skreamer 1
Quote(I do not consider the US government rogue however)
America invaded Iraq because of false intelligence. Certainly seems like the work of a rogue government to me.
benny 0
Quote
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Now the Supreme Court, which is the Constitutionally appointed interpreter of said Constitution, has said in the recent and distant past that the "well regulated militia" part is the key. What part of "well regulated militia" does the NRA equate with every day redneck or gang member for that matter?
Never go to a DZ strip show.
Actually the Supreme Court is not Constitutionally appointed as the intepereter of the Constitution. That was something that the Court Established by the sheer genious of John Marshall in the Mabury v. Madison case.
JohnRich 4
QuoteI think that we need a task force to examine this statement, and a group of people to enforce it.
Since you did not provide a back-quote showing to what you were responding, I am unable to ascertain to what you are referring, and thus, I cannot comment in reply.
JohnRich 4
Quotethe Supreme Court has said in the recent and distant past that the "well regulated militia" part is the key. What part of "well regulated militia" does the NRA equate with every day redneck or gang member for that matter?
Cite the court cases to which you refer.
The writings of the founding fathers are abundantly clear on what they meant by "the militia".
Here are a few quotes to refresh your memory and history lessons:
"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves... and include all men capable of bearing arms... To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and
be taught alike... how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee
"No free government was ever founded, or ever preserved its liberty, without uniting the characters of the citizen and soldier in those destined for the defense of the state...Such are a well regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen."
- Richard Henry Lee
"The Constitution ought to secure a genuine militia and guard against a select militia. ...all regulations tending to render this general militia useless and defenseless, by establishing select corps of militia, or distinct bodies of military men, not having permanent
interests and attachments to the community ought to be avoided."
- Richard Henry Lee
"The power of the sword, say the minority of Pennsylvania, is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for the powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America
from sixteen to sixty. the militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we
shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands
of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it ever will remain, in the hands of the people."
- Tench Coxe
"It is asserted by the most resepectable writers upon government, that a well regulated militia, composed of the yeomanry of the country, have ever been considered as the bulwark of a free people. Tyrants have never placed any confidence on a militia composed of freemen."
- John Dewitt
"Have we the means of resisting disciplined armies, when our only defense, the militia, is put in the hands of Congress? Of what service would militia be to you when, most probably, you will not have a single musket in the state?"
- Patrick Henry
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best an most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason
"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the
establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. ...Whenever Government mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."
- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts
"The Right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..."
- James Madison
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials."
- George Mason
The founding fathers were a fairly smart group of people. If they had meant for only the states to have a right to keep arms, then they would have used the word "state". They didn't - they used "the people".
The "militia" is synonomous with "the people".
Got it?
Gawain 0
QuoteMany gun owners are quite in favor of *some* restrictions.
General Reply (to no one in particular):
I'm not a gun owner, and I do not favor any significant ownership restrictions.
Why might you ask?
It is education that helps prevent injury or death. That education can be found through formal training, or word of mouth. How much of our skydiving skills are enhanced by formal training? It varies, but most of it is through informal observation and inquiry.
Besides, the current laws in place do nothing, absolutely nothing, to prevent me from obtaining and using a lethal weapon with the intent to do one harm.
I've been out of the "game" for years, but could find the door back in a matter of minutes if I chose to. Each of us "knows" someone, someway, somehow to get what we want in life.
So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!
JohnRich 4
Quotethe Supreme Court has said in the recent and distant past that the "well regulated militia" part is the key. What part of "well regulated militia" does the NRA equate with every day redneck or gang member for that matter?
It's not just the NRA. Most state Constitutions acknowledge a citizen militia also.
I see that you are from Tennessee. Check out your state Constitution:
Sec. 24. That the sure and certain defense of a free people, is a well regulated militia...
Sec. 26. That the citizens of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defense...
Well lookee there! You are considered to be part of the Tennessee militia, expected to defend your state with arms if necessary!
Which does that make you; a redneck, or a gang member?
after reading this thread i realize why we need a new party. the dems and rep are te same. one tells you you can't have guns, one tells you you can't have abortions,one says you must have publicly funded art, one says you must have publiclly funded christianity. the original constitution and bill of rights is all we need to live. every other law after that takes away from the idea of this country.
_________________________________________
people see me as a challenge to their balance
people see me as a challenge to their balance
QuoteQuote(I do not consider the US government rogue however)
America invaded Iraq because of false intelligence. Certainly seems like the work of a rogue government to me.
And you are certainly allowed to have an opinion.
never pull low......unless you are
Quoteafter reading this thread i realize why we need a new party. the dems and rep are te same. one tells you you can't have guns, one tells you you can't have abortions,one says you must have publicly funded art, one says you must have publiclly funded christianity. the original constitution and bill of rights is all we need to live. every other law after that takes away from the idea of this country.
There are many other political parties.
never pull low......unless you are
Rainbo 0
You must remember that in order for many of the arguments, pro and, con that you read here, the presenters of those arguments can not refer back to the founding fathers documented arguments. If they did they would have to admit the flaws in thier arguments. The fact of the matter is, after years of bastardizing the process of selecting our representatives, two major parties control our government. Both of those parties philosophies are developed by a very small minority of their so called members. It is also true that both of those parties are funded almost the same "special interest groups" as no matter the outcomer of an election "they" still want thier finger in the pot so to speak.
I love my guns, I love the liberties that I am still allowed. I love the people who faithfully still defend those liberties and they are not in Washington, but around the world giving thier lives daily.
Some have said well there are other political parties, one of those I am a member of, the libertarians. But if you really look at it these other parties are effectivly locked out of the process especially at the local levels where these parties need to mature. Laws passed by the major parties that control the process make it difficult to get candidates on many ballots. Take for example where I live. If your party was on a previous election ballot a new candidate for that party does not have to present a petition signed by a certain number of registered voters to be put on the ballot. However, if your party was not on the ballot you musst secure 3000 "verified" signatures. Now if you get the signatures that are also challenged by the other 2 parties. They normally tie the petition up until after the filing deadline, thus no third party candidate to choose from.
No, the entire system is not what our forefathers thought it would be, but it is still the best in the world in my opinion. And yes I will always own my guns because the only truth is that you can never trust a politician.
Rainbo
I love my guns, I love the liberties that I am still allowed. I love the people who faithfully still defend those liberties and they are not in Washington, but around the world giving thier lives daily.
Some have said well there are other political parties, one of those I am a member of, the libertarians. But if you really look at it these other parties are effectivly locked out of the process especially at the local levels where these parties need to mature. Laws passed by the major parties that control the process make it difficult to get candidates on many ballots. Take for example where I live. If your party was on a previous election ballot a new candidate for that party does not have to present a petition signed by a certain number of registered voters to be put on the ballot. However, if your party was not on the ballot you musst secure 3000 "verified" signatures. Now if you get the signatures that are also challenged by the other 2 parties. They normally tie the petition up until after the filing deadline, thus no third party candidate to choose from.
No, the entire system is not what our forefathers thought it would be, but it is still the best in the world in my opinion. And yes I will always own my guns because the only truth is that you can never trust a politician.
Rainbo
Rainbo
TheSpeedTriple - Speed is everything
"Blessed are those who can give without remembering, and take without forgetting."
TheSpeedTriple - Speed is everything
"Blessed are those who can give without remembering, and take without forgetting."
you tok the words out of my mouth and said it better than i could. i to am alibertarian. but theres something wrong with the people in charge there....to me the message is perfect. but they ry to appeal to voters intilect instead of emotion. and people these days make decisions more on emotion than logic.
_________________________________________
people see me as a challenge to their balance
people see me as a challenge to their balance
but they ry to appeal to voters intilect instead of emotion.
never pull low......unless you are
kallend 1,672
QuoteQuote
I see that you are from Tennessee. Check out your state Constitution:
Sec. 24. That the sure and certain defense of a free people, is a well regulated militia...
Sec. 26. That the citizens of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defense...
Well lookee there! You are considered to be part of the Tennessee militia, expected to defend your state with arms if necessary!
Which does that make you; a redneck, or a gang member?
Having a right to something, and being expected to do it, are not the same thing AT ALL.
I wonder who they will defend Tennessee against? An invasion of Hoosiers, maybe?...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
kallend 1,672
QuoteQuotethe Supreme Court has said in the recent and distant past that the "well regulated militia" part is the key. What part of "well regulated militia" does the NRA equate with every day redneck or gang member for that matter?
Cite the court cases to which you refer.
The writings of the founding fathers are abundantly clear on what they meant by "the militia".
Here are a few quotes to refresh your memory and history lessons:Quote
Unfortunately, the writings of the founding fathers, while often taken as a guide, do NOT, in general, have the force of law.
And whether you like it or not, the Supreme Court is, in 2004, the arbiter of the meaning of the Constitution....
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Quote
The points you make illustrate the irrelevance of 2nd Amendment for its original purpose. No way you and your buddies with the best rifles and handguns and knives ever made will fight off a rogue government equipped with Abrams tanks, A10s, Apaches, smart missiles, Vulcan guns, etc.
History also shows that despotic governments can always find people to fight for them.
The fallacy of your argument about the "irrelevancy" of the Second Amendment is that you assume too much about the type of fighting that would take place in a "war for freedom against our own government."
I have seen this subject given very good treatment in threads on talk.politics.guns.
Some of the major problems with your vision of this type of battle follow.
If it were "government army against armed civilians," many of those army personnel would be expected to and ordered to fight against their countrymen, friends, family. If we're hypothesizing here, let me hypothesize that the battle is joined because citizens have had enough of oppression from the government. Perhaps we've edged too close to martial law, too many civil rights have been eroded. Arms are taken against the government. Well, the government does not manufacture much of its own stuff. Food, clothing, arms, equipment. Private sector stuff. That's to say nothing of the ease with which armed citizen guerrillas could frustrate and destroy supply lines.
We have plenty of access to gasoline, bottles, matches, even flint-and-tinder. Molotov cocktails would be more common than Pepsi.
Yes, the military has tanks and F-15s. Humans have to drive them. Those humans come out, they bathe, they eat, they are vulnerable to sniper fire. You can't hole up in a tank and stay there until the end of the war.
Many civilians are ex-military. My brother, for instance, would be able to fire TOW missiles if such an armed Humvee were captured -- and such capture of materiel would be inevitable. Guerrilla raids on outposts or convoys or encampments or patrols could be continually scoring more and more armament, food, fuel, etc. Think of the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto, using clubs and knives to get a few handguns, then using the handguns to get still more. And we're much better armed and trained than many of those Jews were, who had never handled guns and had lived as though they would never have to. (Such is the shame of modern society, btw. Most urbanites couldn't even start a FIRE without their Colibri lighters!)
Willingness to fight would be a major issue. We have a population of around a quarter billion, but a military -- spread all over the globe -- of what, 2 million or something like that? Sure, not all 248,000,000 are adults ready to fight, but what if 1/4 of them are? Even 1/8! That's a lot of guerrillas! And the idea of troops firing Sidewinder missiles or depleted uranium 20mm shells at hometown America? At the Empire State Building? At the corner store? Just to eradicate guerrillas that scurry like roaches and regroup somewhere else? We think we're having a tough time stamping out Hussein loyalists, who kill a handful of our troops every day? Try stamping them out when they're your own countrymen, your own family and friends, they're well armed, and killing them will require that you make your country a wasteland. So your Hellfires and Phoenixes and Sidewinders and TOWs and all that stuff won't be of much use. The more the government used those against mainstream American targets like movie theaters and apartment buildings and landmarks and everywhere else guerrillas would hide, the more unpopular the government forces would become, and more and more fence-sitters would come to understand just what the rebels' objections were all about. They'd join up when they saw the government using F-15s and B-1s against some pocket of guerrillas in their town! Either that, or they would completely knuckle under and live under an oppressive regime that no longer was making any secret of its totalitarian nature. (I mean, we'd be talking about all-out war against citizens by that point, yes?)
I hope my point is clearer. The Second Amendment is not irrelevant. Beyond that, it still has relevance to PERSONAL SECURITY even if it were useless as a defense against tyranny.
While fictional, the movie Red Dawn demonstrates, further, that the utility of an armed populace is not necessarily functional against despotism from within. What if, through everything from defense budget cuts to low morale to being spread too thin to, well, combat casualties, we need a citizen militia to fight off an attack from outside? Americans armed under the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment are a backup army. (And after all, our founding fathers did not want us to have a standing army at all in the first place! What we have now would horrify them. Though in today's world, they'd probably see the necessity for it.)
Even if the militia were thoroughly discountable, I want my right to own guns so that I can effectively defend myself. The government cannot protect me in my day-to-day life, so no other justification is even necessary. It's my job to provide for my everyday safety.
---Jeffrey
-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"
kallend 1,672
Well, we can "what if" until the snow here melts. However, historically despots have ALWAYS managed to find enough troops to oppress the rest of the people for them - even professional soldiers, who find it hard to disobey orders. Even in such civilised places as the home of Beethoven, Bach and Schiller, and the home of Pascal and Voltaire.
Didn't the Branch Davidians have a bunch of weapons? How did they fare against the government?
Even in the USA in the last three years the government has made serious inroads into many Constitutional freedoms, yet see how many people right here in this forum support that and find excuses for it. It's the camel's nose under the tent.
I think the government would have little trouble suppressing dissent if it ever chose to go that route, because so many people would blindly support it.
Didn't the Branch Davidians have a bunch of weapons? How did they fare against the government?
Even in the USA in the last three years the government has made serious inroads into many Constitutional freedoms, yet see how many people right here in this forum support that and find excuses for it. It's the camel's nose under the tent.
I think the government would have little trouble suppressing dissent if it ever chose to go that route, because so many people would blindly support it.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
QuoteNow the Supreme Court, which is the Constitutionally appointed interpreter of said Constitution, has said in the recent and distant past that the "well regulated militia" part is the key.
Where? When?
BAck this one up, and we'll discuss it.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
QuoteArticle I begins with the phrase, "Congress shall make no law . . ."
Article II does not.
Amendment II says that the right being discussed within the text of the amendment "shall not be infringed."
I take this to mean even GREATER protection than "Congress shall make no law," since "Congress shall make no law" leaves open-ended the issue of, "Well, then, can the states make such a law?"
No infringement means "by anybody." There is NO body that is entitled to make an infringement, if no infringements at all are allowed.
---Jeffrey
-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"
Quote
The writings of the founding fathers are abundantly clear on what they meant by "the militia".
Clear as mud. The very quotes you cite are confused and inconsistent.
Quote
"A militia, when properly formed...possess arms and
be taught how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee
Here Lee specifies that the militia be properly formed and trained.
Quote"...Such are a well regulated militia..."
- Richard Henry Lee
Lee thinks that the milita should be regulated.
Quote"The Constitution ought to secure a genuine militia and guard against a select militia. ...all regulations tending to render this general militia useless and defenseless, by establishing select corps of militia, or distinct bodies of military men, not having permanent
interests and attachments to the community ought to be avoided."
- Richard Henry Lee
It's not at all clear what Lee thinks the militia should be. At any rate, he thought the constitition ought to secure a "genuine militia", whatever that means, but the only reference the constitution makes to a militia is very much open to debate. The only thing it states clearly is that said militia be well organized.
"It is asserted by the most respectable writers upon government, that a well regulated militia, composed of the yeomanry of the country..."
- John Dewitt
Quote
Again it is suggested that the militia be well regulated. This one even goes so far as to state that membership in the militia be limited to yeoman of the country.
I'm not an expert in that period of history, but I gather that in context, yeomanry means farmers and landholders.
***"The Right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..."
- James Madison
There's that pesky reference to well oganized militia and training again.
Quote
The founding fathers were a fairly smart group of people. If they had meant for only the states to have a right to keep arms, then they would have used the word "state". They didn't - they used "the people".
The "militia" is synonomous with "the people".
If it were truly synonymous with the people, they would have simply said the people have the right to keep and bear arms and not repeatedly emphasized the necessity of a well organized militia, as evidenced by the historical quotes that *you* provided.
-Josh
If you have time to panic, you have time to do something more productive. -Me*
*Ron has accused me of plagiarizing this quote. He attributes it to Douglas Adams.
*Ron has accused me of plagiarizing this quote. He attributes it to Douglas Adams.
JohnRich 4
QuoteUnfortunately, the writings of the founding fathers, while often taken as a guide, do NOT, in general, have the force of law.
And whether you like it or not, the Supreme Court is, in 2004, the arbiter of the meaning of the Constitution.
Do you think that the current Supreme Court should ignore the writings of the founding fathers who first crafted this law, when determining the original intent of it?
Perhaps you would prefer that they just ignore the history and original intent and come up with their own interpretation of what they want it to mean?
"The Constitution is an enduring document but not a 'living' one, and its meaning must be protected and not repeatedly altered to suit the whims of society", U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said. Scalia insisted that only his approach - interpreting the Constitution based on the Framers' precise words and the meaning they intended at the time - can preserve the Constitution's guiding principles. "The Constitution is not an organism," the justice said, "it is a legal document."
If you go around ignoring what it was intended to mean, and reinterpret it willy-nilly to suit your whims, then the Constitution becomes meaningless.
JohnRich 4
QuoteLee thinks that the milita should be regulated...
Alexander Hamilton explains what is meant by "well regulated" in Federalist Paper No. 29:
"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss."So the correct interpretation of what is meant by "well-regulated" in the Second Amendment, is "to put in good order", signifying a well disciplined, trained, and functioning militia.
It does not mean that the members of the militia ("the people") are to have their guns regulated by government laws.
The Vietnamese did a pretty good job.
(I do not consider the US government rogue however)
never pull low......unless you are