampshire Venue Clause: In criminal prosecutions, the trial of the facts in the vicinity where they happen is so essential to the security of the life, liberty, and estate of the citizen, that no crime or offence ought to be tried in any other county than that in which it is committed . . . . 17
as can be seen... and according to the reasoning of the great liberal thinkers of of today like bingie and 2% of the population....
the right to free speech is only a "collective right" only the press has it for instance in some cases.. only criminals while at trial in others... only in a debate in others..
The first part of the second amendment is exactly like those.. it is an example of why a right can't be taken away.. it is not the end all and be all of the right.
what kind of idiot would think otherwise?
lazs
-
According to the USC, Title 10, Subtitle A, Part 1, Chapter 13, Section 311
Section 311. Militia: composition and classes
(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.
U.S. Code as of: 01/19/04
Regards,
Kevin
I would just like to see a definition of the unorganized militia as the organized militia is defined.
Na .... anyone who reads it from left to right can see that a militia is involved in the right to bear arms... Why did they frame the question the way they did? Who in this day and age is involved in a militia? Not to many folks.
-
According to the USC, Title 10, Subtitle A, Part 1, Chapter 13, Section 311
Section 311. Militia: composition and classes
(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.
U.S. Code as of: 01/19/04
Regards,
Kevin
http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm
III. And be it further enacted, That within one year after the passing of the Act, the militia of the respective states shall be arranged into divisions, brigades, regiments, battalions, and companies, as the legislature of each state shall direct; and each division, brigade, and regiment, shall be numbered at the formation thereof; and a record made of such numbers of the Adjutant-General's office in the state; and when in the field, or in serviced in the state, such division, brigade, and regiment shall, respectively, take rank according to their numbers, reckoning the first and lowest number highest in rank. That if the same be convenient, each brigade shall consist of four regiments; each regiment or two battalions; each battalion of five companies; each company of sixty-four privates. That the said militia shall be officered by the respective states, as follows: To each division on Major-General, with two Aids-de-camp, with the rank of major; to each brigade, one brigadier-major, with the rank of a major; to each company, one captain, one lieutenant, one ensign, four serjeants, four corporals, one drummer, and one fifer and bugler. That there shall be a regimental staff, to consist of one adjutant, and one quartermaster, to rank as lieutenants; one paymaster; one surgeon, and one surgeon's mate; one serjeant-major; one drum- major, and one fife-major.
IV. And be it further enacted, That out of the militia enrolled as is herein directed, there shall be formed for each battalion, as least one company of grenadiers, light infantry or riflemen; and that each division there shall be, at least, one company of artillery, and one troop of horse: There shall be to each company of artillery, one captain, two lieutenants, four serjeants, four corporals, six gunners, six bombardiers, one drummer, and one fifer. The officers to be armed with a sword or hanger, a fusee, bayonet and belt, with a cartridge box to contain twelve cartridges; and each private of matoss shall furnish themselves with good horses of at least fourteen hands and an half high, and to be armed with a sword and pair of pistols, the holsters of which to be covered with bearskin caps. Each dragoon to furnish himself with a serviceable horse, at least fourteen hands and an half high, a good saddle, bridle, mail-pillion and valise, holster, and a best plate and crupper, a pair of boots and spurs; a pair of pistols, a sabre, and a cartouchbox to contain twelve cartridges for pistols. That each company of artillery and troop of house shall be formed of volunteers from the brigade, at the discretion of the Commander in Chief of the State, not exceeding one company of each to a regiment, nor more in number than one eleventh part of the infantry, and shall be uniformly clothed in raiments, to be furnished at their expense, the colour and fashion to be determined by the Brigadier commanding the brigade to which they belong.
V. And be it further enacted, That each battalion and regiment shall be provided with the state and regimental colours by the Field-Officers, and each company with a drum and fife or bugle-horn, by the commissioned officers of the company, in such manner as the legislature of the respective States shall direct.
VI. And be it further enacted, That there shall be an adjutant general appointed in each state, whose duty it shall be to distribute all orders for the Commander in Chief of the State to the several corps; to attend all publick reviews, when the Commander in Chief of the State shall review the militia, or any part thereof; to obey all orders from him relative to carrying into execution, and perfecting, the system of military discipline established by this Act; to furnish blank forms of different returns that may be required; and to explain the principles of which they should be made; to receive from the several officers of the different corps throughout the state, returns of the militia under their command, reporting the actual situation of their arms, accoutrements, and ammunition, their delinquencies, and every other thing which relates to the general advancement of good order and discipline: All which, the several officers of the division, brigades, regiments, and battalions are hereby required to make in the usual manner, so that the said adjutant general may be duly furnished therewith: From all which returns be shall make proper abstracts, and by the same annually before the Commander in Chief of the State.
The States revise the military codes - 1881 to 1892
Concern over the militia's new domestic role also led the States to reexamine their need for a well-equipped and trained militia, and between 1881 and 1892, every state revised the military code to provide for an organized force. Most changed the name of their militias to the National Guard, following New York's example.
The Militia Act, 1903
affirmed the National Guard as the primary organized reserve force.
Between 1903 and the 1920's, legislation was enacted that strengthened the Army National Guard as a component of the national defense force. The Dick Act of 1903 replaced the 1792 Militia Act and affirmed the National Guard as the Army's primary organized reserve.
The National Defense Act, 1916
guaranteed the State militias as the primary reserve force; gave the President the authority to mobilize the Guard during war or national emergency; made use of the term "National Guard" mandatory; authorized drill pay for the first time.
The National Defense Act of 1916 further expanded the Guard's role and guaranteed the State militias' status as the Army's primary reserve force. Furthermore, the law mandated use of the term "National Guard" for that force. Moreover, the President was given authority, in case of war or national emergency, to mobilize the National Guard for the duration of the emergency. The number of yearly drills increased from 24 to 48 and annual training from five to 15 days. Drill pay was authorized for the first time.
The National Defense Act Amendments, 1920
put the National Guard on the general staff; reorganized the divisions.
The National Guard Mobilization Act, 1933
made the National Guard a component of the Army.
The Total Force Policy, 1973
Requires all active and reserve military organizations be treated as a single integrated force; reinforced the original intent of the founding fathers (a small standing army complemented by citizen-soldiers.)
Regards,
-
bingie.. you keep bringing up definitions of militia that were made up after the second amendment was written and... did you notice? not one.. none of them....
ever mention their relevance to the second. why do you suppose that is? A logical man would see that they don't mention it because they don't see any relevance to the second when they wrote the acts defining militias.. that "militia" was not the end all and be all reason for the second any more than freedom of the press and public debate being necessary to a free state means that free speech is only for the press or debates.. It matters not if the US comes up with some act to define "the press"
This is consistent with how things worked out.. when the states with second amendment type constitutions but... without the "militia" part joined the union.. that would have been the time for you liberals to crush the second.. you should have not allowed their constitutions to stand if you believed in "collective rights" but....
of course you didn't because.. no one like you existed back then.. no one back then thought the second was anything but an individual right.
No one back then believed that there was anything in the constitution that was a "collective right" or.. to put it plainly.. no right at all.
please give the definition of "collective right" from the 18th century.
Even so... even if you accept a militia as the main reason for the second.. the only reason even.. the militia at the time was defined as every able bodied man.
Now.. I don't recall any constitutional convention that changed the second from it's original meaning or intent.
but... even if you stretch (as you have) past the breaking point... if you say that all the state constitutions are illegal and were just somehow... not noticed.. even if you think that the second was only a right of the state to arm it's soldiers as militia... even if you think that the word "militia" is the hinge and that the second can change from day to day depending on how the current congress is willing to define it...
Even at that.. the "unorganized militia" still exists today.. it is everyone not in the organized militia... it is.. well.. the people.. and we come full circle.
lazs
-
and bingie... not to pound on you too much but from your own cut and paste..."The National Defense Act, 1916
guaranteed the State militias as the primary reserve force; "
notice how it said "primary"?
do you know what primary means? do you know what "only" means.. it is not a trick question like "state" and "people"
I would even go so far as to say that in the original intent.. the militia... every able bodied man being able to form a militia... was, if not "primary" at least very important reason for the second...enough that they gave it as an example.
I have seen nothing that you have said that...
proves that the militia is the sole purpose of the second nor...
anything that says that the militia was not or even is not.. every able bodied citizen.
lazs
-
bingie.. you keep bringing up definitions of militia that were made up after the second amendment was written and... did you notice? not one.. none of them....
ever mention their relevance to the second. why do you suppose that is? A logical man would see that they don't mention it because they don't see any relevance to the second when they wrote the acts defining militias.. that "militia" was not the end all and be all reason for the second any more than freedom of the press and public debate being necessary to a free state means that free speech is only for the press or debates.. It matters not if the US comes up with some act to define "the press"
This is consistent with how things worked out.. when the states with second amendment type constitutions but... without the "militia" part joined the union.. that would have been the time for you liberals to crush the second.. you should have not allowed their constitutions to stand if you believed in "collective rights" but....
of course you didn't because.. no one like you existed back then.. no one back then thought the second was anything but an individual right.
No one back then believed that there was anything in the constitution that was a "collective right" or.. to put it plainly.. no right at all.
please give the definition of "collective right" from the 18th century.
Even so... even if you accept a militia as the main reason for the second.. the only reason even.. the militia at the time was defined as every able bodied man.
Now.. I don't recall any constitutional convention that changed the second from it's original meaning or intent.
but... even if you stretch (as you have) past the breaking point... if you say that all the state constitutions are illegal and were just somehow... not noticed.. even if you think that the second was only a right of the state to arm it's soldiers as militia... even if you think that the word "militia" is the hinge and that the second can change from day to day depending on how the current congress is willing to define it...
Even at that.. the "unorganized militia" still exists today.. it is everyone not in the organized militia... it is.. well.. the people.. and we come full circle.
lazs
your not pounding on me lazzie
whats your membership #, who's your commanding officer, who's your paymaster. It says members of the militia lazzie. What register militia are you a member of?
-
is the word "unorganized" confusing to you?
-
According to the USC, Title 10, Subtitle A, Part 1, Chapter 13, Section 311
Section 311. Militia: composition and classes
(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.
U.S. Code as of: 01/19/04
I beleive bing each of us not in active duty, national gaurd, organised militia, or naval militia is covered under:
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.
But bing by now in the thread you appear to be acting obtuse in the same manner as placing a potato in someones car exaust for your own entertainment factor at their expence. You have kinda devolved yourself from an interesting read to the same catagory as my neighbors teenage son who while mooning someone with his pants around his ankles and got used by a large dog in a public place..............he's the pride of our neighborhood now....... :salute
-
is the word "unorganized" confusing to you?
no is the word "Member" hard for you to understand?
-
I beleive bing each of us not in active duty, national gaurd, organised militia, or naval militia is covered under:
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.
But bing by now in the thread you appear to be acting obtuse in the same manner as placing a potato in someones car exaust for your own entertainment factor at their expence. You have kinda devolved yourself from an interesting read to the same catagory as my neighbors teenage son who while mooning someone with his pants around his ankles and got used by a large dog in a public place..............he's the pride of our neighborhood now.......
would you say there are no rules for a militia buster?
Whats you membership ID buster? where is your militia registered buster? who is your commanding officer Buster?
A "well regulated militia" are you saying there are no regulations in a militia?
-
no is the word "Member" hard for you to understand?
not particularly, especially considering that paragraph (a) is right there to clear it up...
-
not particularly, especially considering that paragraph (a) is right there to clear it up...
oh yeah what is the virginia defence force or the texas militia then?
http://www.rickross.com/reference/militia/militia91.html
-
Bing,
So you are throwing out the composition and classes in the definition and only accepting (b) part (1)? Is (b) part (2) there only to fill in space?
I doubt the SCOTUS is this narrow minded to the constitutions definition of "the right of the people". Escpecially as Laz pointed out many states would not join the Union if thier constitutions definition of "the right of the people" was not held to mean exactly an individual pre existing right.
The constitution does not grant rights to the people as many misconstrue. It "identifies" pre existing ineliable rights of "the people" and defines the limitations on the governments powers granted by "the people". At the time of the writing of "A well regulated militia" the militia was not an entity of the federal government such that it's power and self interests superceeded the right of the people to keep and bare arms as they saw fit.
"The security of a free state" cannot mean an area of land in a federal union since each STATE had its own constitution and the federal government was a union of the states. So it's the interest of all the people to have a free state which can only be insured if the people can protect as individuals their own lives. The pre existing right of each human being to protect their lives from anything animal, man or government. No milita needed since the the STATEs and Union exist only because of human beings by the virtue of thier pre existing rights.
This whole thread seems to hinge on wheather today the government's interests and needs have evolved to the point that the following concepts as understood 250 years ago "the right of the people" and pre existing natural rights of each human being cannot exist in the face of governments that have promoted their people granted powers to unassalliable rights.
-
Bing,
So you are throwing out the composition and classes in the definition and only accepting (b) part (1)? Is (b) part (2) there only to fill in space?
I doubt the SCOTUS is this narrow minded to the constitutions definition of "the right of the people". Escpecially as Laz pointed out many states would not join the Union if thier constitutions definition of "the right of the people" was not held to mean exactly an individual pre existing right.
The constitution does not grant rights to the people as many misconstrue. It "identifies" pre existing ineliable rights of "the people" and defines the limitations on the governments powers granted by "the people". At the time of the writing of "A well regulated militia" the militia was not an entity of the federal government such that it's power and self interests superceeded the right of the people to keep and bare arms as they saw fit.
"The security of a free state" cannot mean an area of land in a federal union since each STATE had its own constitution and the federal government was a union of the states. So it's the interest of all the people to have a free state which can only be insured if the people can protect as individuals their own lives. The pre existing right of each human being to protect their lives from anything animal, man or government. No milita needed since the the STATEs and Union exist only because of human beings by the virtue of thier pre existing rights.
This whole thread seems to hinge on wheather today the government's interests and needs have evolved to the point that the following concepts as understood 250 years ago "the right of the people" and pre existing natural rights of each human being cannot exist in the face of governments that have promoted their people granted powers to unassalliable rights.
Buster,
Why is there a definition of the militia? Because in the 2nd it says "A well regulated Militia"
Most of the legal militias of today, have set training, are registered, and have a code of conduct. It says "members" of a militia. They are registered militias left, that are not the NG. It says very specifically member of "unorganized militia" which are not the NG.
Which way do you guys want it you either follow the progression of the militia or you join one registered militias that are left.
I can't help it that "the People" have decided, in most states, not to pursue their right to militia. Which they clearly have and are able to be members of... and be well regulated.
and no the age limit still apply
It's very clear to me
-
It's very clear to me
I think the folks who have been making the laws the last few decades agree with your point of view. I think they are about to lose all the ground they have worked so hard on for so long. The constitution and our liberty will prevail. :)
-
I think the folks who have been making the laws the last few decades agree with your point of view. I think they are about to lose all the ground they have worked so hard on for so long. The constitution and our liberty will prevail. :)
I hope your right :)
-
Membership in a militia was used in the pre statement as a general and well understood construct of the period in which the line was written to describe the definition of arms to keep the people equal to the current militairy so they could protect themselves from a government gone bad.
It was an imagry construct that all persons of the time understood for itself and so not to allow the government then or in the future to redefine the meaning of "arms" down to the point of obscurity, effectivly disarming the people in case the government went bad.
In reality this is what governments in the U.S. have accomplished with gun ban laws like D.C.'s and why the case is going to the SCOTUS.
The Militia statement is used as a yard stick definition for any given point in time of what "arms" are in the statement and recognition of "the right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed."
You don't touch on the meaning of "the security of a free state." That was a polite way to not point fingers at any specific entity, but still was understood as the conditon that all men had the right to protect with thier own arms. Whomever the agent of destruction and aggression might be from a single aggressor up to a government gone bad. State in this case is not "The State". It is a "state of freedom" which they had just fought a war for against "The State", which in some cases the crown refered to itself as.
-
bingie... I think I understand what a "member" of something is.. I am a member of the human race... I am a member of the white race.. I am a member of the the AH community.. I have no commanding officer nor am I paid nor are there any rules that require a leader.
even by the 1903 militia act.. the unorganized militia was recognized as valid.. there is no pay nor do they carry any card or even have leaders normally. What part of "unorganized" do you not understand?
If you want to get into the meaning of words.. then it is you who will lose. In order for any of your points to valid you would need to twist the meaning of words then in use and ones now in use.
you could not say, change the meaning of the word "arms" by an act of congress to mean say "flowerpots" and then say the second only protected the rights of people to keep and bear flowerpots.
I am still waiting for the 18th century definition of "collective rights" I would also like to see the 18th century meanings for the words "the people" and "the state" .
lazs
lazs
-
If you argue the language of the constitution from the point of construct and meaning of the 21st century, the constitution becomes what ever an eloquent liar(lawyer\politician\professor) wants it to be. To many of us 250 years later the constitution has no common frame of meaning other than what our chosen leadership tells us it means. Ideologicly we choose the leaders who reflect how we want the world to operate as opposed to what our laws say. That's been the ongoing erosion of the constitution.
If you go through the very painfull process of learning the american language and writing style from 1776 and how it was used to communicate the hard learned realities of governments abuses of the people in that time. You would understand from the shared common experineces and imagery the well chosen language of the constitution and it's amendmants to protect the people from the government.
In 250 years the natural rights of the people as identified by the constituion for protection have not changed. The constitution is today acting as the warning and description of what people look like who want to deprive their fellow humans of their pre existing natural rights. The constitution was written in the language and imagery of 1776 to curb the government from infringing on the pre existing natural rights of We the People.
It was not written as the rule book of how We the People will submit to the Rule of the Government.
-
As I've said before, IMO this militia debate is a red herring. Lazs is on the right track by bringing up "collective rights", that's what this boils down to. Take guns out of the equation, think rights in general. The right to free speech, is that dependent on belonging to any group? The right to a fair trial, is that based on group membership?
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." "self-evident", as in you'd have to be an idiot to not understand. "All men", as in everyone, not some men, depending on what group they belong to. "endowed by their Creator", as in God gave 'em to us. "unalienable", as in they can't be taken away. "Among these", as in here's a couple examples, but there's more.
My opinion is that there are no such things as collective rights. Groups don't have rights, individuals do. Take guns out of the equation and the same argument stands. Minority rights? No such thing. The minority has the same rights as the majority, not because they're the majority or a minority, but because they're individuals. Gay rights? Same argument. Womens rights? Same argument. None of these "groups" have rights, the individuals that compromise said groups do.
-
but bingie and his ilk are trying to instill a whole new meaning to the constitution by saying that it was not a document the pointed out god given inalienable rights but.. a suggestion for a good socialist society. He does this by introducing a concept into it that did not exist at the time.. that of "collective rights" or.. a form of collective rights that is no right at all...
The words "state" and "people" were clearly understood tho.. if one was meant over the other then it was used.
They didn't use "people" when they meant "state" and they sure as hell did not mean "state" when they said "people".
98% of Americans understand this.
lazs
-
If you argue the language of the constitution from the point of construct and meaning of the 21st century, the constitution becomes what ever an eloquent liar(lawyer\politician\professor) wants it to be. To many of us 250 years later the constitution has no common frame of meaning other than what our chosen leadership tells us it means. Ideologicly we choose the leaders who reflect how we want the world to operate as opposed to what our laws say. That's been the ongoing erosion of the constitution.
If you go through the very painfull process of learning the american language and writing style from 1776 and how it was used to communicate the hard learned realities of governments abuses of the people in that time. You would understand from the shared common experineces and imagery the well chosen language of the constitution and it's amendmants to protect the people from the government.
In 250 years the natural rights of the people as identified by the constituion for protection have not changed. The constitution is today acting as the warning and description of what people look like who want to deprive their fellow humans of their pre existing natural rights. The constitution was written in the language and imagery of 1776 to curb the government from infringing on the pre existing natural rights of We the People.
It was not written as the rule book of how We the People will submit to the Rule of the Government.
What about laws and bills approved after the constitution about the militia do they not apply? Or after the militia act of 1792? nothing? lots of law in the 1800's on the militia.
There is a very long paper trail on the militia starting around 1790 matter fact thousands of pages.
I have a few thousand to go :(.. but I am reading around 1860 now so considering I know what happens in 1903 not that much to go :) The state papers end in 1817/38.
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsp&fileName=016/llsp016.db&Page=6
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsb&fileName=039/llsb039.db&recNum=838
its a serachable data base
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwsplink.html#anchor5
since this case is in DC :)
(http://lcweb2.loc.gov/ll/llhb/011/0700/07440000.gif)
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llhb&fileName=011/llhb011.db&recNum=743
-
As I've said before, IMO this militia debate is a red herring. Lazs is on the right track by bringing up "collective rights", that's what this boils down to. Take guns out of the equation, think rights in general. The right to free speech, is that dependent on belonging to any group? The right to a fair trial, is that based on group membership?
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." "self-evident", as in you'd have to be an idiot to not understand. "All men", as in everyone, not some men, depending on what group they belong to. "endowed by their Creator", as in God gave 'em to us. "unalienable", as in they can't be taken away. "Among these", as in here's a couple examples, but there's more.
My opinion is that there are no such things as collective rights. Groups don't have rights, individuals do. Take guns out of the equation and the same argument stands. Minority rights? No such thing. The minority has the same rights as the majority, not because they're the majority or a minority, but because they're individuals. Gay rights? Same argument. Womens rights? Same argument. None of these "groups" have rights, the individuals that compromise said groups do.
if its a red herring why did the supreme court ask about it? and laz is right it is about the two views.
http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080311/OPINION/803110313/1004
its not about weather 1 single individual <heller> can have a gun as some would have you believe.
-
n/t
-
It is amusing tho to see that only liberal socialist democrats and people from other countries would like to see the second destroyed..
here.. 98% of "the people" believe the second is an individual right.
Might be the last straw if we were all told that the constitution just protected the government from us.
lazs
-
Laws pertaining to Militias were passed so governemnt could make a superior claim to the militia body over We the People. A good example was San Francisco in the 1850's when the people called out the Militia to police the city from a Barbary Coast gang that had taken over the local politics. The people forming as the Militia took over the city and hung the gang members. Seems the duely elected members of the city GOVERNMENT were on the gangs payroll.<------exactly why We the People are armed as a RIGHT.
All of those Militias eventually became cannon fodder in the 1860's.
The reference to the Militia in the 2nd was used as an example of "ONE" reason for a freely armed populance. It was a verbal common structure that all persons of the time could understand. It was not "THE" qualifier to owning arms. In that case the use of " the RIGHT of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed" is meaningless and would not have been identified if it was not a individualy protected right.
RIGHTS identified in the constitution are superior and INDIVIDUAL to the human being over any other construct mentioned. The powers of the government are granted as a privlage by We the People. You cannot qualify a human right identified by the constitution because then you are trying to convince your audience that the constitution is based on the RIGHTS of the government to dictate what privliages We the People shall enjoy under its RULE.
The Revolutionary War was fought for exactly the reason that We the People are the government, not the government is one step down from the almighty and We the People are SUBJECT to its whims.
Bing,
The constitution was not written as an either or proposition. Either every right identified and said to not be infrigable means the governemnt cannot infringe on it, or you are trying to sell this audience on the American Liberal\Progessive\Socialist idea of tossing out the constitution and changing the laws of the United States to be parallel to the Europeon Unions constitution.
Either the constitution means "the rights of the people shall not be infringed" or maybe a certain tree's roots have become thirsty again for the blood of patriots and tyrants.....................
-
Best amicus brief I have read so far in support of Heller. As far as I'm concerned, it essentially demolishes the DC position and the DOJ position. It is long but it is worth the trip if you really wish to understand the various arguments and their flaws. Yes, even Heller's position has some flaws.
Enjoy.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/LegalIssues/wm1851.cfm
-
He puts it better than I did but...
"All of this points to another fatal defect in D.C.'s interpretation of the Second Amendment. The Constitution allows Congress to exempt everyone from militia duties, as the Supreme Court has recognized. It would be absurd to think that Congress could abolish the right of "the people" to keep arms simply by abolishing the militia. Nor can the right to keep arms be limited to contexts in which its exercise contributes to the functioning of an organized militia that Congress is not even required to maintain."
but.. as toads link shows.. the brief goes on to give the best explanation of how a "well regulated militia" can be interpreted to make sense in what appears to be an amendment with one false statement (a well regulated militia being...) and one command that is absolute (the right of the people shall not....)
so read the brief.. well regulated does not mean over regulated it can even mean a lack of regulation (and should)
lazs
-
I will be sorely disappointed if the SC does not rule the 2nd an individual right. If they do the correct thing here it will effectively erase decades of gun control laws. These gun control laws won't go away over night but they will be challenged. Some states like California may defy the SC ruling. We live in interesting times.
I still believe they will opt out of such a definitive ruling though.
-
there are still allowed arms of the militia a rifle or hunting gun so the right is not infringed. :O
Now a forced gun lock restrict, that right? ehhh...
Damn pancakers :lol
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120459428907209205.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
"But nothing I have discovered or written supports an absolute right to possess the weapons of one's choice. The lower court's decision in this case -- the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals found the District's ban on concealable handguns in a densely populated area to be unconstitutional -- went overboard. Under any plausible standard of review, a legislature's choice to limit the citizenry to rifles, shotguns and other weapons less likely to augment urban violence need not, and should not, be viewed as an unconstitutional abridgment of the right of the people to keep or bear arms."
Edit:
"On a blog devoted to the D.C. gun case, Alan Gura, one of the attorneys representing plaintiff Dick Heller, seems surprised by Tribe's position:
This is quite a change from Prof. Tribe's position in May 2007. At that time, in correspondence with us, Tribe said he would consider playing a "more central role" in our case, with the aim of helping us appeal to justices he perceived to be centrist and left of center. It's difficult to see how his current position would accomplish that goal." :cry
http://reason.com/blog/show/125315.html
-
bingie... you read what you want... tribe is an ultra liberal who also said in the same article you quoted..
"It is true that some liberal scholars like me, having studied the text and history closely, have concluded, against our political instincts, that the Second Amendment protects more than a collective right to own and use guns in the service of state militias and national guard units. "
You are quoting a guy who believes the exact reverse of what you do.. that the "collective right" thing is bogus.
That it is an individual right.. he only states that he thinks that some regulation can happen.. that is not his call.
An individual right as tribe admits it is.. would mean that a ban on guns or, making them useless (apart and unloaded) would be an "infringement" by any standards.. even perhaps yours.
you and the other 2% of the population must be getting desperate when you quote someone who says that you are wrong.
lazs
-
bingie.. but I am still awaiting your answer.. if the congress defined "militia" as only the palace guard or politicians bodyguards...
Would that then mean to you that no one could have guns except the bodyguards of the politicians?
Does "well regulated" ever mean very little or no regulation to you or does it always mean as much regulation as possible?
How is it "well regulated" in reference to the right of a people to take away that right entirely? that would mean over regulated or badly regulated.
lazs
-
bingie... you read what you want... tribe is an ultra liberal who also said in the same article you quoted..
"It is true that some liberal scholars like me, having studied the text and history closely, have concluded, against our political instincts, that the Second Amendment protects more than a collective right to own and use guns in the service of state militias and national guard units. "
You are quoting a guy who believes the exact reverse of what you do.. that the "collective right" thing is bogus.
That it is an individual right.. he only states that he thinks that some regulation can happen.. that is not his call.
An individual right as tribe admits it is.. would mean that a ban on guns or, making them useless (apart and unloaded) would be an "infringement" by any standards.. even perhaps yours.
you and the other 2% of the population must be getting desperate when you quote someone who says that you are wrong.
lazs
I wasnt the one tootin the Tribe horn you and charon were
Lazie you have no idea what I believe.
As far as this case and the subject militia, which is where I've tried to stay on it and not stray off, on your wild tangents.
Some regulation? hehe
Im not part of the 2 percent and you sure hang on to the un-scientific poll from the USA today like it was gold :) almost like you think because you read it on the internet its got to be true lol.
I just laugh at a few of you who said this case had nothing to do with the militia. :lol you being one of those.
And toad swore upside down and backwards that it had nothing to do with the militia again :lol
-
we still say that bingie.. you are the one who says it hinges on the militia and the "collective rights" (no rights) idea.
No poll has ever shown that anyone but you and a very small group believe that the second is about anything but the "people" about individual rights. far cry from one little poll.
sooo.. in bingie land... if the congress decided that the militia was only the palace guard.. or abolished the militia entirely then there would be no second?
As for tribe.. you are picking a poor friend as are we. he does believe that it is an individual right.. so far as the case goes that is enough. He does not believe as you do that the militia (whoever they are this year) is the only ones who can own firearms.
lazs
-
I am excited about it though should be really interesting.
Hey Lazie this guy does not own a gun and has no plans to own 1 but he still fights for it and pays to fight. it's Hellers council also I like the fact that he has planned this for 6 years kind blows toads "the case is about a man and his gun argument" out of the water.
Six years he and his cohorts have planned this and Shepard the case through to get to this point. http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j5W5UoXtY8Zr7I0mUpEonUhdDyRAD8VF3HR00
Lazie I dont have a dog in this race.
I just think it is interesting . and a Basic reading with out all your attempts at decifering the code and interpreting . Just read how the teacher taught you when you were little and go slow lazie from left to right.
Oh and one more thing lazie I'll post any perspective I please. I dont really care if you think it fits your vision of my personality or not :)
I will tell you this if the ruling does come out really bad and folks are giving say a certain date in the future to buy a hand gun and then no mas... you can bet I'll go buy a few. but i dont think anyhwere near that drastic will happen. Just a simple definition of the unorganized militia will do.
Edit:
As I said I not the one who jumped on the Tribe bandwagon the guys pretty flighty. changes his mind to much if ya ask me.
-
the fact that he has planned this for 6 years kind blows toads "the case is about a man and his gun argument" out of the water.
Obviously it's about a man and his gun. That's pretty much the same way anything gets to the SC. It's usually one individual against whatever.
The fact that they planned this case has nothing to do with the individual right aspect.
Every time you post you confirm that you really don't know what Heller v DC is about.
-
Bingo, why didn't YOU post this part of the Wiki article?
Critics of gun control legislation have made the point that although guns may be more easily obtained from the neighboring states of Virginia and Maryland, the fact that these states (despite the relative ease of obtaining a firearm) do not suffer from the same level of crime as the District of Columbia, leads to the conclusion that the mere availability of guns does not necessarily incite violent crime. Fairfax County, VA, which neighbors the District on the western shores of the Potomac, has nearly twice the population of the District but has nearly 1/20th the number of murders per capita (for 2005, Fairfax County had 20 murders out of a population of 1,041,200, versus 195 murders out of a population of 550,521 in the District).[14] [15] However, Fairfax County--which has the highest median household income in the United States[16]--has significantly different demographics from the District of Columbia.[17]
It all comes back to the same thing. Cain used a rock on Abel. It's not the rock, it's the intent of the person using it.
-
Bingo, why didn't YOU post this part of the Wiki article?
It all comes back to the same thing. Cain used a rock on Abel. It's not the rock, it's the intent of the person using it.
why didnt you. its your wiki article not mine. just put the link next time when you post. the bottom of the article is word for word your post above dont twist things around.... you are good at it though.
-
Obviously it's about a man and his gun. That's pretty much the same way anything gets to the SC. It's usually one individual against whatever.
The fact that they planned this case has nothing to do with the individual right aspect.
Every time you post you confirm that you really don't know what Heller v DC is about.
BS. planning just proves there intent wasn't to go against DC, but to get to the 2nd amendment question. the question that needs answering is the unorganized militia :) since we know what the organized militia is.
I would say that about you who has been wrong from the beginning. Still hanging on to that piece of straw. you were the one crying about the DC brief being wrong and that they fired the guy because he did a crappy job. It is amazing how many briefs fall in line. You just missed the underlying case. DC didn't change their brief. So before, the two question that the two parties submitted to the SC were parallel questions. SC in a very irregular move wrote their own question. Then briefs were submitted.
The militia is the "hinge" on the door<2nd>, connected to the house <constitution>... sorry! we will see which way she swings starting tomorrow. I hope it swings shut. When it does I going to go stand in line for my F-22, M-16, rocket launchers and Jdam's.
On another note there will be a simulcast of the proceedings and at the end of the day a transcript of the argument will be made available. I'm trying to find out what station on tv or radio :| any guesses? I'm sure we will hear tid bits through out the day, but I would like to hear it as it goes. I took the day off :)
-
bingie.. I am not at all surprised that you will buy handguns and even hide them from the authorities if the ruling bans them.. this is not at all inconsistent with current liberal socialist thinking.. that of "the laws are for the little people" including the politicians who are trying so hard to take away individual rights.
as for my reading skills? Well.. I think that I understand what "the right of the people" means. I understand what examples or reasons for a right are also. That seems to escape you.
The second part of the amendment is the absolute.. the first is just a preamble.. one, although not the only, reason for the absolute right.
Also.. how do you define "well regulated" or... regulated well? would that not mean little or no regulation at all in some cases? say with the unorganized militia as an example? Would not the removal of the right of the people by a militia "regulation"... all people save a few.. be the most grievious example of poorly regulated? the reverse of "well regulated".
-
Again you confirm that you haven't understood the case from the beginning and still don't Bingo.
I think it will come clear to you after the ruling ~ June.
-
No I picked it off right away and have had it right, your the one who missed Toad. You said the militia wasnt even part of the equation, one more thing your wrong about.
:aok
-
Keep proving you don't understand the case. I don't mind.
-
The militia is the "hinge" on the door<2nd>, connected to the house <constitution>... sorry! we will see which way she swings starting tomorrow. I hope it swings shut. When it does I going to go stand in line for my F-22, M-16, rocket launchers and Jdam's.
You can readily own an M-16 and / or rocket launcher now. Just apply for the federal tax stamp and check to see if you pass the local infringements on your 2nd Amendment Rights.
As for the rest, you will not be able to own an Abrams or Jdam until they are deemed unclassified and surplus to the needs of our military.
-
Keep proving you don't understand the case. I don't mind.
:aok
-
the oral argument is going to be on c-span
around 11:30 est on c-span
-
Alan Gura is a diddlying flaming retard. The conservative judges are trying to help him out as much as possible, but...
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.
-
Gura was working to keep it on message and not fall for where Bayer was heading. Machine Gun registry is for another day in court.
All in all, pretty encouraging. Kennedy SEEMS to be on board and even Ginsburg seemed more supportive than not. This could even be 7-2, or at least 6-3. Knock on wood.
Charon
-
Transcript:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/07-290.pdf
-
Some news organizations are putting this out.....
Surprised no one has posted these links yet............
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/51ca64b6-f51d-11dc-a21b-000077b07658.html?nclick_check=1
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080318/D8VG2PR00.html
Although the statements may be a little premature!
No actual ruling has occurred at this point IIRC.
-
I thought I had read they weren't going to rule until summer.
-
Transcript:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/07-290.pdf
Interesting read, thanks for the link.
Sounds like at least a couple of the justices are more concerned about protecting existing gun control laws than the 2nd amendment. I'm thinking their ruling will be very limited in scope. Perhaps only to the point of forcing DC to allow handguns in homes without adressing the broader issue of whether the 2nd is an individual or collective right. Hope I'm wrong.
-
ak.. I think it will be the reverse.. I think that they are saying that the right is a real right and has nothing to do with the militia except as a flowery example.. just as the founders intended but...
The narrow part will come when they declare that the states have rights to regulate.. even the feds to an extent.
It does settle some things and does give something to build on.
I think this will be Bush's legacy... can you imagine how this would have gone with two justices appointed by either gore or kerrie?
Can you imagine how important future decisions will go with billary or the half negro guy appointed judges?
The lesser of two evils can be a huge thing.
Even so.. I think even the lefty justices are not eager to tell 98% of the people that bingie is right and they are all wrong about the meaning of what seems so clear to them
where is bingie by the way? Must be the time zone in england that is keeping him off the board?
lazs