Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: 240 is Back on April 16, 2008, 06:31:27 PM
-
According to ABC's Charlie Gibson, he signed a paper saying he did.
Obama denied it.
Watch the news in the next two days... whatever he signed, with his name on it, with the video of him denying ever signing it, will be all the rave, come Friday.
We all know CLinton feels this way, it's not disputed. She's a gungrabber, plain and simple.
-
Will that influence your vote?
-
it will influence a number of ppls votes
-
Fuck yes. As many of you know, I'm a 1-issue voter. 2nd amendment.
I love all the talk about war, healthcare, economy. I'm not thrilled with mccain spending his way into bankruptcy.
But...
If you want to take my guns, well, fuck off. :)
-
Fuck yes. As many of you know, I'm a 1-issue voter. 2nd amendment.
I love all the talk about war, healthcare, economy. I'm not thrilled with mccain spending his way into bankruptcy.
But...
If you want to take my guns, well, fuck off. :)
That makes sense. IMO, take away the 2nd Amendment and taking away the rest becomes a whole lot easier.
-
According to ABC's Charlie Gibson, he signed a paper saying he did.
Obama denied it.
Watch the news in the next two days... whatever he signed, with his name on it, with the video of him denying ever signing it, will be all the rave, come Friday.
We all know CLinton feels this way, it's not disputed. She's a gungrabber, plain and simple.
::)
Instead of building up drama about whether he's a signed a paper or not...
How about listening to his answers on whether he is in favor of an all-out ban or not?
If he says he is not, I guess he isn't?
-
::)
Instead of building up drama about whether he's a signed a paper or not...
How about listening to his answers on whether he is in favor of an all-out ban or not?
If he says he is not, I guess he isn't?
Because in America, when a pro-gun state is up for grabs and the outcome is going to majorly affect the nomination, some politicians have been konwn to LIE.
-
Because in America, when a pro-gun state is up for grabs and the outcome is going to majorly affect the nomination, some politicians have been konwn to LIE.
So...
It's all a conspiracy? He's gonna lie.. perhaps trying to conspiring, in order to take over the world?
His word won't count?
If he says he's not for an all-out ban, that won't mean jack shit, because someone claims he's signed a paper?
Despite him claiming he didn't?
Never mind what he said before.
Just look at what his CURRENT position is on guns.
Is he for an all-out ban or not?
That's really what is interesting.
The rest is just the same old thrashing of another candidate that I think is so useless.
Lets see what Hillary Clinton brings to the table instead.
BTW, I think it's only a matter of time before Clinton pulls out. It's a done deal for Obama IMO.
-
So...
It's all a conspiracy? He's gonna lie.. perhaps trying to conspiring, in order to take over the world?
Let me stop you there.
Why play the CT card like that, Hedge?
It's simple - most politicians lie and pander. Obama is no exception. He and Clinton have been anti-gun in their own states when they needed to get elected, and they are pro-gun this week when they need to win in Pa, a pro-gun state.
His "CURRENT" position - what he says in Penn, 6 days before Penn makes or breaks him - is not indicative of his well-established position on guns. Unless you believe his recent change is sincere.
Do you, hedge?
-
He can try....he can really try. Who will enforce it. I have 5 handguns and a shotgun....the cops on my street are all gun nuts as well. The police captain and Police chief all live on either side of me. I'm sure other folks here have similar situations.
-
Let me stop you there.
Why play the CT card like that, Hedge?
It's simple - most politicians lie and pander. Obama is no exception. He and Clinton have been anti-gun in their own states when they needed to get elected, and they are pro-gun this week when they need to win in Pa, a pro-gun state.
His "CURRENT" position - what he says in Penn, 6 days before Penn makes or breaks him - is not indicative of his well-established position on guns. Unless you believe his recent change is sincere.
Do you, hedge?
Here's the thing:
Obama will not lie about his position on guns.
He may dodge the issue, he may avoid the question, try to talk about other issues.
But he can not lie.
Because that is the golden rule of politics and rhetorics:
Don't.
Lie.
The second rule is:
Don't FCUKING Lie.
So if Obama claims that he is not for an all-out ban, then he isn't.
If he however is avoiding the issue, then you may want to be worried.
You can get away with almost anything, as long as you don't lie.
Here's a couple of links on his position on guns. No where have I found anything that indicates that he would be in favor of an all-out ban?
http://www.gunlawnews.org/Senators/Barack-Obama.html
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm
-
Here's the thing:
Obama will not lie about his position on guns.
He may dodge the issue, he may avoid the question, try to talk about other issues.
But he can not lie.
Because that is the golden rule of politics and rhetorics:
Don't.
Lie.
The second rule is:
Don't FCUKING Lie.
So if Obama claims that he is not for an all-out ban, then he isn't.
If he however is avoiding the issue, then you may want to be worried.
You can get away with almost anything, as long as you don't lie.
Here's a couple of links on his position on guns. No where have I found anything that indicates that he would be in favor of an all-out ban?
http://www.gunlawnews.org/Senators/Barack-Obama.html
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm
I'll let the paper ferrets pull out what he signed, i'm sure they're digging now.
Obama has lied, hedge. I like him, and I think he'll do a good job.
But in the last year, he has fibbed.
-
No viable candidate would ever propose banning handguns. I'd be very surprised if he signed a paper stating he supported a nationwide handgun ban.
-
No viable candidate would ever propose banning handguns. I'd be very surprised if he signed a paper stating he supported a nationwide handgun ban.
Bill clinton remarked he'd ban all handguns if he could.
-
Bill clinton remarked he'd ban all handguns if he could.
Did he ever propose legislation to do that? I don't think so. It's political suicide. Topics like these are red herrings circulated to bring down candidates. But we see through that.
He did take action against assault rifles. But assault rifles aren't handguns.
-
He can try....he can really try. Who will enforce it. I have 5 handguns and a shotgun....the cops on my street are all gun nuts as well. The police captain and Police chief all live on either side of me. I'm sure other folks here have similar situations.
dude he didnt say he will try
-
Which means its a useless argument and a waste of time. y concern is the pandering to the left ona dead issue. Much like his pandering to the left on the Iraq pullout issue. He said he'd begin drawing down in 90 days fully knowing he can't pull at all and his 30,000 man plan is ridiculous. Its not the issue, as we've discussed it a billion times, its the fact that he knows he can't and won't do it.
-
Bill clinton remarked he'd ban all handguns if he could.
What does Bill Clinton have to do with Barack Obama?
I thought this thread was a discussion about how certain people are trying to claim that Barack Obama wants an all-out ban for guns.
And Obama tries to claim that he doesn't want an all-out ban.
And not a thread about Bill Clinton?
-
What does Bill Clinton have to do with Barack Obama?
I thought this thread was a discussion about how certain people are trying to claim that Barack Obama wants an all-out ban for guns.
And Obama tries to claim that he doesn't want an all-out ban.
And not a thread about Bill Clinton?
{LOL} 240 is very sensitive about guns. He's not thinking straight.
if as he claimed Bill Clinton made the statement that he would ban all handguns, clearly such a thing wouldn't happen under Obama who states he's not in favour of it. Clinton supposedly was, but couldn't do it, why would someone assume someone who stated to not be in favour of it be able to pull it off. I don't see such a thing happening anytime soon (at least not under a Democratic gov), ...especially not in light of what's occurred over the past few years. One would think that would also be the last thing we could expect to see from a Repub gov, ...but in the past 8 years, those guys have really surprised us haven't they? It's almost like berserker referred to it last year "An Invasion of Body Snatchers"
-
Hedge,
Are you saying Obama hasn't lied? All politicians here lie.
-
Hedge,
Are you saying Obama hasn't lied? All politicians here lie.
I never saw Hillary Clinton lie, never saw Obama lie, never saw Bush lie.
I've seen Bush twist the truth a whole lot though.
But that's a whole different matter.
Eg, when Bush claimed that there were proof of WMD's in Iraq, I'm sure he had indications that there MAY have been some, getting flawed intelligence.
And twisting it.
But I'm not sure he entirely lied.
Another good example is Bill Clinton. In his world, getting his dick sucked wasn't sex. So he didn't lie.
But that congressman who had a gay boy affair, he lied.
And was slayed for it.
Sure, the politicians aren't exactly truthful. But to flat out lie is very dangerous.
Dodging questions and issues is much more common.
And making loose promises that may sound like something else than it is eg:
If Obama holds a speech in a state where people are against guns:
"I will work to make legislations to take guns off the streets"
WTF does that mean really? Nothing precise.
It could mean longer prison times or all-out ban for guns.
In a gun-loving state Obama could say:
"I promise to protect the gun owners constitutional rights. I am 100% committed to the 2nd amendment"
That would sound awesome in the ears of a trigger happy Redneck who loves nothing more than to wear guns and to shot with his AK-47 in the weekends sporting a sweaty tanktop.
But it doesn't mean jack shit really.
It only means he isn't likely to ban guns completely.
So when Obama says he isn't for an all-out ban, that says enough IMO.
-
Will that influence your vote?
Absolutely, but I don't need to see that to already know he's anti gun rights, anti 2A, and anti self defense. For example, he proposes a total ban on CCW. Moron.
-
::)
Instead of building up drama about whether he's a signed a paper or not...
How about listening to his answers on whether he is in favor of an all-out ban or not?
If he says he is not, I guess he isn't?
Like all politicians, he talks out of both sides of his mouth:
* Respect 2nd Amendment, but local gun bans ok. (Feb 2008)
* Provide some common-sense enforcement on gun licensing. (Jan 2008)
* 2000: cosponsored bill to limit purchases to 1 gun per month. (Oct 2007)
* Concealed carry OK for retired police officers. (Aug 2007)
* Stop unscrupulous gun dealers dumping guns in cities. (Jul 2007)
* Keep guns out of inner cities--but also problem of morality. (Oct 2006)
* Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions. (Jul 1998)
* Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)
http://www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm#Gun_Control
-
Settle down Rob no one's taking our guns just yet. ;)
-
Like all politicians, he talks out of both sides of his mouth:
* Respect 2nd Amendment, but local gun bans ok. (Feb 2008)
* Provide some common-sense enforcement on gun licensing. (Jan 2008)
* 2000: cosponsored bill to limit purchases to 1 gun per month. (Oct 2007)
* Concealed carry OK for retired police officers. (Aug 2007)
* Stop unscrupulous gun dealers dumping guns in cities. (Jul 2007)
* Keep guns out of inner cities--but also problem of morality. (Oct 2006)
* Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions. (Jul 1998)
* Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)
http://www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm#Gun_Control
What else do u need to know....this guy is anti gun and he's picking apart the 2nd Amendement 1 side issue at a time.....
-
What else do u need to know....
Me, nothing, but as you can see, he's done a good job of convincing those on the fence that perhaps he's not so anti gun after all.
-
Like all politicians, he talks out of both sides of his mouth:
* Respect 2nd Amendment, but local gun bans ok. (Feb 2008)
* Provide some common-sense enforcement on gun licensing. (Jan 2008)
* 2000: cosponsored bill to limit purchases to 1 gun per month. (Oct 2007)
* Concealed carry OK for retired police officers. (Aug 2007)
* Stop unscrupulous gun dealers dumping guns in cities. (Jul 2007)
* Keep guns out of inner cities--but also problem of morality. (Oct 2006)
* Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions. (Jul 1998)
* Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)
http://www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm#Gun_Control
What exactly is a president supposed to do if municipalities want to ban handguns? Sounds like a States' rights issue to me.
I don't see anything in your catalog that shows Obama wants to ban handguns. Seems like he's been consistent on the issue--some regulation is his way of dealing with guns and gun problems.
-
What exactly is a president supposed to do if municipalities want to ban handguns? Sounds like a States' rights issue to me.
It's not, it's a US Const. Issue. State do have the right to have "reasonable" regulation, but that's where much of the fighting takes place and what is being looked at right now by SCOTUS. DC decided "reasonable" was to ban handguns, and that's what's at stake with the SCOTUS case which relates to the issues of individual vs. collective Right, etc.
I don't see anything in your catalog that shows Obama wants to ban handguns.
He is for a total ban on CCW for anyone but retired police. That is effectively banning handguns for self defense, as they are not much damn good if left at home when you may need one are they? Like saying cars are legal, but only if left in the drive way, which effectivly bans cars in any meaningful way. You have to actually look at the effects of a reg/law not just what comes out of their mouth.
Seems like he's been consistent on the issue
Yes, consistently worthless and clueless...
-
It's not, it's a US Const. Issue. State do have the right to have "reasonable" regulation, but that's where much of the fighting takes place and what is being looked at right now by SCOTUS. DC decided "reasonable" was to ban handguns, and that's what's at stake with the SCOTUS case which relates to the issues of individual vs. collective Right, etc.
Yeah I saw that. In the tradition of past decisions, a handgun ban is not a ban on all guns. However, the SCT is starting to view that differently. Like you said, It's doing a 180 re the 2nd A as a personal right. It's never held that way before. So we could be seeing a change.
He is for a total ban on CCW for anyone but retired police. That is effectively banning handguns for self defense, as they are not much damn good if left at home when you may need one are they? Like saying cars are legal, but only if left in the drive way, which effectivly bans cars in any meaningful way. You have to actually look at the effects of a reg/law not just what comes out of their mouth.
Yes, consistently worthless and clueless...
Not having a Concealed carry law is not an effective ban on handguns for self defense. Tell that to people that defend themselves or others at home. Frankly, I could care less about gun rights. It doesn't really matter to me personally.
-
Yeah I saw that. In the tradition of past decisions, a handgun ban is not a ban on all guns.
But it is a ban on handguns, which effectively prevents law abiding citizens from self defense when out of their homes, does not lower crime, etc, etc, and is not Const. in the view of many, and not in the view of SCOTUS if they conclude as most expect they will in June.
However, the SCT is starting to view that differently. Like you said, It's doing a 180 re the 2nd A as a personal right.
SCOTUS is not dong 180 turn on that. They have never in their history actually directly decided on that.
It's never held that way before.
100% untrue. It has historically been viewed (because it is) as an individual right and the collective right BS is fairly recent.
So we could be seeing a change.
Not having a Concealed carry law is not an effective ban on handguns for self defense. Tell that to people that defend themselves or others at home. Frankly, I could care less about gun rights. It doesn't really matter to me personally.
You could not be more incorrect about that if you tried, and the "If it does not affect me personally right this minute, so I don't care about it" approach to a Democracy is a sure fired way to lose it. When enough people take your approach, we are all fuc&^ed...
-
But it is a ban on handguns, which effectively prevents law abiding citizens from self defense when out of their homes, does not lower crime, etc, etc, and is not Const. in the view of many, and not in the view of SCOTUS if they conclude as most expect they will in June.
Judicial activism in action.
SCOTUS is not dong 180 turn on that. They have never in their history actually directly decided on that
So what if there hasn't been a case on point? The court has used the following principle from the 1939 case US v. Miller: "...that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms.""
100% untrue. It has historically been viewed (because it is) as an individual right and the collective right BS is fairly recent.
Right. Only if almost 70 years of jurisprudence is fairly recent to you.
You could not be more incorrect about that if you tried.
Sure I could, I could agree with you.
-
Judicial activism in action.
SCOTUS deciding on Const. matters is "activism." Right.
So what if there hasn't been a case on point? The court has used the following principle from the 1939 case US v. Miller: "...that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms.""
Would you like to tell me exactly what page and section of the Miller case that can be found? The Miller case is often miss cited by lower courts and or people who don't like what the Miller case actually concluded, which you can read here, as well as the other 5 SCOTUS cases: U.S. v. Cruikshank, Presser v. Illinois, Miller v. Texas, U.S. v. Miller, and Lewis v. U.S., relating to this issue here:
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndsup.html
The rest of our comments are based on ignorance of the topic.
-
SCOTUS deciding on Const. matters is "activism." Right.
Would you like to tell me exactly what page and section of the Miller case that can be found? The Miller case is often miss cited by lower courts and or people who don't like what the Miller case actually concluded, which you can read here, as well as the other 5 SCOTUS cases: U.S. v. Cruikshank, Presser v. Illinois, Miller v. Texas, U.S. v. Miller, and Lewis v. U.S., relating to this issue here:
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndsup.html
The rest of our comments are based on ignorance of the topic.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=307&page=174 UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)
"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."
I see a two part test re the reasonable relationship of the legislation to the matter at hand: 1. concerns the weapon itself and 2. concerns the weapon holder. Was the weapon the kind related to a well-regulated militia and was the weaponholder related to a well-regulated militia.
Let’s see how that interpretation has been repeated or refined in subsequent cases:
E. Adams v. Williams 407 U.S. 143, 92 S. Ct. 1921, 322 Ed. 612 (1972)
“The leading case is United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 59 S.Ct . 816, 83 L.Ed. 1206, upholding a federal law making criminal the shipment in interstate commerce of a sawed-off shotgun. The law was upheld, there being no evidence that a sawed-off shotgun had "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." Id., at 178, 59 S.Ct. at 818. The Second Amendment, it was held, "must be interpreted and applied" with the view of maintaining a "militia."”
--Justice Douglas
Lewis v. United States 445 U.S. 95, 100 S. Ct. 915 __ L.Ed. ____ (1980)
These legislative restrictions on the use of firearms are neither based upon constitutionally suspect criteria, nor do they trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties. See United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 178, 59 S. Ct. 816, 818, 83 L.Ed. 1206 (1939) (the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does (p.37)not have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"); United States v. Three Winchester 30-30 Caliber Lever Action Carbines, 504 F.2d 1288, 1290, n. 5 (CA7 1975); United States v. Johnson, 497 F.2d 548 (CA4 1974); Cody v. United States, 460 F.2d 34 (CA8), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1010, 93 S.Ct. 454, 34 L.Ed.2d 303 (1972) (the latter three cases holding, respectively, that Sec. 1202(a)(1), Sec. 922(g), and Sec. 922(a)(6) do not violate the Second Amendment).
--Justice Blackmun
I don’t know about you, but I see "well-regulated militia" all over the place.
I don’t see an individual right, fundamental right or personal right anywhere. Do you?
But in all fairness, you claim that that is a false argument anyways so I suppose the point is moot with you.
-
After reading hh6's posts on here, I now strongly support psychological testing before a firearms permit of any kind is issued.
-
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=307&page=174 UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)
"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."
Ergo, rifles shorter than 18 inches were deemed not required for "preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" and not typical military arms, therefore, not Const. protected. Ergo "it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense."
And what is the militia? From that page you linked:
"'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."
Who is the militia? You and I:
Federal Statutes Section 311 of US Code Title 10, entitled, "Militia: composition and classes" states:
(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.
* (no longer exclusively male)
But I asked you to show me exactly where this statement you posted exists from the Miller case:
"...that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms."
If I am missing that exact statement in the URL you posted, my apologies, However, if i does not exist, then you need to step up and admit that...
Again, I supplied a URL that covers the above issues well and you show yourself not as well read on the topic as you pretend to be. If you want to learn more on the topic, URL was supplied. People who attempt to use the militia = collective right routine are easy enough to prove wrong, as shown above. In that case, such people (hopefully not you) then start with "well the Second Amendment does not apply to todays world" or "well they didn't have m16s then" and other BS once shown their original stance is shown to be false, as yours has.
-
All politicians here lie.
Amazing 240, you're so apolitical, so right on !
You've got a pro thead, a con thread and an all-out thread all going on at once?
x
-
Monster debating a dodge-the-question opinion as if it provides some answers. very good use of time.
-
Amazing 240, you're so apolitical, so right on !
You've got a pro thead, a con thread and an all-out thread all going on at once?
x
ain't it cool? By taking all positions I can equally piss off all readers, encouraging them to contribute to the discussion and growing the political board.
-
Monster debating a dodge-the-question opinion as if it provides some answers. very good use of time.
Don't know who you are talking to, but both Decker and I have supplied more info on the topic pro, and con, than you have. If you have the answers, by all means, supply them.
-
Ergo, rifles shorter than 18 inches were deemed not required for "preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" and not typical military arms, therefore, not Const. protected. Ergo "it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense."
And what is the militia? From that page you linked:
"'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."
Who is the militia? You and I:
Federal Statutes Section 311 of US Code Title 10, entitled, "Militia: composition and classes" states:
(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.
* (no longer exclusively male)
I have seen this kind of justification you provide before. Of course the militia is a state run entity populated by people. That doesn’t change the fact that nowhere does it list a personal or individual or fundamental right to own a gun. The Miller test does reference militias or as I like to call them “A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline”… Does that definition of militia look like "militia" means an individual person to you? Of course not.
But I asked you to show me exactly where this statement you posted exists from the Miller case:
"...that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms."
If I am missing that exact statement in the URL you posted, my apologies, However, if i does not exist, then you need to step up and admit that...
Again, I supplied a URL that covers the above issues well and you show yourself not as well read on the topic as you pretend to be. If you want to learn more on the topic, URL was supplied. People who attempt to use the militia = collective right routine are easy enough to prove wrong, as shown above. In that case, such people (hopefully not you) then start with "well the Second Amendment does not apply to todays world" or "well they didn't have m16s then" and other BS once shown their original stance is shown to be false, as yours has.
I guess you are missing the words “well-regulated militia” in the above paragraph. Your fundamental misunderstanding or obfuscation over what a ‘militia’ is is a problem I see prevalent among people, like yourself, prejudiced towards the proliferation of guns.
So, to clear up you fundamental misunderstanding of the 2nd Amendment, here’re are some more quotes from the courts on what it means:
Eckert v. City of Philadelphia 477 F.2d 610 (3rd 1973)
Appellant's theory in the district court which he now repeats is that by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution he is entitled to bear arms. Appellant is completely wrong about that.
U.S. v. Johnson 497 F.2d 548 (4th 1974)
The statute prohibiting the transportation of a firearm in interstate commerce after having been convicted of a felony is not unconstitutional as violative of defendant's Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms since the Second Amendment only confers a collective right of keeping and bearing arms which must bear a reasonable relationship to the presentation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia.(p.39)
Stevens v. U.S. 440 F.2d 144 (6th 1971)
Constitutional right to keep and bear arms applies only to the right of the state to maintain militia and not to individuals' rights to bear arms. Congress had authority under commerce clause to prohibit possession of firearms by convicted felons, based upon congressional finding that such possession passes threat to interstate commerce.
U.S. v. Day 476 F.2d 562 (6th 1973)
As to the alleged right to bear arms, Day's claim is meritless. There is no absolute constitutional right of an individual to possess a firearm.
U.S. v. Warin 530 F.2d 103 (6th 1976)
It is clear that the Second Amendment guarantees a collective rather than an individual right. The fact that the defendant Warin, in common with all adult residents and citizens (p.41)of Ohio, is subject to enrollment in the militia of the state confers on him no right to possess the submachine gun in question.
There’s boatload more where those came from but I think you get the point.
Now we have an activist right-wing court changing longstanding jurisprudence.
-
Don't know who you are talking to, but both Decker and I have supplied more info on the topic pro, and con, than you have. If you have the answers, by all means, supply them.
I haven't read most of the posts on here. However, if you're looking for answers in Miller, you're not going to find them. Miller was basically brought by the Federal govt to see if their regs would pass judicial review.
McReynolds took the middle path: the pragmatic approach. 2nd amendment does guarantee a general right to bear arms, but the government can regulate firearms.
You can post about Miller till you're blue in the face, but you're not going to get any further than the preceding sentence.
-
I guess you are missing the words “well-regulated militia” in the above paragraph.
And I am now asking you again, were does "...that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms." appear in the Miller case?
If you will not stop dodging that simple question, then you have shown that you are an intellectually dishonest person who can't be trusted to have an objective debate on the topic.
-
You can post about Miller till you're blue in the face, but you're not going to get any further than the preceding sentence.
Agreed. And he has now been nailed fabricating quotes from the Miller case that don't exist. Must work for the Brady Bunch....
-
And I am now asking you again, were does "...that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms." appear in th Miller case?
If you will not stop dodging that simple question, then you have shown that you are an intellectually dishonest person who can't be trusted to have an objective debate on the topic.
It's not a dodge. The 2nd amendment as it is quoted, as it is interpreted and as it is applied by the court in subsequent cases states the principal of group right over individual right b/c under your reading, the word "militia" loses all meaning. If the founders meant individual they would have used a word to denote that. Instead they used a word denoting a group.
Here is the crux of the matter that you have to understand: It's not an explicit holding, rather it's an implicit principal of judicial construction of the 2nd amendment.
That's why there's a long litany of court cases recounting that principal.
Although I don't care about the gun debate, this is fun.
-
It's not a dodge. The 2nd amendment as it is quoted, as it is interpreted and as it is applied by the court in subsequent cases states the principal of group right over individual right b/c under your reading, the word "militia" loses all meaning. If the founders meant individual they would have used a word to denote that. Instead they used a word denoting a group.
Here is the crux of the matter that you have to understand: It's not an explicit holding, rather it's an implicit principal of judicial construction of the 2nd amendment.
That's why there's a long litany of court cases recounting that principal.
Although I don't care about the gun debate, this is fun.
A collective right defeats the definition of a right. Rights are individual freedoms LIKE EVERY OTHER AMENDMENT IN THE CONSTITUTION. Duh...
People like you make it impossible for honest Americans to defend themselves.
-
It's not a dodge.
It sure the hell is. Your words:
"The court has used the following principle from the 1939 case US v. Miller: "...that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms."
Would ANYONE reading the above, in quotes no less, who didn't know better, not read that as a direct quote from the Miller case?
Although I don't care about the gun debate, this is fun.
Translated, you fabricated a quote and are now busted. You assumed I would not check it and or know it off hand. You were wrong.You lied, and were nailed, which confirms you are intellectually dishonest, and thus not worthy of objective debate on the topic as you are willing to fabricate/lie to support a position.
-
which confirms you are intellectually dishonest
ah HAHAHAAHAHAH!!!!! Sing it sister!! oh man... ;D
-
A collective right defeats the definition of a right. Rights are individual freedoms LIKE EVERY OTHER AMENDMENT IN THE CONSTITUTION. Duh...
People like you make it impossible for honest Americans to defend themselves.
I guess you've never heard of implied rights or collective rights. Do a search and then get back to me.
-
ah HAHAHAAHAHAH!!!!! Sing it sister!! oh man... ;D
Guns have always been illegal here in England, so I don't know what you're talking about. I used to think that the American Constitution and "The Right to Bear Arms" was rather a fabulous unique US thing and I admired it.
For sure it's not been administered well, but surely your candidate Obama can't be "favouring a ban on handguns"? What would you do with them all, I thought every American had one under the bed. Will you hand them all in and ship them to a place where they may be put to better use? Or maybe Obama is proposing to melt them all down? Please let me know what he thinks he'll do with them.
I'm not rereading all your US laws, I've defended them all my life. Now you wanna rewrite it all? Can't keep up, we're not getting any of this on the BBC.
-
I guess you've never heard of implied rights or collective rights. Do a search and then get back to me.
Why, you gonna fabricate another quote for him too? Here's my quote:
"Every American should have a LAW Rocket under their pillow" - George Washington. Hey, as long as we are fabricating quotes.... ::)
-
It sure the hell is. Your words:
"The court has used the following principle from the 1939 case US v. Miller: "...that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearmsWould ANYONE reading the above, in quotes no less, who didn't know better, not read that as a direct quote from the Miller case? ."
All the federal courts up until 1990 something understood it my way. The ABA understands it my way. But you don't.
You want Black Letter Law where there is none. That's not my problem. That's your problem. And now that we have a right-wing activist supreme court, you will get your individual right to carry a gun even though that contravenes 70 years of caselaw.
Translated, you fabricated a quote and are now busted. You assumed I would not check it and or know it off hand. You were wrong.You lied, and were nailed, which confirms you are intellectually dishonest, and thus not worthy of objective debate on the topic as you are willing to fabricate/lie to support a position.
Go. Run away crying, "you're a liar"...
I suppose all the cases subsequent the Miller case that came to the same conclusion that I showed you--all those judges were lying or wrong or whatever the hell it is you are trying to say.
You are the one that pulled your misunderstood definition of militia out and now you run... or stay and look at this again:
"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."
I see a two part test re the reasonable relationship of the legislation to the matter at hand: 1. concerns the weapon itself and 2. concerns the weapon holder. Was the weapon the kind related to a well-regulated militia and was the weaponholder related to a well-regulated militia.
-
Why, you gonna fabricate another quote for him too? Here's my quote:
"Every American should have a LAW Rocket under their pillow" - George Washington. Hey, as long as we are fabricating quotes.... ::)
Oooh you got me shaking in my boots little lady.
It seems painfully obvious that you don't understand the meaning of the word "fabricated".
Just like you don't understand what "militia" means.
-
All the federal courts up until 1990 something understood it my way.
You lied and were busted, and are not man enough (read have the balls) to fess up to it, and attempt the back peddle and diversions. Nice try, will not fly. As for the rest, once I have shown a person to be so dishonest in a debate, they have lost all credibility, as you have. When they turnout to not even have the nads to admit it, and take their lumps like a man, there is no reason to continue.
-
It seems painfully obvious that you don't understand the meaning of the word "fabricated".
From Dictionary.com
fab·ri·cate
–verb (used with object), -cat·ed, -cat·ing.
1. to make by art or skill and labor; construct: The finest craftspeople fabricated this clock.
2. to make by assembling parts or sections.
3. to devise or invent (a legend, lie, etc.).
4. to fake; forge (a document, signature, etc.).
You know, kinda what you did.... 8)
-
You lied and were busted, and are not man enough (read have the balls) to fess up to it, and attempt the back peddle and diversions. Nice try, will not fly. As for the rest, once I have shown a person to be so dishonest in a debate, they have lost all credibility, as you have. When they turnout to not even have the nads to admit it, and take their lumps like a man, there is no reason to continue. Me win, you lose, and that's here for all to see. ;)
Run away little girl. Liar.....waaahhhh.
Or wrap your mind around the notion that the principal of judicial interpretation of the 2nd A issues from the Miller 2 prong test.
But why waste my time? We have an 'expert' like you here.
-
From Dictionary.com
fab·ri·cate
–verb (used with object), -cat·ed, -cat·ing.
1. to make by art or skill and labor; construct: The finest craftspeople fabricated this clock.
2. to make by assembling parts or sections.
3. to devise or invent (a legend, lie, etc.).
4. to fake; forge (a document, signature, etc.).
You know, kinda what you did.... 8)
Yeah, what I did.
What did I fabricate?
-
What exactly is a president supposed to do if municipalities want to ban handguns? Sounds like a States' rights issue to me.
I don't see anything in your catalog that shows Obama wants to ban handguns. Seems like he's been consistent on the issue--some regulation is his way of dealing with guns and gun problems.
What if the states are in violation of our Constitutional rights? Shouldn't the President (and all politicians) put the Constitution put first? Isn't it his sworn duty to uphold it?
The ruling this summer by the Supreme Court over Washington DC's handgun ban will be interesting. From what I've read it does not look well for the district. :)
-
Run away little girl. Liar.....waaahhhh.
Or wrap your mind around the notion that the principal of judicial interpretation
Translated: you invented a quote that does not exist (or at least have yet to give the correct citation for it where it does appear), applied to a case it is not found in, and got nailed hard for doing it. A proff for example wold give you an F for such a thing once he discovered it "But professor, that was my judicial interpretation!" Right....
An editor would reject it once the lie was discovered, etc, etc. Invented quotes/citations don't go over real well with honest people.
But why waste my time? We have an 'expert' like you here.
(1) compared to you, I am an expert. That much is clear.
(2) regardless, I am not a fabricator of quotes/citations and a liar.
-
What if the states are in violation of our Constitutional rights? Shouldn't the President (and all politicians) put the Constitution put first? Isn't it his sworn duty to uphold it?
The ruling this summer by the Supreme Court over Washington DC's handgun ban will be interesting. From what I've read it does not look well for the district. :)
If there's a bona fide dispute over the matter (and no mootness of issue, issue is 'ripe', and the party's have standing), then the SCT can determine the issue.
I think the ban will be struck down. I can't wait to read the opinion. The states have a lot of latitude when it comes to legislating on behalf of the health and safety of its citizens. So it'll be interesting to see how the reasoning breaks down.
-
Translated: you invented a quote that does not exist (or at least have yet to give the correct citation for it where it does appear), applied to a case it is not found in, and got nailed hard for doing it.
First of all, keep your perverse sexual dysfunctions over nailing to yourself.
Second, I can actually see what you mean. I wasn't quoting the holding of the case, I was quoting the principle of judicial interpretation of the Miller case as articulated by the ACLU but I didn't include the cite. So I can see your beef.
It doesn't change a thing on the substantive issue at hand. The statement was and is true. The courts have held that way under that principle.
I'll admit that I should have cited my source but that doesn't change the conclusion You're still a loser in this debate.
-
Absolutely, but I don't need to see that to already know he's anti gun rights, anti 2A, and anti self defense. For example, he proposes a total ban on CCW. Moron.
Will,
Why don't you take your guns and volunteer to fight in the "War on Terror" in Iraq? ::)
idiot
-
What the hell has that got to do with the 2nd Amendment and gun rights..ur wonderful little communist candidate not looking so good now...poor Obama getting a liitle worried over all the horsehit piled up in his past. If he hates gun, say he hates guns and move on.
-
First of all, keep your perverse sexual dysfunctions over nailing to yourself.
Second, I can actually see what you mean. I wasn't quoting the holding of the case, I was quoting the principle of judicial interpretation of the Miller case as articulated by the ACLU but I didn't include the cite. So I can see your beef.
Ah, finally an admission of the source for the quote, and from the ever objective ACLU no less! Thanx for at least stepping up and clarifying that. It was am amazingly dishonest thing for you to do in the first place, but I give you the credit for finally fessing up.
It doesn't change a thing on the substantive issue at hand. The statement was and is true. The courts have held that way under that principle.
100% false, unless you wish to do some more creative legal "interpretations" of yours...
I'll admit that I should have cited my source but that doesn't change the conclusion You're still a loser in this debate.
As I said, you lost any credibility a long time ago.
[/quote]
-
What the hell has that got to do with the 2nd Amendment and gun rights..ur wonderful little communist candidate not looking so good now...poor Obama getting a liitle worried over all the horsehit piled up in his past. If he hates gun, say he hates guns and move on.
Comedy classic! :D
Obama is now a communist? I guess that is the type of campaign we can expect your hero John McCain to run. What "horseshit" is piled up in his past, my dumb little friend? ::) Despite the desperate attempts to sling mud, Obama flicks it off his shoulders and the poll numbers hold steady.
-
As I said, you lost any credibility a long time ago.
You lost all credibility in your first post.
-
Comedy classic! :D
Obama is now a communist? I guess that is the type of campaign we can expect your hero John McCain to run. What "horseshit" is piled up in his past, my dumb little friend? ::) Despite the desperate attempts to sling mud, Obama flicks it off his shoulders and the poll numbers hold steady.
No actually they're not..I'm not a Mccain fan (for the nine billionth time) Ur so naive and blind to the bullshit behind Obama. Obama has been whining for days about the debate. I'm sure he'll get nominated...once agin the Dems have been blinded by the Bush hate to nominate somebody who can win. U idiots have allowed ur party to be hijacked by the far left....
-
If there's a bona fide dispute over the matter (and no mootness of issue, issue is 'ripe', and the party's have standing), then the SCT can determine the issue.
I think the ban will be struck down. I can't wait to read the opinion. The states have a lot of latitude when it comes to legislating on behalf of the health and safety of its citizens. So it'll be interesting to see how the reasoning breaks down.
No doubt that it's gonna be a decision that has massive ripple effects through out the country.
-
Decker whats ur thought on suing gun makers....
-
No actually they're not..I'm not a Mccain fan (for the nine billionth time) Ur so naive and blind to the bullshit behind Obama. Obama has been whining for days about the debate. I'm sure he'll get nominated...once agin the Dems have been blinded by the Bush hate to nominate somebody who can win. U idiots have allowed ur party to be hijacked by the far left....
Obama has not been "whining", you moron. He has been saying what I and millions of other people felt while watching that "debate". "What have all these nonsensical topics have to do with anything of importance? We have food shortages worldwide, global warming, a declining education system, and the moderators want to spend 45 minutes talking about this crap? Give me a break."
So are you planning to sit at home with your thumb up your butt on election day, hh6?
-
Decker whats ur thought on suing gun makers....
I haven't thought about it really. If the gun was made in a negligent/defective way I would. But not if a gun was used to kill a loved by the act of an unrelated 3rd party.
What are your thoughts?
-
I haven't thought about it really. If the gun was made in a negligent/defective way I would. But not if a gun was used to kill a loved by the act of an unrelated 3rd party.
What are your thoughts?
Suing gun manufacturers for homicides makes as much sense as suing automobile manufacturers for people that drink and drive.
-
Suing gun manufacturers for homicides makes as much sense as suing automobile manufacturers for people that drink and drive.
Exactly.
-
Nope voting for Mccain...can't let the country go to the socialists. Dude, its about his character...its about being able to answer a question wiuthout notes. How many people have u prepared for press conferences, its one of things I do. Obama is horrible without notes or a telepromter. He's been lit up on the Sunday shows...all his stupid remarks have come from off the cuff remarks. He didn't need to answer those questions but he did and he looked like an idiot. His people should have seen all of that coming and prepared him with his standard messages.
As far a s character...the damm president should be proud of America....not have associations with America haters or former terrorists. The fact that those questions needed to be asked should disqualify this guy.
-
I feel as u do....but let me play devils advocate. The guns I own can't be used for hunting. They are for home defense etc but their purpose is to kill another human being. A lawyer could not even make the argument that they can be used to wound as .45 will fuck ur day up...along with a shotgun with buck/slug/buck/slug/slug loaded into it. So unlike a car which is ment at transportation, these guns are ment to kill. I think the law needs to be defined and then the issue dropped. I think suing is ridiculous also but this is the rational that has been used to bring suits.
-
Nope voting for Mccain...can't let the country go to the socialists. Dude, its about his character...its about being able to answer a question wiuthout notes. How many people have u prepared for press conferences, its one of things I do. Obama is horrible without notes or a telepromter. He's been lit up on the Sunday shows...all his stupid remarks have come from off the cuff remarks. He didn't need to answer those questions but he did and he looked like an idiot. His people should have seen all of that coming and prepared him with his standard messages.
As far a s character...the damm president should be proud of America....not have associations with America haters or former terrorists. The fact that those questions needed to be asked should disqualify this guy.
Obama speaks ALL THE TIME without prepared text. You are a moron. McCain can't get his facts straight without prepared notes. He is terrible.
Obama is as proud as anyone of America. Who are you to question someone's patriotism? It's right-wing morons who would make me sick to my stomach if I actually allowed you to. >:( You are a walking stereotype. Take your pseudo patriotism and shove it up your ass.
-
I feel as u do....but let me play devils advocate. The guns I own can't be used for hunting. They are for home defense etc but their purpose is to kill another human being. A lawyer could not even make the argument that they can be used to wound as .45 will fuck ur day up...along with a shotgun with buck/slug/buck/slug/slug loaded into it. So unlike a car which is ment at transportation, these guns are ment to kill. I think the law needs to be defined and then the issue dropped. I think suing is ridiculous also but this is the rational that has been used to bring suits.
Maybe the purpose you own your guns for is not home protection but rather collecting.
Guns are inherently dangerous yet, in most cases, legal to own. That's an interesting point you bring up.
Have a great weekend. I'm off to dinner with the wife.
-
He's prepared by his handlers..u have no clue dude do u. He has themes and messages and its painfully obvious when he strays from them. I'll call out his patriotism anytime I damm well want. As a vet i have that right. He hasn't shown me he loves this country. He and his nitwit wife prove time and again that they haveno clue abou this place.
Answer me this:
when Ann Coulter is shouted down on college campuses..whos' party do they belong to
who tries to limit or take away guns
those that protest Marine recruiters...what party
those that tried to blow up the Pentagon..what party
those that rioted in 1968..what party
who was against equal rights
against prayer
for raising taxes
the list is endless. I'm sure u'll comeback with some repub list..go ahead I'm not a Republican. Obama is a lightweight and a socialist and not fit to be run this country.
-
Maybe the purpose you own your guns for is not home protection but rather collecting.
Guns are inherently dangerous yet, in most cases, legal to own. That's an interesting point you bring up.
Have a great weekend. I'm off to dinner with the wife.
U too..be safe.
-
Obama is horrible without notes or a telepromter.
I think this isn't true. I'm not voting for him, but I think he's the best speaker in the race by a mile.
McCain is a dork. It's true. Pity laughs when he makes jokes.
-
Will,
Why don't you take your guns and volunteer to fight in the "War on Terror" in Iraq? ::)
idiot
Strong debating skills. Your parents must be proud....
-
I think this isn't true. I'm not voting for him, but I think he's the best speaker in the race by a mile.
McCain is a dork. It's true. Pity laughs when he makes jokes.
;)
Strong debating skills. Your parents must be proud....
Very proud, thanks. ;)
If I produced a worthless troll-looking charcater like you, who runs around expos like the schmoe that you are...I know I wouldn't be very proud.
-
I think this isn't true. I'm not voting for him, but I think he's the best speaker in the race by a mile.
McCain is a dork. It's true. Pity laughs when he makes jokes.
I agree, Obama is the best speaker of the three by a mile. I don't have to agree with his politics to know that. He has charisma, which is why so many fall for the socialist BS he spews, but you can't say the man lacks charisma. I want to like him in fact, which is what good speakers do: make you like them despite the fact they are not actually saying anything.
-
Obama speaks ALL THE TIME without prepared text. You are a moron. McCain can't get his facts straight without prepared notes. He is terrible.
Obama is as proud as anyone of America. Who are you to question someone's patriotism? It's right-wing morons who would make me sick to my stomach if I actually allowed you to. >:( You are a walking stereotype. Take your pseudo patriotism and shove it up your ass.
Even if McCain were dumb as a post and Obamas IQ was 145 I would rather have an idiot with good character and a love for America making decisions than a ultra leftist genius bent on using America to create his next idea of socialist utopia and gov't control.
Obama hates America, the constitution, and individual liberty (unless you're black) but he would never get elected saying that.
So I say I'll stick my patriotism up YOUR ass and pull your head out.
-
I agree, Obama is the best speaker of the three by a mile. I don't have to agree with his politics to know that. He has charisma, which is why so many fall for the socialist BS he spews, but you can't say the man lacks charisma. I want to like him in fact, which is what good speakers do: make you like them despite the fact they are not actually saying anything.
Spot on. This is precisely what Obama has done.
-
Even if McCain were dumb as a post
he was ranked 894 out of 899 students in his class at the naval academy.
-
he was ranked 894 out of 899 students in his class at the naval academy.
Lol.. great. ;D
You know I never liked him but my original post still stands.
-
he'd be a good president. he'll do what the advisers tell him, and he'll be a strong face to the world for the USA.
same with obama, he'd give the US a compassionate face, but much like the young substitute teacher, he'd have to smack the shit out of someone early on get respect, and I'm confident he would - his advisers wouldn't settle for anything less.
And Hilary would be a mixture - think of her as Bill II... it wouldn't be that bad.
Whenever people say "so-and-so will ruin america", they're just being dramatic bitches. All 3 candidates will do a similar job. President Gore would have invaded afghanistan just as Bush did. As far as Iraq? well, that was planned between cheney and the heads of oil firms before 911, so I'm not sure Gore woudl have gone there.
-
he'd be a good president. he'll do what the advisers tell him, and he'll be a strong face to the world for the USA.
same with obama, he'd give the US a compassionate face, but much like the young substitute teacher, he'd have to smack the shit out of someone early on get respect, and I'm confident he would - his advisers wouldn't settle for anything less.
And Hilary would be a mixture - think of her as Bill II... it wouldn't be that bad.
Whenever people say "so-and-so will ruin america", they're just being dramatic bitches. All 3 candidates will do a similar job. President Gore would have invaded afghanistan just as Bush did. As far as Iraq? well, that was planned between cheney and the heads of oil firms before 911, so I'm not sure Gore woudl have gone there.
Dramatic my ass.. any candidate pushing us more to the left than we already are has thier part in ruining what we stand for. You can kiss individual liberty bye bye especially with Obama.
I don't think McCain has great potential for guarding those liberties either but he's the best we can hope for at this point.
-
Dramatic my ass.. any candidate pushing us more to the left than we already are has thier part in ruining what we stand for. You can kiss individual liberty bye bye especially with Obama.
I don't think McCain has great potential for guarding those liberties either but he's the best we can hope for at this point.
Do you believe the Patriot Act has eroded individual liberties?
-
Do you believe the Patriot Act has eroded individual liberties?
No.
I personally feel that the gov't has neither the time nor the resources to spy on Americans simply for more control at this point. The NSA and CIA are overworked, understaffed bureaucracies as it is. Although I can see what someone not close to those organizations watching the news everyday might be concerned with. I only say that it doesn't worry me because my family and friends are or have been in the paid employment of the intelligence community pretty much my whole life.
Even if it did I don't consider it nearly as much of a threat as anti-gun legislation, hate crimes legislation, the police state as evidenced by Ruby Ridge and Waco through corrupt and even bigger bureaucracies such as the IRS and DEA. I think robbing people of their earned income through higher taxes is even more of a threat.
I know this is just my opinion but I get disgusted when I know politicians are doing as much as possible to rob me of my right to protect me and my family from criminals who would just as soon kill me, rape my wife or girlfriend, and do who knows what to my future children along with taking whatever they want.
-
Do you believe the Patriot Act has eroded individual liberties?
No.
Okay.
Now, in what ways, based upon his proposals so far (or something he hasn't said, but you believe), do you believe Obama will change things to remove our individual liberties?
-
Okay.
Now, in what ways, based upon his proposals so far (or something he hasn't said, but you believe), do you believe Obama will change things to remove our individual liberties?
It's his record. I don't know how much worse it can get to be MORE liberal that Hillary, who is bad enough. The fact that he probably represents the intentions of most of the black community in this country isn't very reassuring either. I think he will stomp all over the 2nd amendment. I think he will raise taxes as much and as often as possible. I think social programs will be expanded. I think our military won't get the backing it needs but that's debatable. And frankly, I feel as if he is just as corrupt as any politician but we just haven't seen that yet. Basically I feel that the more liberal the candidate the worse the candidate and he might be the most left of anyone who has run for president in my lifetime.
-
I also think hate crimes laws, free speech by the definition of the ACLU, and preferential treatment for minorities have a much better chance of getting through with him in office.
All of which are completely unconstitutional.
-
I'd like to see ONE law he passed which eroded civil liberties.
Can you list one?
Because honestly, I watch FOX news 4 hours per day, and I see them say this nonstop, but they never cite examples as to what he has done to erode liberties.
-
I'd like to see ONE law he passed which eroded civil liberties.
Can you list one?
Because honestly, I watch FOX news 4 hours per day, and I see them say this nonstop, but they never cite examples as to what he has done to erode liberties.
Are you saying you think he won't do those things? Please..
Ha.. last I heard he accomplished exactly zero as a Senator, heard from both sides. Didn't he vote "present" on most of the legislation put before him?
-
Are you saying you think he won't do those things? Please..
Ha.. last I heard he accomplished exactly zero as a Senator, heard from both sides. Didn't he vote "present" on most of the legislation put before him?
So you cannot list anything he's done to erode liberties.
You have no quote of anything that he'll do.
You cannot even tell us why you think he'll do it.
You just kinda know it, becaue he voted 'present' in the senate?
I'm not a huge obama fan, but I have to say your argument about what he'll do lacks any evidence here.
-
Absolutely, but I don't need to see that to already know he's anti gun rights, anti 2A, and anti self defense. For example, he proposes a total ban on CCW. Moron.
Why does that make him a moron?
Compare gun-owning in USA to any other civilized country.
What are you gonna tell all the girls and boys that had their parents killed by weapon carriers?
That the weapon carriers are gonna serve time? that the weapon carriers are gonna die too?
Unless you can bring down the numbers of gun related murders, I don't see what the fcuk the gun lobby is yapping about.
They need to present an alternative.
Not just their usual " guns don't kill people, people kill people"
Don't be a problem Will Brink.
Be a solution.
-
So you cannot list anything he's done to erode liberties.
You have no quote of anything that he'll do.
You cannot even tell us why you think he'll do it.
You just kinda know it, becaue he voted 'present' in the senate?
I'm not a huge obama fan, but I have to say your argument about what he'll do lacks any evidence here.
Twisting posts hasn't been below you before I should have known better, I guess.
His opinion and historical position on many issues of rights is all over the internet. I don't need to deliver it to you.
Of course he HASN'T done much to destroy civil liberties.. HE'S NOT PRESIDENT YET JACK ASS.
His is as liberal as I've ever seen. These are not secrets for cryin out loud.
-
Even if McCain were dumb as a post and Obamas IQ was 145 I would rather have an idiot with good character and a love for America making decisions than a ultra leftist genius bent on using America to create his next idea of socialist utopia and gov't control.
Obama hates America, the constitution, and individual liberty (unless you're black) but he would never get elected saying that.
So I say I'll stick my patriotism up YOUR ass and pull your head out.
I rather have an intelligent man than a buffoon leading the most powerful and most important nation in the world.
Eg, Nixon had zero charisma. He was rude and not very likeable.
But an excellent politician.
Only thing that he fcuked up, was his morals.
But he was really brilliant as far as foreign policy and much else goes.
He cleaned up after the mess JFK and LBJ created.
JFK = the most overrated president in US history.
And probably the most overrated politician ever.
Dirty Dick also opened up relations with China, and started to negotiate with Soviet Union.
A great man in many ways. But with many short comings of course.
But he was a smart man.
And to have dumb person as a president is dangerous.
If you put a person in the position as president, and he isn't clear as to what the consequences are for starting a war with Iran (What do you want to do with the Iran situation reporter asks, McCain answers: I want to do like the Beach Boys"Bomb-bomb-bomb-bomb-bomb-Iran") you really got to start feel nervous.
Is the man senile?
You gotta wonder.
-
Twisting posts hasn't been below you before I should have known better, I guess.
His opinion and historical position on many issues of rights is all over the internet. I don't need to deliver it to you.
Of course he HASN'T done much to destroy civil liberties.. HE'S NOT PRESIDENT YET JACK ASS.
His is as liberal as I've ever seen. These are not secrets for cryin out loud.
Okay. It's "All over the internet" but you can't find an example.
You think he'll do bad things, but you can't list what they'll be.
Come one, I don't want to like Obama, but you're not helping. Yes, he's liberal. But how does being liberal = removing personal liberties?
-
Okay. It's "All over the internet" but you can't find an example.
You think he'll do bad things, but you can't list what they'll be.
Come one, I don't want to like Obama, but you're not helping. Yes, he's liberal. But how does being liberal = removing personal liberties?
Who says I can't? I'll do the thinking for you this time.. If I say it's "all over the internet" you can just assume that means "go look it up." I shouldn't have to inform you of all people after I took the time to look it up myself.
Are you telling me you have yet so figure out that liberals are hell bent on destroying the constitution?
-
Who says I can't? I'll do the thinking for you this time.. If I say it's "all over the internet" you can just assume that means "go look it up." I shouldn't have to inform you of all people after I took the time to look it up myself.
Are you telling me you have yet so figure out that liberals are hell bent on destroying the constitution?
You made an argument.
I asked you for supports.
You don't feel you have to give any.
The debate kinda ends there.
-
Who says I can't? I'll do the thinking for you this time.. If I say it's "all over the internet" you can just assume that means "go look it up." I shouldn't have to inform you of all people after I took the time to look it up myself.
Are you telling me you have yet so figure out that liberals are hell bent on destroying the constitution?
Show me to some of it, please.
Thanks in advance.
-
You made an argument.
I asked you for supports.
You don't feel you have to give any.
The debate kinda ends there.
Sure does.. especially since you have yet to answer any of my questions as well.
I didn't think I was engaged in a debate.. I was stating an opinionated answer, that is all.
-
Why does that make him a moron?
Because it is not supported by the data and the facts.
Don't be a problem Will Brink.
Be a solution.
You first. It's clear you need to do some actual research on the topic vs. parroting what you have heard on the TV. For example, here's the reality based on the hard facts and data:
The Cold, Hard Facts About Guns
by Dr. John R. Lott, Jr.: Olin law and economics fellow at the University of Chicago School of Law,
This article fist appeared in the Chicago Tribune on May 8, 1998 and is reprenited here with the author's permission.
America may indeed be obsessed with guns, but much of what passes as fact simply isn't true. The news media's focus on only tragic outcomes, while ignoring tragic events that were avoided, may be responsible for some misimpressions. Horrific events like the recent shooting in Arkansas receive massive news coverage, as they should, but the 2.5 million times each year that people use guns defensively are never discussed--including cases where public shootings are stopped before they happen.
Unfortunately, these misimpressions have real costs for people's safety. Many myths needlessly frighten people and prevent them from defending themselves most effectively.
Myth No. 1: When one is attacked, passive behavior is the safest approach.
The Department of Justice's National Crime Victimization Survey reports that the probability of serious injury from an attack is 2.5 times greater for women offering no resistance than for women resisting with a gun. Men also benefit from using a gun, but the benefits are smaller: offering no resistance is 1.4 times more likely to result in serious injury than resisting with a gun.
Myth No. 2: Friends or relatives are the most likely killers.
The myth is usually based on two claims: 1) 58 percent of murder victims are killed by either relatives or acquaintances and 2) anyone could be a murderer.
With the broad definition of "acquaintances" used in the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports, most victims are indeed classified as knowing their killer. However, what is not made clear is that acquaintance murder primarily includes drug buyers killing drug pushers, cabdrivers killed by first-time customers, gang members killing other gang members, prostitutes killed by their clients, and so on. Only one city, Chicago, reports a precise breakdown on the nature of acquaintance killings: between 1990 and 1995 just 17 percent of murder victims were either family members, friends, neighbors and/or roommates.
Murderers also are not your average citizen. For example, about 90 percent of adult murderers have already had a criminal record as an adult. Murderers are overwhelmingly young males with low IQs and who have difficult times getting along with others. Furthermore, unfortunately, murder is disproportionately committed against blacks and by blacks.
Myth No. 3: The United States has such a high murder rate because Americans own so many guns.
There is no international evidence backing this up. The Swiss, New Zealanders and Finns all own guns as frequently as Americans, yet in 1995 Switzerland had a murder rate 40 percent lower than Germany's, and New Zealand had one lower than Australia's. Finland and Sweden have very different gun ownership rates, but very similar murder rates. Israel, with a higher gun ownership rate than the U.S., has a murder rate 40 percent below Canada's. When one studies all countries rather than just a select few as is usually done, there is absolutely no relationship between gun ownership and murder.
Myth No. 4: If law-abiding citizens are allowed to carry concealed handguns, people will end up shooting each other after traffic accidents as well as accidentally shooting police officers.
Millions of people currently hold concealed handgun permits, and some states have issued them for as long as 60 years. Yet, only one permit holder has ever been arrested for using a concealed handgun after a traffic accident and that case was ruled as self-defense. The type of person willing to go through the permitting process is extremely law-abiding. In Florida, almost 444,000 licenses were granted from 1987 to 1997, but only 84 people have lost their licenses for felonies involving firearms. Most violations that lead to permits being revoked involve accidentally carrying a gun into restricted areas, like airports or schools. In Virginia, not a single permit holder has committed a violent crime. Similarly encouraging results have been reported for Kentucky, Nevada, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas and Tennessee (the only other states where information is available).
Myth No. 5: The family gun is more likely to kill you or someone you know than to kill in self-defense.
The studies yielding such numbers never actually inquired as to whose gun was used in the killing. Instead, if a household owned a gun and if a person in that household or someone they knew was shot to death while in the home, the gun in the household was blamed. In fact, virtually all the killings in these studies were committed by guns brought in by an intruder. No more than four percent of the gun deaths can be attributed to the homeowner's gun. The very fact that most people were killed by intruders also surely raises questions about why they owned guns in the first place and whether they had sufficient protection.
How many attacks have been deterred from ever occurring by the potential victims owning a gun? My own research finds that more concealed handguns, and increased gun ownership generally, unambiguously deter murders, robbery, and aggravated assaults. This is also in line with the well-known fact that criminals prefer attacking victims that they consider weak.
These are only some of the myths about guns and crime that drive the public policy debate. We must not lose sight of the ultimate question: Will allowing law-abiding citizens to own guns save lives? The evidence strongly indicates that it does.
-
Finns all own guns as frequently as Americans.
This is not true.
There are around 1.5 million guns in Finland.
And there are between 200 and 300 million guns in USA.
More recently, a finnish mass murdering teen has made the authorities in Finland tighten up the gun laws.
BTW, you're missing the point so bad it's not even funny Will Brink.
This article says nothing about the regulations on how the guns are to be kept. About your Concealed Weapon.
You're trying to mix issues:
One thing is strict gun laws.
The other thing is the amount of guns per person.
Apples and Oranges, Bubba.
It ain't gonna fly.
I'm not that fcuking dumb.
Also: The murder rate in Sweden has been cerca 250 since the mid-70's.
Look at the numbers.
Give me a suggestion on what should be done to bring down the amount of people killed by guns.
If not by stricter gun laws.
Hey! Lets give everyone a gun! Then we will have even less shootings! Lets start out by handing it out to them folks in South Central, shall we! ::)
-
This is not true.
There are around 1.5 million guns in Finland.
And there are between 200 and 300 million guns in USA.
Ah, so you have researched this topic more than Dr Lott? Interesting. You don't understand the concept at per capita ownership? BTW, more recent numbers have the Finns at third:
http://www.yle.fi/news/id68460.html
More recently, a finnish mass murdering teen has made the authorities in Finland tighten up the gun laws.
BTW, you're missing the point so bad it's not even funny Will Brink.
This article says nothing about the regulations on how the guns are to be kept. About your Concealed Weapon.
Of course it did. Your reading comprehension skills need work.
You're trying to mix issues:
One thing is strict gun laws.
The other thing is the amount of guns per person.
Ergo, it's called per capita, which is the concept you didn't understand above and it covered well in the article by Dr Lott.
Apples and Oranges, Bubba.
Not in the least, you just don't understand the the topic well enough nor the research terminology and methodology used. Now, if you want to get deep into the peer reviews data for example, Countries with the stricter gun laws have HIGHER rates of murder and violence, which was just published in Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pages 649-694):
"Appearing in the current issue of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pages 649-694), the Kates/Mauser report entitled "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International Evidence" is a detailed look at gun ownership and how it does not relate to the incidence of murder and violence. They conclude that
"nations with very stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those which allow guns."
The Abstract:
Abstract
The world abounds in instruments with which people can kill each other. Is the widespread availability of one of these instruments, firearms, a crucial determinant of the incidence of murder? Or do patterns of murder and/or violent crime reflect basic socio-economic and/or cultural factors to which the mere availability of one particular form of weaponry is irrelevant?
This article examines a broad range of international data that bear on two distinct but interrelated questions: first, whether widespread firearm access is an important contributing factor in murder and/or suicide, and second, whether the introduction of laws that restrict general access to firearms has been successful in reducing violent crime, homicide or suicide. Our conclusion from the available data is that suicide, murder and violent crime rates are determined by basic social, economic and/or cultural factors with the availability of any particular one of the world’s myriad deadly instrument being irrelevant.
Full paper downloaded here:
http://law.bepress.com/expresso/eps/1413/
-
Ah, finally an admission of the source for the quote, and from the ever objective ACLU no less! Thanx for at least stepping up and clarifying that. It was am amazingly dishonest thing for you to do in the first place, but I give you the credit for finally fessing up.
First, what do you know about objectivity? You think that the 2nd Amendment gives you the right bear arms. So you're misguided right out of the box.
Second, the principle I quoted from the ACLU is the judicial principle used for the last 60 plus years in all federal gun cases and it started with the Miller case.
You can't deny that. It's true.
And last, You can't change that history and the fact that the summary quote from the ACLU is 100% accurate.
100% false, unless you wish to do some more creative legal "interpretations" of yours...
Stop crying and hiding behind ad hominem attacks. Show me the history of decisions of the federal courts where the 2nd amendment confers an individual right to bear arms (I mean prior to the recent activist district decisions relying on the individual right fallacy).
As I said, you lost any credibility a long time ago.
If I'm wrong about the federal courts treatment of the 2nd Amendment over the last 6+ decades, just let me know.
Otherwise you have no individual 2nd amendment right to own a gun that's over and above your right to own any other piece of property.
You might as well be talking about your right to own a steak knife and a gun as a special set just for you.
The federal courts have held that way for decades. Now we might see a activist judges on the SCT overturn that.
It really doesn't matter to me anyways. I could care less. As I said before, gun activism is boring to me.
The only time I do find it really entertaining is when some dumb-ass hunter (that values nature by destroying it), ends up accidentally shooting another hunter b/c he thought he was a deer. Now that's entertainment.
-
Stop crying and hiding behind ad hominem attacks.
Showing you invented a cite/quote that does not exist for a case is not an "ad hominem attack," it shows you either don't know how to correctly cite, or are an intellectually dishonest person, which = zero credibility for the conversation as already stated. You can repeat yourself again an again if you wish. Carry on. ;)
-
Showing you invented a cite/quote that does not exist for a case is not an "ad hominem attack," it shows you either don't know how to correctly cite, or are an intellectually dishonest person, which = zero credibility for the conversation as already stated. You can repeat yourself again an again if you wish. Carry on. ;)
The summary quote from the ACLU is 100% accurate re the 2 pronged test used in Miller.
If I'm wrong about the federal courts treatment of the 2nd Amendment over the last 6+ decades, just let me know.
If I am wrong, I'll admit it and go away.
Other wise you are hiding.
Am I right or not?
Or are you too fragile to consort with one as incredible as myself?
-
The summary quote from the ACLU is 100% accurate re the 2 pronged test used in Miller.
You gonna try that angle yet again? Pitiful. Repetition of your dis honesty will not magically make it go away.
If I'm wrong about the federal courts treatment of the 2nd Amendment over the last 6+ decades, just let me know.
If I am wrong, I'll admit it and go away.
Other wise you are hiding.
Or are you too fragile to consort with one as incredible as myself?
I don't consort those shown be without credibility. I enjoy debating the topic with those who know how to cite a basic quote, and don't attempt to pull a fast one thinking they will not get nailed doing, then attempt every trick in the book to get around it.
-
You gonna try that angle yet again? Pitiful. Repetition of your dis honesty will not magically make it go away.
I don't consort those shown be without credibility. I enjoy debating the topic with those who know how to cite a basic quote, and don't attempt to pull a fast one thinking they will not get nailed doing, then attempt every trick in the book to get around it.
You're a pussy.
So what if there hasn't been a case on point? The court has used the following principle from the 1939 case US v. Miller: "...that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms.""
Where's the lie ?
-
You're a pussy.
Ah, accuse the other side of an ad hominem attack without merit, then throw an ad hominem attack. ;)
Where's the lie ?
Exactly where it was before. I doubt it has been moved from the thread. Short memory, poor debating skills, uses strong tactics like "you're a pussy," does not appear to know how correctly cite quotes, and dis honest to boot. Your credibility for this conversation continues to drop to ever lower levels, which is a skill itself I suppose...
-
Ah, accuse the other side of an ad hominem attack without merit, then throw an ad hominem attack. ;)
Exactly.
Exactly where it was before. I doubt it has been moved from the thread. Short memory, poor debating skills, uses strong tactics like "you're a pussy," does not appear to know how correctly cite quotes, and dis honest to boot. Your credibility for this conversation continues to drop to ever lower levels, which is a skill itself I suppose...
Dishonest? Fuck you. Missing the citation, I admitted that. So what?
Call me a liar and dishonest again and I'll reach through this computer screen and wring your scrawny neck. Well, not really.
Is the matter asserted in the quote on the MIller case true?
You will not answer that b/c it is true.
And you haven't answered b/c it is true.
I'll tell you, I would debate the Devil himself if it gave me a better handle on the subject matter.
But you can insulate yourself with the idea that you've been wronged in a chit-chat room on body-building website so you won't have to admit that you're wrong about something you care so deeply about.
You're a gun proponent and you don't even know the first thing about the constitutional rights governing gun ownership.
But I'll bite on this one: Even if gun ownership is an individual right, which it isn't, that still wouldn't change the degree of judicial scrutiny of the legislation challenged: i.e., it's still minimal judicial scrutiny requiring the rational relations test.
Either way BrinkZone, you come up on the shit end of the stick.
Keep up the histrionical pussified air that you won't debate someone who's lied to me.
Makes me laugh.
-
According to ABC's Charlie Gibson, he signed a paper saying he did.
Obama denied it.
Watch the news in the next two days... whatever he signed, with his name on it, with the video of him denying ever signing it, will be all the rave, come Friday.
We all know CLinton feels this way, it's not disputed. She's a gungrabber, plain and simple.
Did either one of them say they wanted to end the 2nd ammendment? No!
Good GOD man, please , try and understand what your comment actually states.
This is typical emotion based rhetoric that is NOT based on how policy and law actually gets made or a bill would be passed, etc.
I don't want to insult anyone, but in all honesty , based on some of these political posts here , I seriously wonder if many of you really understand how laws are passed in congress , how a bill gets vote on ,etc.
Why do I say this? ??? I don't read too much about what actual legislation was porposed and awhat actual bill was voted on and what are the constittional concerns for such a law to pass muster , etc.
-
Did either one of them say they wanted to end the 2nd ammendment? No!
No politician in history has said this, howie.
but many have worked to slowly erode gun rights.
-
First, what do you know about objectivity? You think that the 2nd Amendment gives you the right bear arms. So you're misguided right out of the box.
Second, the principle I quoted from the ACLU is the judicial principle used for the last 60 plus years in all federal gun cases and it started with the Miller case.
You can't deny that. It's true.
And last, You can't change that history and the fact that the summary quote from the ACLU is 100% accurate.
Stop crying and hiding behind ad hominem attacks. Show me the history of decisions of the federal courts where the 2nd amendment confers an individual right to bear arms (I mean prior to the recent activist district decisions relying on the individual right fallacy).
If I'm wrong about the federal courts treatment of the 2nd Amendment over the last 6+ decades, just let me know.
Otherwise you have no individual 2nd amendment right to own a gun that's over and above your right to own any other piece of property.
You might as well be talking about your right to own a steak knife and a gun as a special set just for you.
The federal courts have held that way for decades. Now we might see a activist judges on the SCT overturn that.
It really doesn't matter to me anyways. I could care less. As I said before, gun activism is boring to me.
The only time I do find it really entertaining is when some dumb-ass hunter (that values nature by destroying it), ends up accidentally shooting another hunter b/c he thought he was a deer. Now that's entertainment.
You are so hilariously wrong I am ashamed you live in this country.
The 2nd amendment involves the right of the people to bear arms. It is a right just like every other right in the constitution, INDIVIDUAL. The militia refers to armed citizens opposing an oppressive government. You need a history lesson.
Also, your view of hunters is pure idiocy. Since man has destroyed almost every natural predator in areas we inhabit hunters are a necessity to compensate for nature. Otherwise you have entire species that starve into extinction due to overpopulation as is happening with deer in various parts of the USA.
-
Exactly.Dishonest? Fuck you. Missing the citation, I admitted that. So what?
Yes, dishonest, is that a term you don't understand? By the way you act, you don't. You didn't "miss" a citation, you put a quote to a case and used that as a cite as if I might not notice, them back peddled, insulted, and tried pretty much everything to get around it. You got nailed period.
Call me a liar and dishonest again and I'll reach through this computer screen and wring your scrawny neck. Well, not really.
Only two choices here, you either (a) are dishonest and a liar, or (b) don't know how to cite a simple quote correctly and not man enough to admit it. Those are your only two choices to explain it. If you don't know how to cite correctly and or attribute quotes to their source, then you should not be in such a debate.
Is the matter asserted in the quote on the MIller case true?
No, it's not, and no reading of that case leads one to conclude that stupid quote you put up from the Miller case via the ACLU which you have yet to correctly cite! Even a non lawyer can read the Miller case and find no such conclusion from it. The correct interpretation was given already via URL I put up. As stated already, the Miller case is also misquoted or misused by some lower courts and biased groups such as the silly ACLU. And that's not the rambling taken from some ACLU site (as you did), it's from peer reviewed legal journals. For example:
CAN THE SIMPLE CITE BE TRUSTED?: LOWER COURT
INTERPRETATIONS OF UNITED STATES V. MILLER AND
THE SECOND AMENDMENT
1996 Cumberland Law Review. Originally published as 26 Cumb. L. Rev. 961-1004 (1996). P
"I will also examine the subsequent (p.963)lower federal court interpretations and applications of Miller. I will argue that the lower courts have strayed so far from the Court's original holding to the point of being intellectually dishonest. In illustrating both the depth and breadth of the lower courts' dishonesty, I will draw upon Karl Llewellyn's studies of appellate court decisionmaking."
http://www.guncite.com/journals/dencite.html
That's how you correctly cite a quote BTW.
You will not answer that b/c it is true.
And you haven't answered b/c it is true.
I'll tell you, I would debate the Devil himself if it gave me a better handle on the subject matter.
And the devil himself will also bust you when you attempt to pull a fast one thinking you would not get nailed because you figured no one here would actually check.
-
Yes, dishonest, is that a term you don't understand? By the way you act, you don't. You didn't "miss" a citation, you put a quote to a case and used that as a cite as if I might not notice, them back peddled, insulted, and tried pretty much everything to get around it. You got nailed period.
Only two choices here, you either (a) are dishonest and a liar, or (b) don't know how to cite a simple quote correctly and not man enough to admit it. Those are your only two choices to explain it. If you don't know how to cite correctly and or attribute quotes to their source, then you should not be in such a debate.
No, it's not, and no reading of that case leads one to conclude that stupid quote you put up from the Miller case via the ACLU which you have yet to correctly cite! Even a non lawyer can read the Miller case and find no such conclusion from it. The correct interpretation was given already via URL I put up. As stated already, the Miller case is also misquoted or misused by some lower courts and biased groups such as the silly ACLU. And that's not the rambling taken from some ACLU site (as you did), it's from peer reviewed legal journals. For example:
CAN THE SIMPLE CITE BE TRUSTED?: LOWER COURT
INTERPRETATIONS OF UNITED STATES V. MILLER AND
THE SECOND AMENDMENT
1996 Cumberland Law Review. Originally published as 26 Cumb. L. Rev. 961-1004 (1996). P
"I will also examine the subsequent (p.963)lower federal court interpretations and applications of Miller. I will argue that the lower courts have strayed so far from the Court's original holding to the point of being intellectually dishonest. In illustrating both the depth and breadth of the lower courts' dishonesty, I will draw upon Karl Llewellyn's studies of appellate court decisionmaking."
http://www.guncite.com/journals/dencite.html
That's how you correctly cite a quote BTW.
And the devil himself will also bust you when you attempt to pull a fast one thinking you would not get nailed because you figured no one here would actually check.
calm down troll face, its only the internet
-
Did either one of them say they wanted to end the 2nd ammendment? No!
Good GOD man, please , try and understand what your comment actually states.
This is typical emotion based rhetoric that is NOT based on how policy and law actually gets made or a bill would be passed, etc.
I don't want to insult anyone, but in all honesty , based on some of these political posts here , I seriously wonder if many of you really understand how laws are passed in congress , how a bill gets vote on ,etc.
Why do I say this? ??? I don't read too much about what actual legislation was porposed and awhat actual bill was voted on and what are the constittional concerns for such a law to pass muster , etc.
I think some of the posters here have been watching one too many episodes of "West Wing" and believe there's big drama to be found in everything.
Ie, instead of actually reading and listening to what the politicians actually are saying, they try to find drama and hidden messages behind everything.
Perhaps because that is so much more exciting than the dull reality.
In which none of the candidate is going to do jack shit about the 2nd amendment.
Just my 2...
;)
-
Yes, dishonest, is that a term you don't understand? By the way you act, you don't. You didn't "miss" a citation, you put a quote to a case and used that as a cite as if I might not notice, them back peddled, insulted, and tried pretty much everything to get around it. You got nailed period.
Only two choices here, you either (a) are dishonest and a liar, or (b) don't know how to cite a simple quote correctly and not man enough to admit it. Those are your only two choices to explain it. If you don't know how to cite correctly and or attribute quotes to their source, then you should not be in such a debate.
The quote came from the ACLU's summation of the case: ACLU POLICY
"The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms." — Policy #47
http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html
Your false dichotomy of (a) or (b) above just exposes Three things about you:
1. You don't care about the truth of the matter re 2nd Am jurisprudence and
2. You favor the insulation of NRA propaganda and your own prejudices
3. You don't believe that someone can omit a cite without a nefarious purpose. Tough noogies for you.
No, it's not, and no reading of that case leads one to conclude that stupid quote you put up from the Miller case via the ACLU which you have yet to correctly cite! Even a non lawyer can read the Miller case and find no such conclusion from it.
That's why you're not a lawyer and the following 30+ cases interpret Miller as affirming the interpretation of the 2nd Am as a group/militia right. http://www.gunlawsuits.org/downloads/militiav.pdf
The correct interpretation was given already via URL I put up. As stated already, the Miller case is also misquoted or misused by some lower courts and biased groups such as the silly ACLU.
You do understand that this is merely your opinion.
The fact of the matter is is that the federal courts do not hold that the 2nd Am confers an individual right to bear arms. Look at the cases since Miller until 1999 when the NRA's investments paid off in the bastard case of Gillespie.
And that's not the rambling taken from some ACLU site (as you did), it's from peer reviewed legal journals. For example:
CAN THE SIMPLE CITE BE TRUSTED?: LOWER COURT
INTERPRETATIONS OF UNITED STATES V. MILLER AND
THE SECOND AMENDMENT
1996 Cumberland Law Review. Originally published as 26 Cumb. L. Rev. 961-1004 (1996). P
"I will also examine the subsequent (p.963)lower federal court interpretations and applications of Miller. I will argue that the lower courts have strayed so far from the Court's original holding to the point of being intellectually dishonest. In illustrating both the depth and breadth of the lower courts' dishonesty, I will draw upon Karl Llewellyn's studies of appellate court decisionmaking."
http://www.guncite.com/journals/dencite.html
That's how you correctly cite a quote BTW.
The precedential value of a law review article is dicta at best. It's merely an opinion. In other words it's far below the precedential value of real court cases which have historically held the 2nd AM confers a group right and NOT an individual right to bear arms.
And the devil himself will also bust you when you attempt to pull a fast one thinking you would not get nailed because you figured no one here would actually check.
There is nothing to bust. The ACLU's statement is accurate in it's content and evaluation.
End of story. You've proven nothing except that you don't know how the courts interpret the 2nd Am.
In 1991, former Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger referred to the Second Amendment as "the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word ‘fraud,' on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime...[the NRA] ha(s) misled the American people and they, I regret to say, they have had far too much influence on the Congress of the United States than as a citizen I would like to see - and I am a gun man." Burger also wrote, "The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon...
Surely the Second Amendment does not remotely guarantee every person the constitutional right to have a ‘Saturday Night Special' or a machine gun without any regulation whatever. There is no support in the Constitution for the argument that federal and state governments are powerless to regulate the purchase of such firearms..."
http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=second
-
You are so hilariously wrong I am ashamed you live in this country.
The 2nd amendment involves the right of the people to bear arms. It is a right just like every other right in the constitution, INDIVIDUAL. The militia refers to armed citizens opposing an oppressive government. You need a history lesson.
Also, your view of hunters is pure idiocy. Since man has destroyed almost every natural predator in areas we inhabit hunters are a necessity to compensate for nature. Otherwise you have entire species that starve into extinction due to overpopulation as is happening with deer in various parts of the USA.
You know less about the 2nd Am than BrickZone.
-
I think some of the posters here have been watching one too many episodes of "West Wing" and believe there's big drama to be found in everything.
Ie, instead of actually reading and listening to what the politicians actually are saying, they try to find drama and hidden messages behind everything.
Perhaps because that is so much more exciting than the dull reality.
In which none of the candidate is going to do jack shit about the 2nd amendment.
Just my 2...
;)
The Zionists control the COUNTRY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Everything is a conspiracy!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Durka durka mohammed jihad!!!
-
The quote came from the ACLU's summation of the case:
Which is...drum roll...wrong. Babble snipped. Perhaps fabricate a new quote?
-
You know less about the 2nd Am than BrickZone.
And yet, obviously more than you. hmm.. :)
-
The Zionists control the COUNTRY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Everything is a conspiracy!!!!!!!!!!!
Ah... yeah. Forgot about that one. >:(
The Zionists have this protocol that controls how Rap music makes the black people kill each other, planes crash into the WTC, and I suppose the removal of the 2nd amendment is controlled by them as well.
Our only chance to fight off the Zionists is arm ourselves with plenty of guns, I swear to God!!!
-
Which is...drum roll...wrong. Babble snipped. Perhaps fabricate a new quote?
Again BrinkZone: Fuck you. I didn't create the ACLU quote. And you still haven't explained why it is wrong.
Did you go through every court reporter in the country and cross out the fact that those cases use the Miller prinicple of group rights as the ACLU quote correctly points out?
You can't erase historical jurisprudence just b/c you and others disagree with it.
Is the American Bar Association also wrong? (I mean what do lawyers know about the law?)
"In Miller, the Court upheld the National Firearms Act of 1934 on this basis. The Court read the “declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment” in conjunction with the Militia Clauses of Article I. 307 U.S. at 178 Thus, in the Court’s words:
"Well before 1939, the year Miller was decided, courts routinely refused to recognize that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to own, keep, and use weapons for self-defense....
...to execute the Laws of the
Union, suppress Insurrections and
repel Invasions; To provide for
organizing, arming, and disciplining,
the Militia,...
With obvious purpose
to assure the continuation and
render possible the effectiveness of
such forces the declaration and
guarantee of the Second Amendment
were made. It must be interpreted
and applied with that end in view.
The fundamental holding of Miller, based on the conjunction of these provisions, is inescapable: the Second Amendment protects “possession or use” of a firearm only insofar as related to the “preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.” Id. at 178.""
http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/documents/DistrictofColumbiav.Heller.AmericanBarAssociationbrief.pdf
Do you see the case law history for how the courts interpret the 2nd Am and the right to bear arms?
What's your proof? So far, it's been that you disagree with that principle of gun rights as a group right. Great.
I'll just take your protests for what they are: delfections and avoidance of the matter at hand.
-
And yet, obviously more than you. hmm.. :)
Really. Where's your list of legal cases dating back 60+ years affirming the Miller principle that gun ownership is a group right and not an individual right?
COURT DECISIONS SUPPORTING THE MILITIA
INTERPRETATION OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT
U.S. SUPREME COURT
U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)
Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55 (1980)
U.S. COURTS OF APPEALS
U.S. v. Wright, 117 F.3d 1265 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1007 (1997)
U.S. v. Baer, 235 F.2d 561 (10th Cir. 2000)
U.S. v. Oakes, 564 F.2d 384 (10th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 926 (1978)
U.S. v. Swinton, 521 F.2d 1255 (10th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 918 (1976)
U.S. v. Hancock, 231 F.3d 557 (9th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 121 S. Ct. 1641 (2001)
U.S. v. Finitz, 234 F.3d 1278 (9th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 121 S. Ct. 833 (2001)
Hickman v. Block, 81 F.3d 98 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 912 (1996)
U.S. v. Lewis, 236 F.3d 948 (8th Cir. 2001)
U.S . Farrell, 69 F.3d 891 (8th Cir. 1995)
U.S. v. Hale, 978 F.2d 1016 (8th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 997 (1993)
U.S. v. Nelsen, 859 F.2d 1318 (8th Cir. 1988)
Cody v. U.S., 460 F.2d 34 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1010 (1972)
U.S. v. Decker, 446 F.2d 164 (8th Cir. 1971)
U.S. v. Synnes, 438 F.2d 764 (8th Cir. 1971), vacated on other grounds, 404 U.S. 1009 (1972)
Gillespie v. City of Indianapolis, 185 F.3d 693 (7th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1116
(2000)
Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove, 695 F.2d 261 (7th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 863
(1983)
U.S. v. McCutcheon, 446 F.2d 133 (7th Cir. 1971)
U.S. v. Napier, 233 F.3d 394 (6th Cir. 2000)
U.S. v. Warin, 530 F.2d 103 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 948 (1976)
U.S. v. Day, 476 F.2d 562 (6th Cir. 1973)
Stevens v. U.S., 440 F.2d 144 (6th Cir. 1971)
U.S. v. Johnson, Jr., 441 F.2d 1134 (5th Cir. 1971)
Love v. Pepersack, 47 F.3d 120 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 813 (1995)
U.S. v. Johnson, 497 F.2d 548 (4th Cir. 1974)
U.S. v. Rybar, 103 F.3d 273 (3rd Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 807 (1997)
U.S. v. Graves, 554 F.2d 65 (3rd Cir. 1977)
Eckert v. City of Philadelphia, 477 F.2d 610 (3rd Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 839 (1973)
U.S. v. Tot , 131 F.2d 261 (3rd Cir. 1942), rev'd on other grounds, 319 U.S. 463 (1943)
U.S. v. Toner, 728 F.2d 115 (2d Cir. 1984)
U.S. v. Friel, 1 F.3d 1231 (1st Cir. 1993)
Thomas v. City Council of Portland, 730 F.2d 41 (1st Cir. 1984)
U.S. v. Cases, 131 F.2d 916 (1st Cir. 1942), cert. denied sub nom., Velazquez v. U.S., 319 U.S.
770 (1943)
U.S. FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS
Golt v. City of Signal Hill, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1271 (C.D. Cal. 2001)
Olympic Arms v. Magaw, 91 F. Supp. 2d 1061 (E.D. Mich. 2000)
U.S. v. Willbern, 2000 WL 554134 (D. Kan. Apr. 12, 2000)
U.S. v. Bournes, 105 F. Supp. 2d 736 (E.D. Mich. 2000)
U.S. v. Boyd, 52 F. Supp. 2d 1233 (D. Kan. 1999), aff’d, 211 F.3d 1279 (10th Cir. 2000)
U.S. v. Henson, 55 F. Supp. 2d 528 (S.D. W. Va. 1999)
U.S. v. Visnich, 65 F. Supp. 2d 669 (N.D. Ohio 1999)
U.S. v. Caron, 941 F. Supp. 238 (D. Mass. 1996)
Moscowitz v. Brown, 850 F.Supp. 1185 (S.D.N.Y. 1994)
U.S. v. Kruckel, 1993 WL 765648 (D.N.J. Aug. 13, 1993)
Krisko v. Oswald, 655 F. Supp. 147 (E.D. Pa. 1987)
U.S. v. Kozerski, 518 F.Supp. 1082 (D.N.H. 1981), cert. denied, 496 U.S. 842 (1984)
Vietmanese Fishermen's Association v. KKK, 543 F.Supp. 198 (S.D. Tex. 1982)
Thompson v. Dereta, 549 F.Supp. 297 (D. Utah 1982)
U.S. v. Kraase, 340 F.Supp. 147 (E.D. Wis. 1972)
U.S. v. Gross, 313 F.Supp. 1330. (S.D. Ind. 1970), aff'd on other grounds, 451 F.2d 1355 (7th
Cir. 1971)
STATE COURTS
Arnold v. Cleveland, 616 N.E.2d 163 (Ohio 1993)
State v. Fennell, 382 S.E.2d 231 (N.C. 1989)
U.S. v. Sandidge, 520 A.2d 1057 (D.C.), cert. denied, 108 S.Ct. 193 (1987)
Kalodimos v. Village of Morton Grove, 470 N.E.2d 266 (Ill. 1984)
Masters v. State, 653 S.W.2d 944 (Tex.App. 1983)
City of East Cleveland v. Scales, 460 N.E.2d 1126 (Ohio App. 1983)
State v. Vlacil, 645 P.2d 677 (Utah 1982)
In Re Atkinson, 291 N.W.2d 396 (Minn. 1980)
State v. Rupp, 282 N.W.2d 125 (Iowa 1979)
Commonwealth v. Davis, 343 N.E.2d 847 (Mass. 1976)
Burton v. Sills, 248 A.2d 521 (N.J. 1968), appeal dismissed, 394 U.S. 812 (1969)
Harris v. State, 432 P.2d 929 (Nev. 1967)
http://www.gunlawsuits.org/downloads/militiav.pdf
-
Really. Where's your list of legal cases dating back 60+ years affirming the Miller principle that gun ownership is a group right and not an individual right?
COURT DECISIONS SUPPORTING THE MILITIA
INTERPRETATION OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT
U.S. SUPREME COURT
U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)
Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55 (1980)
U.S. COURTS OF APPEALS
U.S. v. Wright, 117 F.3d 1265 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1007 (1997)
U.S. v. Baer, 235 F.2d 561 (10th Cir. 2000)
U.S. v. Oakes, 564 F.2d 384 (10th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 926 (1978)
U.S. v. Swinton, 521 F.2d 1255 (10th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 918 (1976)
U.S. v. Hancock, 231 F.3d 557 (9th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 121 S. Ct. 1641 (2001)
U.S. v. Finitz, 234 F.3d 1278 (9th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 121 S. Ct. 833 (2001)
Hickman v. Block, 81 F.3d 98 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 912 (1996)
U.S. v. Lewis, 236 F.3d 948 (8th Cir. 2001)
U.S . Farrell, 69 F.3d 891 (8th Cir. 1995)
U.S. v. Hale, 978 F.2d 1016 (8th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 997 (1993)
U.S. v. Nelsen, 859 F.2d 1318 (8th Cir. 1988)
Cody v. U.S., 460 F.2d 34 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1010 (1972)
U.S. v. Decker, 446 F.2d 164 (8th Cir. 1971)
U.S. v. Synnes, 438 F.2d 764 (8th Cir. 1971), vacated on other grounds, 404 U.S. 1009 (1972)
Gillespie v. City of Indianapolis, 185 F.3d 693 (7th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1116
(2000)
Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove, 695 F.2d 261 (7th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 863
(1983)
U.S. v. McCutcheon, 446 F.2d 133 (7th Cir. 1971)
U.S. v. Napier, 233 F.3d 394 (6th Cir. 2000)
U.S. v. Warin, 530 F.2d 103 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 948 (1976)
U.S. v. Day, 476 F.2d 562 (6th Cir. 1973)
Stevens v. U.S., 440 F.2d 144 (6th Cir. 1971)
U.S. v. Johnson, Jr., 441 F.2d 1134 (5th Cir. 1971)
Love v. Pepersack, 47 F.3d 120 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 813 (1995)
U.S. v. Johnson, 497 F.2d 548 (4th Cir. 1974)
U.S. v. Rybar, 103 F.3d 273 (3rd Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 807 (1997)
U.S. v. Graves, 554 F.2d 65 (3rd Cir. 1977)
Eckert v. City of Philadelphia, 477 F.2d 610 (3rd Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 839 (1973)
U.S. v. Tot , 131 F.2d 261 (3rd Cir. 1942), rev'd on other grounds, 319 U.S. 463 (1943)
U.S. v. Toner, 728 F.2d 115 (2d Cir. 1984)
U.S. v. Friel, 1 F.3d 1231 (1st Cir. 1993)
Thomas v. City Council of Portland, 730 F.2d 41 (1st Cir. 1984)
U.S. v. Cases, 131 F.2d 916 (1st Cir. 1942), cert. denied sub nom., Velazquez v. U.S., 319 U.S.
770 (1943)
U.S. FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS
Golt v. City of Signal Hill, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1271 (C.D. Cal. 2001)
Olympic Arms v. Magaw, 91 F. Supp. 2d 1061 (E.D. Mich. 2000)
U.S. v. Willbern, 2000 WL 554134 (D. Kan. Apr. 12, 2000)
U.S. v. Bournes, 105 F. Supp. 2d 736 (E.D. Mich. 2000)
U.S. v. Boyd, 52 F. Supp. 2d 1233 (D. Kan. 1999), aff’d, 211 F.3d 1279 (10th Cir. 2000)
U.S. v. Henson, 55 F. Supp. 2d 528 (S.D. W. Va. 1999)
U.S. v. Visnich, 65 F. Supp. 2d 669 (N.D. Ohio 1999)
U.S. v. Caron, 941 F. Supp. 238 (D. Mass. 1996)
Moscowitz v. Brown, 850 F.Supp. 1185 (S.D.N.Y. 1994)
U.S. v. Kruckel, 1993 WL 765648 (D.N.J. Aug. 13, 1993)
Krisko v. Oswald, 655 F. Supp. 147 (E.D. Pa. 1987)
U.S. v. Kozerski, 518 F.Supp. 1082 (D.N.H. 1981), cert. denied, 496 U.S. 842 (1984)
Vietmanese Fishermen's Association v. KKK, 543 F.Supp. 198 (S.D. Tex. 1982)
Thompson v. Dereta, 549 F.Supp. 297 (D. Utah 1982)
U.S. v. Kraase, 340 F.Supp. 147 (E.D. Wis. 1972)
U.S. v. Gross, 313 F.Supp. 1330. (S.D. Ind. 1970), aff'd on other grounds, 451 F.2d 1355 (7th
Cir. 1971)
STATE COURTS
Arnold v. Cleveland, 616 N.E.2d 163 (Ohio 1993)
State v. Fennell, 382 S.E.2d 231 (N.C. 1989)
U.S. v. Sandidge, 520 A.2d 1057 (D.C.), cert. denied, 108 S.Ct. 193 (1987)
Kalodimos v. Village of Morton Grove, 470 N.E.2d 266 (Ill. 1984)
Masters v. State, 653 S.W.2d 944 (Tex.App. 1983)
City of East Cleveland v. Scales, 460 N.E.2d 1126 (Ohio App. 1983)
State v. Vlacil, 645 P.2d 677 (Utah 1982)
In Re Atkinson, 291 N.W.2d 396 (Minn. 1980)
State v. Rupp, 282 N.W.2d 125 (Iowa 1979)
Commonwealth v. Davis, 343 N.E.2d 847 (Mass. 1976)
Burton v. Sills, 248 A.2d 521 (N.J. 1968), appeal dismissed, 394 U.S. 812 (1969)
Harris v. State, 432 P.2d 929 (Nev. 1967)
http://www.gunlawsuits.org/downloads/militiav.pdf
The rulings of progressive and increasingly activist courts have no actual bearing on the history and origins of the second amendment. The intentions of the the founding fathers were obvious and even more pertinent today when cops are useless to prevent crime and almost every American will be a victim of violence once in their lifetime.
And funny how almost all those cases listed are from the 70's onward.. right about the time the anti-gun crusaders started crying and trying to deny a citizens right to self defense.
-
Just another two cents for you to think about.
The court's opinion first addressed whether appellants have standing to sue for declaratory and injunctive relief in section II (slip op. at 5–12). The court concluded that the plaintiff Heller—who applied for a handgun permit but was denied—had standing.
“ Essentially, the appellants claim a right to possess what they describe as "functional firearms", by which they mean ones that could be "readily accessible to be used effectively when necessary" for self-defense in the home. They are not asserting a right to carry such weapons outside their homes. Nor are they challenging the District's authority per se to require the registration of firearms.[4] ”
The court's summary of its substantive ruling on the right protected by the second amendment is given on page 46 of the slip opinion (at the end of section III):
“ To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad). In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the citizen militia. The civic purpose was also a political expedient for the Federalists in the First Congress as it served, in part, to placate their Antifederalist opponents. The individual right facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth for militia duty. Despite the importance of the Second Amendment's civic purpose, however, the activities it protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia. ”
The court concluded:
“ Once it is determined - as we have done - that handguns are 'Arms' referred to in the Second Amendment, it is not open to the District to ban them ... That is not to suggest that the government is absolutely barred from regulating the use and ownership of pistols. The protections of the Second Amendment are subject to the same sort of reasonable restrictions that have been recognized as limiting, for instance, the First Amendment. ”
The court also struck down the portion of the law that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock." The District argued that there is an implicit self-defense exception to these provisions, but the D.C. Circuit rejected this view, saying that the requirement amounted to a complete ban on functional firearms and prohibition on use for self-defense:[5]
“ Section 7-2507.02, like the bar on carrying a pistol within the home, amounts to a complete prohibition on the lawful use of handguns for self-defense. As such, we hold it unconstitutional.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
-
The rulings of progressive and increasingly activist courts have no actual bearing on the history and origins of the second amendment. The intentions of the the founding fathers were obvious and even more pertinent today when cops are useless to prevent crime and almost every American will be a victim of violence once in their lifetime.
And funny how almost all those cases listed are from the 70's onward.. right about the time the anti-gun crusaders started crying and trying to deny a citizens right to self defense.
I'm sure it's part of the Jewish conspiracy to take over USA.
Once "they've" stripped the whole USA of arms, "they" will get "control".
From "somewhere".
Thankfully we have the Montana Militia and NRA who sees through these evildoers who are trying to "deny a citizens right to self defense".
It's the "government".
-
I'm sure it's part of the Jewish conspiracy to take over USA.
Once "they've" stripped the whole USA of arms, "they" will get "control".
From "somewhere".
Thankfully we have the Montana Militia and NRA who sees through these evildoers who are trying to "deny a citizens right to self defense".
It's the "government".
Oh that's right.. I forgot that I was a Jew and partly responsible for that. My bad. :D
-
The rulings of progressive and increasingly activist courts have no actual bearing on the history and origins of the second amendment. The intentions of the the founding fathers were obvious and even more pertinent today when cops are useless to prevent crime and almost every American will be a victim of violence once in their lifetime.
And funny how almost all those cases listed are from the 70's onward.. right about the time the anti-gun crusaders started crying and trying to deny a citizens right to self defense.
How do you know the intentions of the Founding Fathers? Did you ask them?
Funny how you've listed no cases supporting your personal prejudice re the 2nd AM.
Why does it bother you that the Courts have always held that the 2nd AM right to bear arms is a group right?
That's a seemingly plain innocuous fact.
-
Just another two cents for you to think about.
The court's opinion first addressed whether appellants have standing to sue for declaratory and injunctive relief in section II (slip op. at 5–12). The court concluded that the plaintiff Heller—who applied for a handgun permit but was denied—had standing.
“ Essentially, the appellants claim a right to possess what they describe as "functional firearms", by which they mean ones that could be "readily accessible to be used effectively when necessary" for self-defense in the home. They are not asserting a right to carry such weapons outside their homes. Nor are they challenging the District's authority per se to require the registration of firearms.[4] ”
The court's summary of its substantive ruling on the right protected by the second amendment is given on page 46 of the slip opinion (at the end of section III):
“ To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad). In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the citizen militia. The civic purpose was also a political expedient for the Federalists in the First Congress as it served, in part, to placate their Antifederalist opponents. The individual right facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth for militia duty. Despite the importance of the Second Amendment's civic purpose, however, the activities it protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia. ”
The court concluded:
“ Once it is determined - as we have done - that handguns are 'Arms' referred to in the Second Amendment, it is not open to the District to ban them ... That is not to suggest that the government is absolutely barred from regulating the use and ownership of pistols. The protections of the Second Amendment are subject to the same sort of reasonable restrictions that have been recognized as limiting, for instance, the First Amendment. ”
The court also struck down the portion of the law that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock." The District argued that there is an implicit self-defense exception to these provisions, but the D.C. Circuit rejected this view, saying that the requirement amounted to a complete ban on functional firearms and prohibition on use for self-defense:[5]
“ Section 7-2507.02, like the bar on carrying a pistol within the home, amounts to a complete prohibition on the lawful use of handguns for self-defense. As such, we hold it unconstitutional.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
The Heller case is the epitome of Judicial Activism.
It flies in the face of almost seventy years of stare decisis.
The NRA is sure getting a bang for its buck.
Glad to see this rogue court break with 60+ years of caselaw tradition.
Did you read the ABA's amicus brief?
It makes for good reading.
-
The Heller case is the epitome of Judicial Activism.
It flies in the face of almost seventy years of stare decisis.
The NRA is sure getting a bang for its buck.
Glad to see this rogue court break with 60+ years of caselaw tradition.
Did you read the ABA's amicus brief?
It makes for good reading.
The Bar (which also has a leftist history) shouldn't be the authority.. the constitution as the intentions of the founding fathers is. It is the activism since the 70's that has flown in the face of the bill of rights.
-
How do you know the intentions of the Founding Fathers? Did you ask them?
Funny how you've listed no cases supporting your personal prejudice re the 2nd AM.
Why does it bother you that the Courts have always held that the 2nd AM right to bear arms is a group right?
That's a seemingly plain innocuous fact.
Original Intent and Purpose of the Second Amendment
Introduction
The Second Amendment:
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.
The original intent and purpose of the Second Amendment was to preserve and guarantee, not grant, the pre-existing right of individuals to keep and bear arms. Although the amendment emphasizes the need for a militia, membership in any militia, let alone a well-regulated one, was not intended to serve as a prerequisite for exercising the right to keep arms.
The Second Amendment preserves and guarantees an individual right for a collective purpose. That does not transform the right into a "collective right." The militia clause was a declaration of purpose, and preserving the people's right to keep and bear arms was the method the framers chose to, in-part, ensure the continuation of a well-regulated militia.
There is no contrary evidence from the writings of the Founding Fathers, early American legal commentators, or pre-twentieth century Supreme Court decisions, indicating that the Second Amendment was intended to apply solely to active militia members.
Evidence of an Individual Right
In his popular edition of Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (1803), St. George Tucker (see also), a lawyer, Revolutionary War militia officer, legal scholar, and later a U.S. District Court judge (appointed by James Madison in 1813), wrote of the Second Amendment:
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government.
In the appendix to the Commentaries, Tucker elaborates further:
This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty... The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty.
Not only are Tucker's remarks solid evidence that the militia clause was not intended to restrict the right to keep arms to active militia members, but he speaks of a broad right – Tucker specifically mentions self-defense.
"Because '[g]reat weight has always been attached, and very rightly attached, to contemporaneous exposition,' the Supreme Court has cited Tucker in over forty cases. One can find Tucker in the major cases of virtually every Supreme Court era." (Source: The Second Amendment in the Nineteenth Century)
(William Blackstone was an English jurist who published Commentaries on the Laws of England, in four volumes between 1765 and 1769. Blackstone is credited with laying the foundation of modern English law and certainly influenced the thinking of the American Founders.)
Another jurist contemporaneous to the Founders, William Rawle, authored "A View of the Constitution of the United States of America" (1829). His work was adopted as a constitutional law textbook at West Point and other institutions. In Chapter 10 he describes the scope of the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms:
The prohibition is general. No clause in the constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.
This is another quote where it is obvious that "the people" refers to individuals since Rawle writes neither the states nor the national government has legitimate authority to disarm its citizens. This passage also makes it clear ("the prohibition is general") that the militia clause was not intended to restrict the scope of the right.
(In 1791 William Rawle was appointed United States Attorney for Pennsylvania by President George Washington, a post he held for more than eight years.)
Yet another jurist, Justice Story (appointed to the Supreme Court as an Associate Justice by James Madison in 1811), wrote a constitutional commentary in 1833 ("Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States"). Regarding the Second Amendment, he wrote (source):
The next amendment is: "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."
The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.
As the Tennessee Supreme Court in Andrews v. State (1871) explains, this "passage from Story, shows clearly that this right was intended, as we have maintained in this opinion, and was guaranteed to, and to be exercised and enjoyed by the citizen as such, and not by him as a soldier, or in defense solely of his political rights."
Story adds:
And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights.
Story laments the people's lack of enthusiasm for maintaining a well-regulated militia. However, some anti-gun rights advocates misinterpret this entire passage as being "consistent with the theory that the Second Amendment guarantees a right of the people to be armed only when in service of an organized militia." (See Arms, Anarchy and the Second Amendment for an example of reaching that conclusion by committing a non-sequitur.)
The need for a well-regulated militia and an armed citizenry are not mutually exclusive, nor was the right to have arms considered dependent on membership in an active militia (more on that later). Rather, as illustrated by Tucker, Rawle, and Story, the militia clause and the right to arms were intended to be complementary.
More Evidence Supporting an Individual Right
After James Madison's Bill of Rights was submitted to Congress, Tench Coxe (see also: Tench Coxe and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, 1787-1823) published his "Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution," in the Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 He asserts that it's the people (as individuals) with arms, who serve as the ultimate check on government:
As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.
"A search of the literature of the time reveals that no writer disputed or contradicted Coxe's analysis that what became the Second Amendment protected the right of the people to keep and bear 'their private arms.' The only dispute was over whether a bill of rights was even necessary to protect such fundamental rights." (Halbrook, Stephen P. "The Right of the People or the Power of the State Bearing Arms, Arming Militias, and the Second Amendment". Originally published as 26 Val. U. L.Rev. 131-207, 1991).
Earlier, in The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788, while the states were considering ratification of the Constitution, Tench Coxe wrote:
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 will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
The Federalist Papers
Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist, No. 29, did not view the right to keep arms as being confined to active militia members:
What plan for the regulation of the militia may be pursued by the national government is impossible to be foreseen...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... Little more can reasonably be aimed at with the respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped ; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.
James Madison in Federalist No. 46 wrote:
Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments,to which the people are attached, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.
Here, like Story, Madison is expressing the idea that additional advantages accrue to the people when the citizens' right to arms is enhanced by having an organized and properly directed militia.
The Federalist Papers Continued – "The Original Right of Self-Defense"
The Founders realized insurrections may occur from time to time and it is the militia's duty to suppress them. They also realized that however remote the possibility of usurpation was, the people with their arms, had the right to restore their republican form of government by force, if necessary, as an extreme last resort.
"The original right of self-defense" is not a modern-day concoction. We now examine Hamilton's Federalist No. 28. Hamilton begins:
That there may happen cases in which the national government may be necessitated to resort to force cannot be denied. Our own experience has corroborated the lessons taught by the examples of other nations; that emergencies of this sort will sometimes exist in all societies, however constituted; that seditions and insurrections are, unhappily, maladies as inseparable from the body politic as tumors and eruptions from the natural body; that the idea of governing at all times by the simple force of law (which we have been told is the only admissible principle of republican government) has no place but in the reveries of these political doctors whose sagacity disdains the admonitions of experimental instruction.
Hamilton explains that the national government may occasionally need to quell insurrections and it is certainly justified in doing so.
Hamilton continues:
If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.
Hamilton clearly states there exists a right of self-defense against a tyrannical government, and it includes the people with their own arms and adds:
[T]he people, without exaggeration, may be said to be entirely the masters of their own fate. Power being almost always the rival of power, the general government will at all times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments, and these will have the same disposition towards the general government. The people by throwing themselves into either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate. If their rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress. How wise will it be in them by cherishing the union to preserve to themselves an advantage which can never be too highly prized!
Thus the militia is the ultimate check against a state or the national government. That is why the founders guaranteed the right to the people as opposed to only active militia members or a state's militia. But of course, via the militia clause, the Second Amendment acknowledges, as well, the right of a state to maintain a militia. (For more on militia see: http://guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html.)
Hamilton concludes, telling us the above scenario is extremely unlikely to occur:
When will the time arrive that the federal government can raise and maintain an army capable of erecting a despotism over the great body of the people of an immense empire, who are in a situation, through the medium of their State governments, to take measures for their own defense, with all the celerity, regularity, and system of independent nations? The apprehension may be considered as a disease, for which there can be found no cure in the resources of argument and reasoning.
Again, it is the recurring theme of the people's right to keep and bear arms as individuals, enhanced by a militia system, that (in part) provides for the "security of a free state."
Connecting the Dots...
"The opinion of the Federalist has always been considered as of great authority. It is a complete commentary on our Constitution, and is appealed to by all parties in the questions to which that instrument has given birth. . . . "
--- The U.S. Supreme Court in Cohens v. Virginia (1821)
Although the Federalist Papers were written prior to the drafting of the Bill of Rights (but after the Constitution was sent to the states for ratification), the passages quoted, above, help explain the relationships that were understood between a well-regulated militia, the people, their governments, and the right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment did not declare or establish any new rights or novel principles.
The Purpose of the Militia Clause
"Collective rights theorists argue that addition of the subordinate clause qualifies the rest of the amendment by placing a limitation on the people's right to bear arms. However, if the amendment truly meant what collective rights advocates propose, then the text would read "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the States to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." However, that is not what the framers of the amendment drafted. The plain language of the amendment, without attenuate inferences therefrom, shows that the function of the subordinate clause was not to qualify the right, but instead to show why it must be protected. The right exists independent of the existence of the militia. If this right were not protected, the existence of the militia, and consequently the security of the state, would be jeopardized." (U.S. v. Emerson, 46 F.Supp.2d 598 (N.D.Tex. 1999))
For more information about justification clauses see: Volokh, Eugene, The Commonplace Second Amendment, (73 NYU L. Rev. 793 (1998)). (See also, Kopel, David, Words of Freedom, National Review Online, May 16, 2001.)
Parting Shots
There are 3 ways the Second Amendment is usually interpreted to deny it was intended to protect an individual right to keep and bear arms:
It protects a state's right to keep and bear arms.
The right is individual, but limited to active militia members because the militia clause narrows the right's scope.
The term "people" refers to the people collectively, rather than the people as individuals.
Yet, three jurists, who were contemporaries of the Founders, and wrote constitutional commentaries, read the Second Amendment as protecting a private, individual right to keep arms. There is no contrary evidence from that period (see Guncite's Is there contrary evidence? and Second Amendment challenge).
Instead of the "right of the people," the Amendment's drafters could have referred to the militia or active militia members, as they did in the Fifth Amendment, had they meant to restrict the right. (Additionally, see GunCite's page here showing evidence that the term, "people," as used in the Bill of Rights, referred to people as individuals.)
It strains credulity to believe the aforementioned three jurists misconstrued the meaning of the Second Amendment.
The only model that comports with all of the evidence from the Founding period is the one interpreting the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right for a collective purpose. The militia clause and the right to keep and bear arms were intended to be complementary.
Perversely, gun rights defenders are accused of creating a Second Amendment myth, when it is some present-day jurists and historians who have failed to give a full account of the historical record.
(The assertion that the Second Amendment was intended to protect an individual right should not be confused with the claim that all gun control is un-constitutional. However, to read why many gun rights advocates oppose most gun controls, today, please see GunCite's, Misrepresenting the Gun Control Debate.)
-
The Bar (which also has a leftist history) shouldn't be the authority.. the constitution as the intentions of the founding fathers is. It is the activism since the 70's that has flown in the face of the bill of rights.
If you read the ABA amicus brief, you would see that the group rights interpretation of the 2 AM right to bear arms predates the 1939 MIller case but Miller emphasized the militia part of the 2nd Am in its opinion almost every subsequent case has followed that judicial reasoning.
"Judicial activism" is not when a court holds contrary to your opinion of how a principle should be exercised. Judicial Activism occurs when a court overturns or ignores decades of caselaw....such as holding that the 2nd Am confers an individual right to bear arms.
That's what we have with Heller. I am surprised that such a harmless fact causes you such irritation.
-
Original Intent and Purpose of the Second Amendment
Introduction
The Second Amendment:
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.
The original intent and purpose of the Second Amendment was to preserve and guarantee, not grant, the pre-existing right of individuals to keep and bear arms. Although the amendment emphasizes the need for a militia, membership in any militia, let alone a well-regulated one, was not intended to serve as a prerequisite for exercising the right to keep arms.
The Second Amendment preserves and guarantees an individual right for a collective purpose. That does not transform the right into a "collective right." The militia clause was a declaration of purpose, and preserving the people's right to keep and bear arms was the method the framers chose to, in-part, ensure the continuation of a well-regulated militia.
There is no contrary evidence from the writings of the Founding Fathers, early American legal commentators, or pre-twentieth century Supreme Court decisions, indicating that the Second Amendment was intended to apply solely to active militia members.
Evidence of an Individual Right
In his popular edition of Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (1803), St. George Tucker (see also), a lawyer, Revolutionary War militia officer, legal scholar, and later a U.S. District Court judge (appointed by James Madison in 1813), wrote of the Second Amendment:
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government.
In the appendix to the Commentaries, Tucker elaborates further:
This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty... The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty.
Not only are Tucker's remarks solid evidence that the militia clause was not intended to restrict the right to keep arms to active militia members, but he speaks of a broad right – Tucker specifically mentions self-defense.
"Because '[g]reat weight has always been attached, and very rightly attached, to contemporaneous exposition,' the Supreme Court has cited Tucker in over forty cases. One can find Tucker in the major cases of virtually every Supreme Court era." (Source: The Second Amendment in the Nineteenth Century)
(William Blackstone was an English jurist who published Commentaries on the Laws of England, in four volumes between 1765 and 1769. Blackstone is credited with laying the foundation of modern English law and certainly influenced the thinking of the American Founders.)
Another jurist contemporaneous to the Founders, William Rawle, authored "A View of the Constitution of the United States of America" (1829). His work was adopted as a constitutional law textbook at West Point and other institutions. In Chapter 10 he describes the scope of the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms:
The prohibition is general. No clause in the constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.
This is another quote where it is obvious that "the people" refers to individuals since Rawle writes neither the states nor the national government has legitimate authority to disarm its citizens. This passage also makes it clear ("the prohibition is general") that the militia clause was not intended to restrict the scope of the right.
(In 1791 William Rawle was appointed United States Attorney for Pennsylvania by President George Washington, a post he held for more than eight years.)
Yet another jurist, Justice Story (appointed to the Supreme Court as an Associate Justice by James Madison in 1811), wrote a constitutional commentary in 1833 ("Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States"). Regarding the Second Amendment, he wrote (source):
The next amendment is: "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."
The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.
As the Tennessee Supreme Court in Andrews v. State (1871) explains, this "passage from Story, shows clearly that this right was intended, as we have maintained in this opinion, and was guaranteed to, and to be exercised and enjoyed by the citizen as such, and not by him as a soldier, or in defense solely of his political rights."
Story adds:
And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights.
Story laments the people's lack of enthusiasm for maintaining a well-regulated militia. However, some anti-gun rights advocates misinterpret this entire passage as being "consistent with the theory that the Second Amendment guarantees a right of the people to be armed only when in service of an organized militia." (See Arms, Anarchy and the Second Amendment for an example of reaching that conclusion by committing a non-sequitur.)
The need for a well-regulated militia and an armed citizenry are not mutually exclusive, nor was the right to have arms considered dependent on membership in an active militia (more on that later). Rather, as illustrated by Tucker, Rawle, and Story, the militia clause and the right to arms were intended to be complementary.
More Evidence Supporting an Individual Right
After James Madison's Bill of Rights was submitted to Congress, Tench Coxe (see also: Tench Coxe and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, 1787-1823) published his "Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution," in the Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 He asserts that it's the people (as individuals) with arms, who serve as the ultimate check on government:
As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.
"A search of the literature of the time reveals that no writer disputed or contradicted Coxe's analysis that what became the Second Amendment protected the right of the people to keep and bear 'their private arms.' The only dispute was over whether a bill of rights was even necessary to protect such fundamental rights." (Halbrook, Stephen P. "The Right of the People or the Power of the State Bearing Arms, Arming Militias, and the Second Amendment". Originally published as 26 Val. U. L.Rev. 131-207, 1991).
Earlier, in The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788, while the states were considering ratification of the Constitution, Tench Coxe wrote:
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 will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
The Federalist Papers
Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist, No. 29, did not view the right to keep arms as being confined to active militia members:
What plan for the regulation of the militia may be pursued by the national government is impossible to be foreseen...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... Little more can reasonably be aimed at with the respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped ; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.
James Madison in Federalist No. 46 wrote:
Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments,to which the people are attached, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.
Here, like Story, Madison is expressing the idea that additional advantages accrue to the people when the citizens' right to arms is enhanced by having an organized and properly directed militia.
The Federalist Papers Continued – "The Original Right of Self-Defense"
The Founders realized insurrections may occur from time to time and it is the militia's duty to suppress them. They also realized that however remote the possibility of usurpation was, the people with their arms, had the right to restore their republican form of government by force, if necessary, as an extreme last resort.
"The original right of self-defense" is not a modern-day concoction. We now examine Hamilton's Federalist No. 28. Hamilton begins:
That there may happen cases in which the national government may be necessitated to resort to force cannot be denied. Our own experience has corroborated the lessons taught by the examples of other nations; that emergencies of this sort will sometimes exist in all societies, however constituted; that seditions and insurrections are, unhappily, maladies as inseparable from the body politic as tumors and eruptions from the natural body; that the idea of governing at all times by the simple force of law (which we have been told is the only admissible principle of republican government) has no place but in the reveries of these political doctors whose sagacity disdains the admonitions of experimental instruction.
Hamilton explains that the national government may occasionally need to quell insurrections and it is certainly justified in doing so.
Hamilton continues:
If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.
Hamilton clearly states there exists a right of self-defense against a tyrannical government, and it includes the people with their own arms and adds:
[T]he people, without exaggeration, may be said to be entirely the masters of their own fate. Power being almost always the rival of power, the general government will at all times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments, and these will have the same disposition towards the general government. The people by throwing themselves into either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate. If their rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress. How wise will it be in them by cherishing the union to preserve to themselves an advantage which can never be too highly prized!
Thus the militia is the ultimate check against a state or the national government. That is why the founders guaranteed the right to the people as opposed to only active militia members or a state's militia. But of course, via the militia clause, the Second Amendment acknowledges, as well, the right of a state to maintain a militia. (For more on militia see: http://guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html.)
Hamilton concludes, telling us the above scenario is extremely unlikely to occur:
When will the time arrive that the federal government can raise and maintain an army capable of erecting a despotism over the great body of the people of an immense empire, who are in a situation, through the medium of their State governments, to take measures for their own defense, with all the celerity, regularity, and system of independent nations? The apprehension may be considered as a disease, for which there can be found no cure in the resources of argument and reasoning.
Again, it is the recurring theme of the people's right to keep and bear arms as individuals, enhanced by a militia system, that (in part) provides for the "security of a free state."
Connecting the Dots...
"The opinion of the Federalist has always been considered as of great authority. It is a complete commentary on our Constitution, and is appealed to by all parties in the questions to which that instrument has given birth. . . . "
--- The U.S. Supreme Court in Cohens v. Virginia (1821)
Although the Federalist Papers were written prior to the drafting of the Bill of Rights (but after the Constitution was sent to the states for ratification), the passages quoted, above, help explain the relationships that were understood between a well-regulated militia, the people, their governments, and the right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment did not declare or establish any new rights or novel principles.
The Purpose of the Militia Clause
"Collective rights theorists argue that addition of the subordinate clause qualifies the rest of the amendment by placing a limitation on the people's right to bear arms. However, if the amendment truly meant what collective rights advocates propose, then the text would read "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the States to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." However, that is not what the framers of the amendment drafted. The plain language of the amendment, without attenuate inferences therefrom, shows that the function of the subordinate clause was not to qualify the right, but instead to show why it must be protected. The right exists independent of the existence of the militia. If this right were not protected, the existence of the militia, and consequently the security of the state, would be jeopardized." (U.S. v. Emerson, 46 F.Supp.2d 598 (N.D.Tex. 1999))
For more information about justification clauses see: Volokh, Eugene, The Commonplace Second Amendment, (73 NYU L. Rev. 793 (1998)). (See also, Kopel, David, Words of Freedom, National Review Online, May 16, 2001.)
Parting Shots
There are 3 ways the Second Amendment is usually interpreted to deny it was intended to protect an individual right to keep and bear arms:
It protects a state's right to keep and bear arms.
The right is individual, but limited to active militia members because the militia clause narrows the right's scope.
The term "people" refers to the people collectively, rather than the people as individuals.
Yet, three jurists, who were contemporaries of the Founders, and wrote constitutional commentaries, read the Second Amendment as protecting a private, individual right to keep arms. There is no contrary evidence from that period (see Guncite's Is there contrary evidence? and Second Amendment challenge).
Instead of the "right of the people," the Amendment's drafters could have referred to the militia or active militia members, as they did in the Fifth Amendment, had they meant to restrict the right. (Additionally, see GunCite's page here showing evidence that the term, "people," as used in the Bill of Rights, referred to people as individuals.)
It strains credulity to believe the aforementioned three jurists misconstrued the meaning of the Second Amendment.
The only model that comports with all of the evidence from the Founding period is the one interpreting the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right for a collective purpose. The militia clause and the right to keep and bear arms were intended to be complementary.
Perversely, gun rights defenders are accused of creating a Second Amendment myth, when it is some present-day jurists and historians who have failed to give a full account of the historical record.
(The assertion that the Second Amendment was intended to protect an individual right should not be confused with the claim that all gun control is un-constitutional. However, to read why many gun rights advocates oppose most gun controls, today, please see GunCite's, Misrepresenting the Gun Control Debate.)
That's a wonderful piece of deconstructive detective work re the original intent behind the 2AM. And it was a pleasure to read.
Unfortunately for that, the US Constitution is a 'living document' that adapts to the times. No longer are men armed with muskets. ("Implied powers" also rule the roost--See the writings of John Marshall on this one.)
Laws are interpreted from today's point of view and they change when the times call for change.
It is the job of the SCT to tell us what the law is. In Miller (1939) It told us that the militia part of the 2nd AM qualifies the right to bear arms.
-
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.
Decker, why do you think the founding fathers used the word "people" and not "state"?
I'm just curious because I had read that one of the Supreme Court justices (I can't recall who) asked that question.
-
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.
Decker, why do you think the founding fathers used the word "people" and not "state"?
I'm just curious because I had read that one of the Supreme Court justices (I can't recall who) asked that question.
B/c the people have a constitutional right to own the property of a gun. But that right is directly tied to "A well regulated Militia".
I don't think that the 2A's interpretation as group or individual right makes any difference at all. I just like the way it sets people off.
The whole ball game comes down to Judicial scrutiny of legislation regulating (in some cases banning) guns. Currently the SCT uses the lowest level of scrutiny of that legislation: the law must be reasonably related to a legitimate state interest to pass muster.
That's a very very low threshhold.
I don't think an individual right to own a gun will change that level of scrutiny.
The 2nd Am can also be read as an absolute grant of right to own arms. Does that include Bazookas or nuclear arms?
-
According to Lenke (1989) up to 86% of the shooters and 75% of the victims were intoxicated with alcohol or on other drugs.
Research also shows that the deadly violence is, unlike what NRA and other pro-2nd amendment groups want to tell us, mostly commited within the nearest social community.
Ie, friends, family and near-community.
So the offenders are those who gets drunk.
How are you gonna trust anyone with 20 guns at home and who is drunk and pissed because his best friend Billy-Moe just fcuked his daughter?
-
According to Lenke (1989) up to 86% of the shooters and 75% of the victims were intoxicated with alcohol or on other drugs.
Research also shows that the deadly violence is, unlike what NRA and other pro-2nd amendment groups want to tell us, mostly commited within the nearest social community.
Ie, friends, family and near-community.
So the offenders are those who gets drunk.
How are you gonna trust anyone with 20 guns at home and who is drunk and pissed because his best friend Billy-Moe just fcuked his daughter?
Well if I were Billy-Moe I would much rather have a gun to defend myself from this raging alcoholic ass than not have one. That's the point.
-
"Collective rights" - Oh sure, I've read about it in history class, it's called "Communism"!
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"-Karl Marx (1875 Critique of the Gotha Program).
-
Well if I were Billy-Moe I would much rather have a gun to defend myself from this raging alcoholic ass than not have one. That's the point.
With stricter gun laws, Billy-Moe wouldn't have his guns in the first place? ???
Research also shows that illegal guns are held by criminals. And contrary to what the gun lobby preaches, these criminals primarily kills within their own community.
Which means that if you would make the gun laws tougher, it would not mean some sudden increase in gangs killing civilians.
I can understand if people wants to own guns because they think shooting them are cool and shit.
But just because you like doing something, it doesn't make it in the best interest of the society.
Eg drinking and driving.
-
With stricter gun laws, Billy-Moe wouldn't have his guns in the first place? ???
Research also shows that illegal guns are held by criminals. And contrary to what the gun lobby preaches, these criminals primarily kills within their own community.
Which means that if you would make the gun laws tougher, it would not mean some sudden increase in gangs killing civilians.
I can understand if people wants to own guns because they think shooting them are cool and shit.
But just because you like doing something, it doesn't make it in the best interest of the society.
Eg drinking and driving.
Tell that to the unarmed victims of rape, murder, assault, or burglary in thier own homes. Thinking you have a right to take away anothers right to self-defense in the name of "what's best for society" is the definition of an asshole.
Libs keep passing tougher gun laws and violent crime stays the same or gets worse. Maybe it's time to actually enforce the laws in the books.
-
Tell that to the unarmed victims of rape, murder, assault, or burglary in thier own homes. Thinking you have a right to take away anothers right to self-defense in the name of "what's best for society" is the definition of an asshole.
Libs keep passing tougher gun laws and violent crime stays the same or gets worse. Maybe it's time to actually enforce the laws in the books.
I agree completely. I'm starting to like you.
If you live in the USA, you don't give a shit about what happens to 99.999999% of the population. You want to be able to defend you and yours when a bad thing happens.
bad guys don't need guns to hurt/kill you. Three men with tire irons or 10 pound weight plates can kill you with no problem.
I'll bet there are thousands of people every year whose final thought on the planet is "Damn, I'm about to die, and if I had a gun I could have prevented this". They don't care what happens to "society" as they bleed out.
-
I can understand if people wants to own guns because they think shooting them are cool and shit.
Talk about misunderstanding why people own guns. You mights as well ay they are "clinging" to guns (don't forget religion) because they are pissed that they lost their jobs.
I own a gun to protect my family, I don't think its cool to shoot and hope I never have to.
As far as criminals, by definition, a criminal is one that breks the law, if they don't follow laws, why would they follow gun laws?
-
Tell that to the unarmed victims of rape, murder, assault, or burglary in thier own homes. Thinking you have a right to take away anothers right to self-defense in the name of "what's best for society" is the definition of an asshole.
Libs keep passing tougher gun laws and violent crime stays the same or gets worse. Maybe it's time to actually enforce the laws in the books.
Definition of an asshole?
Tell the widows and the kids to all the victims of gun-related shootings that they are assholes for not wanting guns to be out there.
When the killings are done by persons with guns who happens to get drunk.
What if these persons wouldn't have the guns in the first place?
-
Definition of an asshole?
Tell the widows and the kids to all the victims of gun-related shootings that they are assholes for not wanting guns to be out there.
When the killings are done by persons with guns who happens to get drunk.
What if these persons wouldn't have the guns in the first place?
The guns aren't going away with new gun laws. All that happens is criminals who don't care have guns while citizens who need to defend themselves are stripped by ASSHOLES who take away thier right to defend themselves.
It's not "gun" related shootings.. it's "criminal" related shootings. A gun is just an object. Thinking "What if these persons wouldn't have the guns in the first place?" is ignorant and idealistic wishful thinking.
I would go so far as to say single woman who meet certain criteria (no criminal record, etc) should be encouraged to be armed at all times.
-
If you live in the USA, you don't give a shit about what happens to 99.999999% of the population. You want to be able to defend you and yours when a bad thing happens.
bad guys don't need guns to hurt/kill you. Three men with tire irons or 10 pound weight plates can kill you with no problem.
I'll bet there are thousands of people every year whose final thought on the planet is "Damn, I'm about to die, and if I had a gun I could have prevented this". They don't care what happens to "society" as they bleed out.
Absolutely.. no one looks out for you like yourself. Call me greedy but why should I depend on gov't to look after the welfare of me and my family.
Remember folks, cops only get there AFTER it's happened!!! ;D
I agree completely. I'm starting to like you.
Well you're about to hate me again.. the three issues that I vote on the most are taxes, property rights, and the second amendment. Let's just say I've always been a big fan of these guys.
-
Remember folks, cops only get there AFTER it's happened!!! ;D
11 minutes afterwards is the national average.
11 minutes from the moment the rapist nuts and climbs off of you, and you dial 911 on your cell, the cops will arrive to 'save the day'.
11 minutes from the moment the 7-11 clerk calls 911, as the teenage thugs caps your silly ass because you didn't turn over the car keys fast enough, the cops will arrive to 'save the day'.
Shit, I'm spending those 11 minutes finishing my lunch and taking a leak as the dead intruder lies motionless on the floor...
-
11 minutes afterwards is the national average.
11 minutes from the moment the rapist nuts and climbs off of you, and you dial 911 on your cell, the cops will arrive to 'save the day'.
11 minutes from the moment the 7-11 clerk calls 911, as the teenage thugs caps your silly ass because you didn't turn over the car keys fast enough, the cops will arrive to 'save the day'.
Shit, I'm spending those 11 minutes finishing my lunch and taking a leak as the dead intruder lies motionless on the floor...
Unless you live in Baltimore.. then it's 30 mins to 2 hours and the cops say "sorry, can't help you" when they show up.
-
So if the socialist-democrats are successful in disarming law abiding citizens of their guns how long before they take away kitchen knives? Maybe they'll also push for laws so only the military and law enforcement can train in military combative fighting or martial arts?
Where does it stop for the greater good of society?
-
Obama on D.C. Gun Ban: 'I don't like taking a stand on pending cases.'
I felt that [the first one] was a precedent for conceal-and-carry laws. There has not been any evidence that allowing people to carry a concealed weapon is going to make anybody safer. [The second one] is relevant to the D.C. handgun issue. I wanted to preserve the right of local communities to enforce local ordinances and this would have overturned municipalities being able to enforce their own ordinances. We can argue about whether the ordinances work or not. But I wanted to make sure that local communities were recognized as having a right to regulate firearms.
http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YzIxYjFmYTcxYjA4ZjZhMmI0MGY2Yzc4Y2E3MmJiZGE=
-
So if the socialist-democrats are successful in disarming law abiding citizens of their guns how long before they take away kitchen knives? Maybe they'll also push for laws so only the military and law enforcement can train in military combative fighting or martial arts?
Where does it stop for the greater good of society?
idiot
-
idiot
Try to follow along, Ace.
I know it's hard for you but try.
Doctors' kitchen knives ban call
A team from West Middlesex University Hospital said violent crime is on the increase - and kitchen knives are used in as many as half of all stabbings.
They argued many assaults are committed impulsively, prompted by alcohol and drugs, and a kitchen knife often makes an all too available weapon.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm
"Many assaults are impulsive, often triggered by alcohol or misuse of other drugs, and the long, pointed kitchen knife is an easily accessible, potentially lethal weapon, particularly in the domestic setting," say the doctors from the West Middlesex university hospital, London, in the British Medical Journal.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2005/may/27/health.politics
It's already been tried. Once the liberal fascists you worship are successful at disarming law abiding citizens it won't stop. It'll be knives, then martial arts, then whatever they deem appropriate for the "common" good.
-
Try to follow along, Ace.
I know it's hard for you but try.
Doctors' kitchen knives ban call
A team from West Middlesex University Hospital said violent crime is on the increase - and kitchen knives are used in as many as half of all stabbings.
They argued many assaults are committed impulsively, prompted by alcohol and drugs, and a kitchen knife often makes an all too available weapon.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm
you are a m-o-r-o-n
-
you are a m-o-r-o-n
Go eat some grass, sheep.
-
Go eat some grass, sheep.
you are a d-u-m-m-y
-
you are a d-u-m-m-y
And you are b-o-r-i-n-g, Ace.
-
The guns aren't going away with new gun laws. All that happens is criminals who don't care have guns while citizens who need to defend themselves are stripped by ASSHOLES who take away thier right to defend themselves.
It's not "gun" related shootings.. it's "criminal" related shootings. A gun is just an object. Thinking "What if these persons wouldn't have the guns in the first place?" is ignorant and idealistic wishful thinking.
I would go so far as to say single woman who meet certain criteria (no criminal record, etc) should be encouraged to be armed at all times.
This is just your opinion.
I just posted reference to actual research that shows that gun related killings are in general NOT criminals attacking innocents.
But rather, alcohol related.
And the gang related killings are also mostly within that very community.
I'm sorry, but you've been fed a lie by the NRA or whoever.
And before you get any more emotional and start crying asshole and bitch and motherfcuker and "liberal" again, how about actually look at the references I posted?
-
This is just your opinion.
I just posted reference to actual research that shows that gun related killings are in general NOT criminals attacking innocents.
But rather, alcohol related.
And the gang related killings are also mostly within that very community.
I'm sorry, but you've been fed a lie by the NRA or whoever.
And before you get any more emotional and start crying asshole and bitch and motherfcuker and "liberal" again, how about actually look at the references I posted?
I did look.. your arguments are based in fantasy and don't work in "the real world." Nothing about your stance supports self defense.. which is a basic human right.
-
I did look.. your arguments are based in fantasy and don't work in "the real world." Nothing about your stance supports self defense.. which is a basic human right.
It wasn't arguments.
It is real data, accumulated data from crimes committed.
Look, I can appreciate that you do not want to accept that most gun related killings are done by intoxicated persons.
But that is a fact.
And I can also understand that you want to believe that criminals are attacking the innocent, and that the innocent community needs to arm up, to get guns to protect themselves.
But the facts are quite different.
Gun related killings by criminal people are done within the criminal society.
These are the cold, hard facts.
You are the one using soft emo arguments.
Playing the emo card et al.
Instead of trying to keep it real.
-
It wasn't arguments.
It is real data, accumulated data from crimes committed.
Look, I can appreciate that you do not want to accept that most gun related killings are done by intoxicated persons.
But that is a fact.
And I can also understand that you want to believe that criminals are attacking the innocent, and that the innocent community needs to arm up, to get guns to protect themselves.
But the facts are quite different.
Gun related killings by criminal people are done within the criminal society.
These are the cold, hard facts.
You are the one using soft emo arguments.
Playing the emo card et al.
Instead of trying to keep it real.
Dispute ANY point I have made.. please.. I dare you.
You're an idealist and you fail to see the fallacy of gun control. I'm not talking about only gun-related killings. I'm referring to violent crime in general whereas the facts support that the single best way to protect yourself from violence is with a handgun and knowing how to use it.
Here's another fact for you.. London banned all handguns, then violent crime jumped by almost 30%. Similar figures occure wherever people are robbed of thier right to defend themselves. Criminals have free reign.
And that's the way the cookie crumbles.
-
It's already been tried. Once the liberal fascists you worship are successful at disarming law abiding citizens it won't stop. It'll be knives, then martial arts, then whatever they deem appropriate for the "common" good.
Wow. That's an oxymoron if I ever saw one.
Liberal fascists?
Fascism is probably one of the ideologies that are most directly opposed to liberalism.
It's similar to call someone a leftist rightwinger.
-
Dispute ANY point I have made.. please.. I dare you.
You're an idealist and you fail to see the fallacy of gun control. I'm not talking about only gun-related killings. I'm referring to violent crime in general whereas the facts support that the single best way to protect yourself from violence is with a handgun and knowing how to use it.
Here's another fact for you.. London banned all handguns, then violent crime jumped by almost 30%. Similar figures occure wherever people are robbed of thier right to defend themselves. Criminals have free reign.
And that's the way the cookie crumbles.
How exactly am I an idealist?
Because I refers to hard facts?
Because I avoid referring to pics of the "founding fathers" in my rhetoric et al?
How is that being idealist?
-
Wow. That's an oxymoron if I ever saw one.
Liberal fascists?
Fascism is probably one of the ideologies that are most directly opposed to liberalism.
It's similar to call someone a leftist rightwinger.
Look up H.G. Wells and the term "liberal fascism", Zack.
Then do some research on the political leanings of Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin. Hell, look up Woodrow Wilson while you're at it.
-
Look up H.G. Wells and the term "liberal fascism", Zack.
Then do some research on the political leanings of Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin. Hell, look up Woodrow Wilson while you're at it.
Hitler was a Nazist.
Mussolini was a Fascist.
Stalin subscribed to Marxism-Leninism and Stalinism, his own versions of Communism.
None of these could even remotedly be described as even close to a Liberal.
USA and England were the two major homes of Liberalism in the early 20th century, and thus sworn enemies of Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin.
-
Hitler was a Nazist.
Mussolini was a Fascist.
Stalin subscribed to Marxism-Leninism and Stalinism, his own versions of Communism.
None of these could even remotedly be described as even close to a Liberal.
USA and England were the two major homes of Liberalism in the early 20th century, and thus sworn enemies of Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin.
Hitler was a socialist. Nazism is socialism with a racist nationalist spin.
Mussolini, the founder of "fascism" was and always was a socialist first (his words).
Stalin, while a Maxist-Leninist was another socialist with a anti-semitic nationalist spin.
USA and England were "experimenting" with progressive liberalism (socialism) in the early 20th century. Wilson did things to squash freedom of speech that would have made Mussolini green with envy.
Now can you find me any sources that would indicate that Hitler, Mussolini, or even Stalin (all fascists, right?) supported anything promoted by "right-wing" conservatives? Oh, and did you look up H.G. Wells and the term liberal fascism?
-
Hitler was a socialist. Nazism is socialism with a racist nationalist spin.
Mussolini, the founder of "fascism" was and always was a socialist first (his words).
Stalin, while a Maxist-Leninist was another socialist with a anti-semitic nationalist spin.
USA and England were "experimenting" with progressive liberalism (socialism) in the early 20th century. Wilson did things to squash freedom of speech that would have made Mussolini green with envy.
Now can you find me any sources that would indicate that Hitler, Mussolini, or even Stalin (all fascists, right?) supported anything promoted by "right-wing" conservatives? Oh, and did you look up H.G. Wells and the term liberal fascism?
I would respectfully disagree. Hitler was a fascist. Mussolini was a fascist. Socialism has the people owning the means of production--sort of like an employee stock ownership plan (ESOP). Did the german/italiancitizens own their means of production? I don't know. I doubt it since the governments of each respective country were merged in purpose with big business elites. But I do know that these leaders married corporatism to government in a way that blurred the line between government for the people and government for big business.
Neither HItler not Mussolini Stalin abolished private property. They were hard right totalitarians using the State's power as a club on dissenters and opponents.
Just b/c a rightwing totalitarian calls his party or movement "socialist" does not make it so.
Semantics aside, the nazis also thought of themselves as Christians.
-
Hitler was a socialist. Nazism is socialism with a racist nationalist spin.
No.
Mussolini, the founder of "fascism" was and always was a socialist first (his words).
No. He was a fascist.
Stalin, while a Maxist-Leninist was another socialist with a anti-semitic nationalist spin.
Socialism/Communism are similar as political ideologies, Stalin didn't describe himself as a Socialist frequently, but he definitely followed that school of thought.
USA and England were "experimenting" with progressive liberalism (socialism) in the early 20th century. Wilson did things to squash freedom of speech that would have made Mussolini green with envy.
Where did you get the idea that progressive liberalism is socialism?
Now can you find me any sources that would indicate that Hitler, Mussolini, or even Stalin (all fascists, right?)
I never claimed that Stalin was a Fascist. Fascism is a political ideology.
supported anything promoted by "right-wing" conservatives?
A right-wing conservative would be someone like Edmund Burke. I never said Hitler or Mussolini supported Conservatism (obviously not).
But they opposed Liberalism, as Liberalism vehemently promoted the idea of democracy.
Oh, and did you look up H.G. Wells and the term liberal fascism?
Sorry, haven't had the time to do that yet. I will though. However, HG Wells is novel writer. Not a political scientist or political philosopher.
-
Hitler was a socialist. Nazism is socialism with a racist nationalist spin.
No.
Mussolini, the founder of "fascism" was and always was a socialist first (his words).
No. He was a fascist.
Stalin, while a Maxist-Leninist was another socialist with a anti-semitic nationalist spin.
Socialism/Communism are similar as political ideologies, Stalin didn't describe himself as a Socialist frequently, but he definitely followed that school of thought.
USA and England were "experimenting" with progressive liberalism (socialism) in the early 20th century. Wilson did things to squash freedom of speech that would have made Mussolini green with envy.
Where did you get the idea that progressive liberalism is socialism?
Now can you find me any sources that would indicate that Hitler, Mussolini, or even Stalin (all fascists, right?)
I never claimed that Stalin was a Fascist. Fascism is a political ideology.
supported anything promoted by "right-wing" conservatives?
A right-wing conservative would be someone like Edmund Burke. I never said Hitler or Mussolini supported Conservatism (obviously not).
But they opposed Liberalism, as Liberalism vehemently promoted the idea of democracy.
Oh, and did you look up H.G. Wells and the term liberal fascism?
Sorry, haven't had the time to do that yet. I will though. However, HG Wells is novel writer. Not a political scientist or political philosopher.
Zack, I'm just asking you to read up on this. All of the above scumbag listed were, in fact, socialists. They opposed individualism (of any kind), promoted nationalization of industry, promoted "social" programs, and all-in-all were very anti-capitalism. Does that come off as right-wing to you?
Regarding, H.G. Wells, he was the one that coined the term Liberal Fascism.
-
I would respectfully disagree. Hitler was a fascist. Mussolini was a fascist. Socialism has the people owning the means of production--sort of like an employee stock ownership plan (ESOP). Did the german/italiancitizens own their means of production? I don't know. I doubt it since the governments of each respective country were merged in purpose with big business elites. But I do know that these leaders married corporatism to government in a way that blurred the line between government for the people and government for big business.
Neither HItler not Mussolini Stalin abolished private property. They were hard right totalitarians using the State's power as a club on dissenters and opponents.
Just b/c a rightwing totalitarian calls his party or movement "socialist" does not make it so.
Semantics aside, the nazis also thought of themselves as Christians.
Decker, I think we all agree what those men were fascists. I think we're all debating the definition of what fascism is.
This is Merriam-Webster's definition:
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.
2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control <early instances of army fascism and brutality — J. W. Aldridge>
How does this align itself with conservative (right-wing) values? The state before the individual? Centralization of government? Forcible suppression of opposition and economic and social regimentation? I won't even get into the anti-semitic issue.
So where am I going wrong? If the argument is, "if extreme left-wing politics is socialism then extreme right-wing politics must be fascism." I just don't see the argument for that statement.
From everything I've read on the topic (including Hitler and Mussolini) everything leads me to believe that fascism was the result of extreme socialism.
-
How exactly am I an idealist?
Because I refers to hard facts?
Because I avoid referring to pics of the "founding fathers" in my rhetoric et al?
How is that being idealist?
You ignore other facts and basic human needs to form your argument. Those founding fathers would be disgusted with your idea of what rights we should have or not have.
Saying drunks use guns to be violent could be 100% accurate.. WHO CARES? I think the victim would much rather have a gun to defend himself than not, no?
Saying criminals only attack other criminals is absurd. Are you telling me rape victims and victims of home invasion are mostly criminals?!?! I suppose you think an armed woman should rely on the competence of police instead of a gun.
Being so ignorant and idealistic must be a blissfull combination.
-
You ignore other facts and basic human needs to form your argument. Those founding fathers would be disgusted with your idea of what rights we should have or not have.
Saying drunks use guns to be violent could be 100% accurate.. WHO CARES? I think the victim would much rather have a gun to defend himself than not, no?
Saying criminals only attack other criminals is absurd. Are you telling me rape victims and victims of home invasion are mostly criminals?!?! I suppose you think an armed woman should rely on the competence of police instead of a gun.
Being so ignorant and idealistic must be a blissfull combination.
I never said criminals only attacked criminals.
I said they primarily kills within their own kin.
Nice to see that you finally give credit to the real hard facts by the way.
And you ask who cares – how about this: if the drunk persons would not have access to guns, what do you think would happen in all those cases?
-
And you ask who cares – how about this: if the drunk persons would not have access to guns, what do you think would happen in all those cases?
So what about when crime IS committed against non criminals? Happens all the time and what, you think the cops are gonna save you? Get real.
If there were no guns there would be no gun crime. This is where your idealism shows. Eveytime the gov't tries to take away guns criminals still get thier hands on them. Whoops.. guess they can now commit thier crimes agaist the populace without worrying about getting hurt.
More gun laws only takes the guns out of the good citizens hands and leaves them at the mercy of the murderer, rapist, burglar, etc. This is a historical fact.
-
I can't help but love this guy. Enjoy! :D
-
I don't like when someone starts spouting off statistics such as gun crime rates in the U.S. The U.S. is made up of very diverse peoples and places. The vast majority of gun violence happens within the inner cities and metro areas. It is both unfair and stupid to equally apply gun laws over an entire spectrum when the problem is focused in primarily one area.
The source of the problem is not guns. The source is borderline criminality that is caused by unsavory and oft illegal activities.....drugs, prostitution, and gangs. Domestic problems, the broken family system that is encouraged by our government and major media outlets, is also a big source where guns become involved.
Do you remember all the various school shootings? Columbine, VT, NIU, and slews of others. What was blamed? What was called for to be restricted? What was the perceived culprit? Guns. But, of the major shooting incidents, there was one thing that all the shooters had in common: they were doped up on prescription drugs. Our society is literally doped up. These prescription drugs are no better than the illegal drugs out there.
-
I don't like when someone starts spouting off statistics such as gun crime rates in the U.S. The U.S. is made up of very diverse peoples and places. The vast majority of gun violence happens within the inner cities and metro areas. It is both unfair and stupid to equally apply gun laws over an entire spectrum when the problem is focused in primarily one area.
The source of the problem is not guns. The source is borderline criminality that is caused by unsavory and oft illegal activities.....drugs, prostitution, and gangs. Domestic problems, the broken family system that is encouraged by our government and major media outlets, is also a big source where guns become involved.
Do you remember all the various school shootings? Columbine, VT, NIU, and slews of others. What was blamed? What was called for to be restricted? What was the perceived culprit? Guns. But, of the major shooting incidents, there was one thing that all the shooters had in common: they were doped up on prescription drugs. Our society is literally doped up. These prescription drugs are no better than the illegal drugs out there.
All good points. They also blamed Marilyn Manson, KMFDM, and Rammstein... very unfair.
-
I can't help but love this guy. Enjoy! :D
AWESOME! ;D
-
The source is borderline criminality that is caused by unsavory and oft illegal activities.....drugs, prostitution, and gangs. Domestic problems, the broken family system that is encouraged by our government and major media outlets, is also a big source where guns become involved.
Do you remember all the various school shootings? Columbine, VT, NIU, and slews of others. What was blamed? What was called for to be restricted? What was the perceived culprit? Guns. But, of the major shooting incidents, there was one thing that all the shooters had in common: they were doped up on prescription drugs. Our society is literally doped up. These prescription drugs are no better than the illegal drugs out there.
How many people do you think would've been killed if the criminals had no access to guns or the doped up kids had no access to guns?
How many Columbines would there have been?
-
if the criminals had no access to guns
Do you think that more gun laws will actually prevent criminals from getting guns?
-
Do you think that more gun laws will actually prevent criminals from getting guns?
I think it depends.
If the laws re crimes committed with a gun or simply violating a gun ban were made more draconian, I'd think there'd be a change in behavior.
For instance, make any crime committed with a gun an aggravating factor in sentencing that tacks on 25 years to a sentence automatically. I think criminals might think twice about using a gun in a crime when faced with 25+ years in prison.
-
I think it depends.
If the laws re crimes committed with a gun or simply violating a gun ban were made more draconian, I'd think there'd be a change in behavior.
For instance, make any crime committed with a gun an aggravating factor in sentencing that tacks on 25 years to a sentence automatically. I think criminals might think twice about using a gun in a crime when faced with 25+ years in prison.
Ok.. good point. Actual punishment for offenders is agreed by even most pro gunners.
What we don't agree with is further restriction for those of us who are NOT criminals.
-
I think it depends.
If the laws re crimes committed with a gun or simply violating a gun ban were made more draconian, I'd think there'd be a change in behavior.
For instance, make any crime committed with a gun an aggravating factor in sentencing that tacks on 25 years to a sentence automatically. I think criminals might think twice about using a gun in a crime when faced with 25+ years in prison.
That makes little sense.
Since most gun related killings are commited by intoxicated persons. These persons have their judgement flawed due to the alcohol or drugs.
So what do you want to do?
Ban alcohol? ::)
-
That makes little sense.
Since most gun related killings are commited by intoxicated persons. These persons have their judgement flawed due to the alcohol or drugs.
So what do you want to do?
Ban alcohol? ::)
I didn't know most gun deaths involve alcohol. I've never seen that statistic.
Of course a 25 year mandatory prison sentence for gun crimes would have an effect on gun crime statistics.
Even if I accept your contention that most gun killings are alcohol related, I don't see how that changes anything.
Does alcohol erase completely a person's rationality? No it doesn't. People drive drunk safely all the time.
In other words, inebriation does not jettison all judgment.
Especially when 25 years in prison enters the equation.
-
I didn't know most gun deaths involve alcohol. I've never seen that statistic.
Of course a 25 year mandatory prison sentence for gun crimes would have an effect on gun crime statistics.
Even if I accept your contention that most gun killings are alcohol related, I don't see how that changes anything.
Does alcohol erase completely a person's rationality? No it doesn't. People drive drunk safely all the time.
In other words, inebriation does not jettison all judgment.
Especially when 25 years in prison enters the equation.
According to Lenke (1989) up to 86% of the shooters and 75% of the victims were intoxicated with alcohol or on other drugs.
Research also shows that the deadly violence is, unlike what NRA and other pro-2nd amendment groups want to tell us, mostly commited within the nearest social community.
Ie, friends, family and near-community.
So the offenders are those who gets drunk.
How are you gonna trust anyone with 20 guns at home and who is drunk and pissed because his best friend Billy-Moe just fcuked his daughter?
Does alcohol erase completely a person's rationality? No it doesn't.
That's your opinion.
What does the 86% rate tell you?
-
According to Lenke (1989) up to 86% of the shooters and 75% of the victims were intoxicated with alcohol or on other drugs.
That was 19 years ago.
In the last 19 years, many American states have opened up concealed carry laws.
This means it's not just the rowdy hillbillies with shotguns that have guns. It means teachers, doctors, lawyers, and other professionals are now carrying.
In the last 19 years, a lot more people started carrying guns.
-
According to Lenke (1989) up to 86% of the shooters and 75% of the victims were intoxicated with alcohol or on other drugs.
Research also shows that the deadly violence is, unlike what NRA and other pro-2nd amendment groups want to tell us, mostly commited within the nearest social community.
Ie, friends, family and near-community.
So the offenders are those who gets drunk.
How are you gonna trust anyone with 20 guns at home and who is drunk and pissed because his best friend Billy-Moe just fcuked his daughter?
I don't see where that says that 86% of gun deaths are alcohol related.
In fact I found this: Lenke (1986) estimated that alcohol accounts for about 50% of violent crimes in Sweden.
http://www.rpkab.se/Alcoholandcrime.htm That's violent crime. And in your excerpted statement it refers to shooters...not killers.
But that's moot. I think that mandatory 25 years in the can for gun use during the commission of a crime will have a deterrent effect on gun crime and you don't.
For some reason, you think rationality disappears entirely. I don't.
-
I don't see where that says that 86% of gun deaths are alcohol related.
In fact I found this: Lenke (1986) estimated that alcohol accounts for about 50% of violent crimes in Sweden.
http://www.rpkab.se/Alcoholandcrime.htm That's violent crime. And in your excerpted statement it refers to shooters...not killers.
But that's moot. I think that mandatory 25 years in the can for gun use during the commission of a crime will have a deterrent effect on gun crime and you don't.
For some reason, you think rationality disappears entirely. I don't.
Yes.
That is a different study but related, done a few years earlier.
Here is the one I were referring to:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/Abstract.aspx?id=137633
I got to give you credit for being someone who really takes the time to look into sources and backs your own arguments up.
Even if I don't always agree with you, I gotta give you credit for knowing your shit. ;D
-
Yes.
That is a different study but related, done a few years earlier.
Here is the one I were referring to:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/Abstract.aspx?id=137633
I got to give you credit for being someone who really takes the time to look into sources and backs your own arguments up.
Even if I don't always agree with you, I gotta give you credit for knowing your shit. ;D
Same here Sir.
-
not related but i thought my neocon buds might enjoy !
Poll: Bush most unpopular in modern history
May 1, 2008
New poll numbers show bad news for president Bush.
WASHINGTON (CNN) — A new poll suggests that George W. Bush is the most unpopular president in modern American history.
A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Thursday indicates that 71 percent of the American public disapprove of how Bush his handling his job as president.
"No president has ever had a higher disapproval rating in any CNN or Gallup poll; in fact, this is the first time that any president's disapproval rating has cracked the 70 percent mark," said CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.
NT
You damn spammer!!!!!!!! ;D
-
not related but i thought my neocon buds might enjoy !
Poll: Bush most unpopular in modern history
May 1, 2008
New poll numbers show bad news for president Bush.
WASHINGTON (CNN) — A new poll suggests that George W. Bush is the most unpopular president in modern American history.
A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Thursday indicates that 71 percent of the American public disapprove of how Bush his handling his job as president.
"No president has ever had a higher disapproval rating in any CNN or Gallup poll; in fact, this is the first time that any president's disapproval rating has cracked the 70 percent mark," said CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.
NT
Actually I'm glad you posted that. It's an unfortunate fact that about 71% of Americans are dumb as a post. I believe that number is growing exponentially.
-
Actually I'm glad you posted that. It's an unfortunate fact that about 71% of Americans are dumb as a post. I believe that number is growing exponentially.
Bush used to have a 70%+ approval rating.
Were these same people domb then?
You can't have it both ways, Brix. Did 50% of the population suddenly "get dumb"?
Poor, poor argument.
-
You can't have it both ways, Brix. Did 50% of the population suddenly "get dumb"?
yes :P
-
Bush used to have a 70%+ approval rating.
Were these same people domb then?
You can't have it both ways, Brix. Did 50% of the population suddenly "get dumb"?
Poor, poor argument.
I swear you'd be a great politician... ;D
-
yes :P
So people got dumber - as more information came out?
People knew LESS about the truth as MORE of the WMD truths came out?
That would be the first time in history that more information made people dumber.
Good work skittles, you just made history!
-
So people got dumber - as more information came out?
People knew LESS about the truth as MORE of the WMD truths came out?
That would be the first time in history that more information made people dumber.
Good work skittles, you just made history!
I know.. quite astonishing, isn't it! ;D