What is a Militia?

[Arlo]

http://paperdragon.newsvine.com/_news/2007/04/19/671842-ill-give-you-the-second-amendment-if-you-give-me-the-rest-back

"Dinesh D'Souza says that people concerned about the constitution should also be concerned about protecting the second amendment. Then he makes a vague reference to being kind of in favor of the other amendments, too, but I guess since he's a conservative, he's not so sure these days.

I'll make you a deal. You give me the rest of the amendments back that Bush has gutted and I'll gladly give you the second amendment. What happened to the right to an attorney? What happened to not being forced to incriminate yourself? What happened to not being subjected to cruel and unusual punishment? What happened to warrants?! What happened to habeas corpus?!!!

You give me all of those back and then some, and you can have your lousy second amendment. America is a little sick in the head with guns. The NRA believes we should have unfettered access to all firearms and doesn't believe there is any downside. That is so wildly disingenuous.

I understand that the downside to having the fourth amendment is that we will not catch some criminals that we otherwise would have. The upside is that we don't live in a police state. Everything has an upside and a downside. Unless you're the NRA and guns are the swellest creation ever put on earth and they have no downsides at all, like maybe killing people. "

Some responses:

Dennis P. McCann

Look, no one in America is going to be able to take people's guns away. It is too ingrained in our culture, for better or for worse. Your cherished second amendment right is protected. But can you not see that there could be reasonable limits on that right, like there are on all our rights. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater, you also shouldn't threaten to fire your gun in a crowded theater.

stevetherobot

That is a very poor argument and yet apparently you and nineteen others agree with it. Threatening to fire your gun in a crowded theater is a completely different thing than the right to possess a gun.

Deh Ehn

He wasn't comparing it to the right to possess a gun. He was comparing it to the right to free speech. You have freedom of speech but there are limits, such as not being able to yell fire in a crowded theatre.

And you have the right to possess a gun, but there are limits, such as not being able to own an Ak-47, or limited acess to automatic weapons or extended clips or whatever the case may be. Obviously unfettered access to guns for one and all as proposed by the NRA goes far beyond the simple right to bare arms.

Aunk (The Cultural Health Guy)

Hetep and Respect, Claus, I am "liberal" on most things. However, I support the 2 amendment. King Bush is a good example of the value of this amendment.

If we have a King we must have guns!

Let the Constitutionally healthy say Amen

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dis-cuss. Does the Constitution's strength and validity revolve around the second amendment alone? If the second amendment is so "clear" how come the way it's been clear up `til recently is so different from the interpretation of the most militant right?

[Toad]

Been there, done that, best  you can do is finally respond to someone else showing that you can't tell a noun from a participial phrase. It was a lovely little piece, except of course that it started off wrong and wandered on into meaningless because of its unfortunate birth.

As for exemplifying, I'll just point out that the statement of mine and the rationale behind it that you find so entrancingly offensive covers three of the six approaches to constitutional analysis outlined in Constitutional Fate by Philip Bobbitt.

I've yet to see you attempt even one of those approaches.

But take comfort in the fact that you are probably a lock for the championship in the next AHBBS cleverly invented fake quotes with smilies tournament.

[Toad]

As for your second post, the lesson for today is "Incorporation" as it relates to the Bill of Rights.

So what do the 2nd, 3rd and 5th Amendments have in common?

[Toad]

Originally posted by Arlo
Dis-cuss. Does the Constitution's strength and validity revolve around the second amendment alone? If the second amendment is so "clear?" How come the way it's been clear up `til recently is so different from the interpretation of the most militant right?

Apres vous, Alphonse.

Like Ulysses Everett McGill you're going to have to show your bona fide and worth the candle.

[Arlo]

Originally posted by Toad
Been there, done that, best  you can do is finally respond to someone else showing that you can't tell a noun from a participial phrase. It was a lovely little piece, except of course that it started off wrong and wandered on into meaningless because of its unfortunate birth.

As for exemplifying, I'll just point out that the statement of mine and the rationale behind it that you find so entrancingly offensive covers three of the six approaches to constitutional analysis outlined in Constitutional Fate by Philip Bobbitt.

I've yet to see you attempt even one of those approaches.

But take comfort in the fact that you are probably a lock for the championship in the next AHBBS cleverly invented fake quotes with smilies tournament.

Hmmm .... offensive? I think I hurt your feelings by not being as impressed as you wanted. Sorry bout that ... but ... them's the breaks. Yup, the prof you illustrated also illustrated bias (even with your claimed admission from him that he has no issues with gun regulation). Last sentence of his admitted the logic required

sumption. What can I say? Presumption being the choo choo leading the conclusion caboose just never sounded like a particularly impressive or compelling argument. So ... it hasn't won me over yet. Big deal. War ain't over, man. Shoot some better bullets. And if mine are missing you, that's fine too. Sooner or later one of us is bound to score, eh?

Fake quotes? Ahahahaha .... hope this isn't you thinking the responses portion of the blog discussion I brought into this thread for discussion were faked. That much paranoia deserves a thwackin'. If you're complainin' that my responses are "fake quotes" because you couldn't Google me borrowin' them from someone else ... that's not "fake" ... that's original. Feel free to borrow them, yourself. 

[Arlo]

Originally posted by Toad
As for your second post, the lesson for today is "Incorporation" as it relates to the Bill of Rights.

So what do the 2nd, 3rd and 5th Amendments have in common?

When you're done with lecture mode feel free to share and we'll dis-cuss as peers. Ain't that whatcha really want?

[Arlo]

Originally posted by Toad
Apres vous, Alphonse.

Like Ulysses Everett McGill you're going to have to show your bona fide and worth the candle.

Not really. You see ... an open discussion or debate on a forum has nothing to do with me proving myself to you (or even to myself), just us offering points ... to each other. Acceptance not mandatory, lack of acceptance not the crisis you seem to think it should be. If the other guy's point doesn't come across as proven to you there's no need for all the dramaqueen style responses.

Tweaking each other's noses is fine fun, and I don't mind. I tweak back. If you can handle doing the tweaking, you'd think you could handle it back, as well. Don't give me the bogus whine that all I ever do is tweak your nose when the flip side of your bi-polar personality seems addicted to it. I really do think it's fun. That's why I don't spend as much time beechin' and moanin' about how unfair it is that others play back. Grow a pair and try to get past that. But you think that means I can't keep up with your "mad master-debator skillz?" Heh.

[lazs2]

bingie..   the poll was just how many homes had guns in em.. that was 42%  are you saying that it is not enough?   all polls say that all people...  no matter if they own (or admit they own) guns believe overwhelmingly that the second is an individual right.

also.. I can see that you are desperately googling around to try to find agreement with a position that you obviously have not given much thought to till now..  you should have read a bit farther into the article you quoted (while pretending you wrote it).

"According to a 2003 Gallup/NCC poll, most Americans believe that the Second Amendment protects individual firearm ownership. Points in their favor:

    * A clear majority of the Founding Fathers unquestionably believed in a universal right to bear arms.
    * The last time the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the civilian militia interpretation of the Second Amendment was 1939--almost 70 years ago, at a time when policies enforcing racial segregation, banning birth control, and mandating recital of the Lord's Prayer in public schools were also considered constitutional.
    * The Constitution is a document, not a piece of software. Regardless of why the Second Amendment justifies its own existence, the fact remains that it still exists as part of the Constitution.
    * The Eighteenth Amendment established Prohibition; the Twenty-First Amendment overturned it. The American people have the means, through the legislative process, to overturn the Second Amendment if it is no longer considered worthwhile. If it's obsolete, why hasn't this happened?
    * The Constitution aside, bearing arms is a fundamental human right. It is the only means the American people have to reclaim control of their government, should it one day become irredeemably corrupt.


The Gallup/NCC poll also found that of the 68% of respondents who believed that the Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms, 82% still believe that the government can regulate firearm ownership to at least some extent. Only 12% believe that the Second Amendment prevents the government from restricting ownership of firearms."

really..  the people who wish to trash individual rights have no leg to stand on.

If the constitution is interpreted as people think it means and the way the founders intended...

Your view is just some far left mental masterbation and justification for removal of individual rights.

lazs

[lazs2]

and arlo.. I notice that you always use.. or end up resorting to when proven wrong.. a strange and childish form of debate..

You said that since the other amendments are being infringed on that it is perfectly fine by you that the second be...that we need to make everything else perfect otherwise more infringement is ok..

You do it on taxes and such.. if we waste taxes on one thing then it is fine to waste even more on even worse things.

The way it works is.. that you should always fight the wrong.. you should fix what you can.   You don't play the politics of envy card.   you don't do the little kid "well.... he did it too" thing to excuse what you did.

We must fight for our/others rights where we can.  Even if they are not popular with us.

lazs