The Second Amendment---Broken down

[muddober]

belercous: I agree that the Constitution mandated that we were to be a Republic. The first sentence of Article 4. section 4. makes that clear as stated in part "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government,". I believe that the 17th amendment passed in 1913 "bastardized" our union so that is it neither a republic nor a democracy. The states are simply no longer represented thereby killing the mandated republican form of government as guaranteed by Article 4 section 4 and the people of the several states cannot vote for those states Representatives(the senate), thereby killing the concept of a democracy. My point is that the Constitution has or lets say HAD a common thread whereby the states where considered separate and apart from the people and in my view the four best places to see that common thread as it weaves through the Constitution is in Article 1 section 3. which provides for senators to be appointed into office by their respective states legislature, Article 4. section 4 as mentioned, the 10th amendment and the second amendment. As I am sure you are aware the senate was constitutionally designed to watch over the house being their check so the peoples Representatives did not get out of hand pandering to only what the people want, IE. spend, spend, spend, to the point of bankrupting the United States which I don't believe would have happened if the states had been represented. Today the senate, now made up of persons voted into office by the people of their state although still constitutionally mandated to look over the House's shoulder, is like asking a coyote to look after your chickens. This has been known to be a problem since around 550 to 600 BC as warned by Socrates, Plato and Aristotle that a democracy fails when the people can get their hands on the treasury of their government through their elected officials. I could not even dream up a better case in point or a scenario than what we are experiencing at this very moment.

Ron

[bcj1755]

The Court was activist when it ruled in Brown v. Board of Education. Remember that one? It held that (de jure, not de facto) segregated schools were unconstitutional. The law of the land (Plessy v. Ferguson [sp?]) in 1954 was that "seperate but equal" was constitutional, the settled law of the land. Divining the framers intent of the 14th Amen. was a no-brainer. In the congressional debates concerning the 14th Amen., the specific question was asked "Does this mean that white children will have to sit next to colored children in school?" The answer was a resounding "No." So, going into 1954 we had clear congressional intent and clear prior S.C. precedent saying that "seperate but equal" was what the Const. meant. The Court, by a 9-0 vote, overturned this decision. Clearly an activist court. I mention this to demonstrate why an "activist" court is not always a bad thing. Or is there someone out there who can argue against this blatantly activist decision? Racists, speak up. Now is your time to shine.

See, there he goes using another standard liberal tactic...using the dreaded "R" word

And yes, I'm not a single-issue voter, I have many more interests than guns. If my interests in life were confined soley to firearms, I couldn't consider that much of a life. Not for me anyway, if others primary concern in life is guns, well I wish them the best and hope they are happy. I love guns, but they are not my sole all-consuming issue in life, I have other things to do. Guns are a part of my life, but by no means everything my life revolves around. It just so happens that the Democratic party represents my interests way more than the Republican party, at least now a days. I certainly don't agree with every aspect of the Dems., but the Reps. represent my views even less.

We still haven't seen any definative proof that you even own guns. You have zero credibility in that department because your only purpose here is to "teach" us the glory of Obama. Want to prove me wrong? How about you answer my earlier questions from another thread

So tell us, since you love guns so much, how many guns do you own? What's your favorite gun? How often do you shoot? What gun(s) did you use when you supposedly taught other liberals how to shoot? Do you have a concealed carry permit? Do you own a firearm for defensive purposes? How long have you been shooting? How did you learn to shoot? What are your feelings about national gun registration? Would you go along with it? What about gun confiscations? Would you submit to a gun confiscation? What are your feelings about the "national security force" that Obama says we need?

I'm sure as a supposed law school grad, you know all about questioning someone to pin them down

John Brainard:No, the gov. might do something uncostitutional, but legal. The courts will keep them from enforcing an uncostitutional act. The gov. won't do something (usually) because it's illegal. If something is in violation of the law, it is illegal. If something (and it often has been a law) is in violation of the Cons., it cannot be enforced by the courts. An unconstitutional law is invalid, same as an illegal law. Neither can be enforced by the courts. Sometimes courts will enforce an illegal law, or unconstitutional law, but that is why we have appellate courts, and the S.C. Yes, it can be confusing, but I think we are on the same page.

Circular argument and flawed logic. If our law is based on the Constitution, but a law is passed that is unconstitutional, then it cannot be legal. Just because the gov't can do something does NOT make it right. Taking your "logic" to it's ultimate conclusion, then the gov't is infallible. Also, going by your reasoning, then everything the Nazis did was "legal" because it was all done under the guise of a government. You claim the gov't won't do something illegal? The ATF's actions at Ruby Ridge come to mind. The government's actions at Waco come to mind. How about the abuses of power committed by crooked cops? Last time I checked, the police were part of the government. How about all the illegal actions taken by members of Congress? Last time I checked, they were also part of the government. How about Obama sitting as head of the UN Security Council? That is illegal also. Don't believe me?

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State. - Article I, Section 9, Para 8, US Constitution

Uh oh, there I go quoting that pesky Constitution again. I guess I should just bow down to your knowledge and believe everything you say

Muddobber: Nobody with any idea about political systems would ever say that we are a democracy. Never have been, never will be. Only the uneducated or fools could believe this. We are a republic, this is common knowledge. Yeah, I know all about how Senators used to be appointed, no surprise to me, you are correct so far. Constitutionaly speaking (and I don't agree with this, but just sayin') the 10th Amen. means nothing. Try arguing a case before the S.C. on 10th Amen. grounds, likely you won't win. The 10th Amen. has been shunted aside and forgotten. For all intents and purposes, it means nothing.

Correct, we are not a democracy. But guess who started the concept that we were. Marxists. Marxists that infiltrated the colleges of this country.

The creation of the current confusion developed as a result of a new movement in the United States. Approximately 100 people met in New York in 1905 and organized what they called the Intercollegiate Socialist Society (ISS). Chapters were established on more than sixty college and university campuses coast-to-coast. In time the co-directors if the movement became Harry W. Laidler and Norman Thomas. Laidler explained that the ISS was set up to "throw light on the world-wide movement of industrial DEMOCRACY known as socialism. - The New York Times, 28 Jan, 1919

What was this new movement attempting to accomplish? Socialism is defined as "government ownership or control of all the means of production (farms, factories, mines, and natural resources) and all the means of distribution (transportation, communications, and the instruments of commerce)." Obviously, this is not a "democracy" in the classical sense. And it is the very antithesis of a free-market economy in a republic. - The 5000 Year Leap by W. Cleon Skousen, pg. 156

Why do I bring that up? Remember this quote I posted earlier...

"The Utopian schemes of leveling [redistribution of the wealth] and a community of goods [central ownership of the means of production and distribution], are as visionary and impractical as those which vest all property in the Crown. [These ideas] are arbitrary, despotic, and, in our government, unconstitutional." - Samuel Adams

Read carefully the definition of "socialism" given by Skousen. Now, compare that with what the gov't is doing currently. Gov't "bailouts" of major industries such as the banks, auto makers, etc. The FCC trying to force "diversity" onto media and the internet. Gee, it sure looks like socialism to me. And socialism is UNCOSTITUTIONAL, and therefore ILLEGAL, yet the gov't is practicing it. So tell me again how the gov't won't do anything illegal

Constitutionaly speaking (and I don't agree with this, but just sayin') the 10th Amen. means nothing. Try arguing a case before the S.C. on 10th Amen. grounds, likely you won't win. The 10th Amen. has been shunted aside and forgotten. For all intents and purposes, it means nothing.

Yet again you say the 10th Amendment means nothing, but yet here you say

One of the things taught in law schools is that every word of the Constitution is there for areason. The Founding Fathers deliberated over every word, and they knew the meaning of the words they used. They did not put in "extranoius" verbiage, so every word should (ought) to mean something.

So in one instance you say that everything in the Constitution has meaning, but in another you say that a part of the Constitution has no meaning Well, which is it?

Alright, now let' assume that the Const. means the same thing now as it did in 1789. Cartridge rifles were not extant then, so under a "static" Const., no right to own one. My piont here is, if we were to adopt a constructional interpretation of the Const. as rigid, or "static," we would, even granted the personal right (incorporated to the states) only be allowed to own flint-lock guns.

Ok, since you claim you minored in American History, you would know that the most common privately owned weapon at the time was the British Brown Bess musket. You would also know that the general issue weapon to the British Army was the Brown Bess musket. So logically, therefore, the Founding Fathers knew when they wrote the 2nd, that they were protecting the rights of the people to own military weaponry. So therefore, your attempt to argue that a "static" Constitution would only allow us to own flintlock muskets is wrong. The orginal intent of the 2nd was to allow the people to be armed in order to not only prevent a tyrannical gov't from imposing it's will on the people, but also so the armed populace could form the militia for national defence. A body of people used for national defense would be less that useless if not armed with the most modern military weaponry and trained in it's use.

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 birthright 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 - Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788

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 article in their right to keep and bear their private arms. - Tenche Coxe

...that standing army can never be formidable (threatening) to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in the use of arms. - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper #29

Little more can be aimed at with respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped. - Alexander Hamilton

A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms. - Richard Harry Lee

A WELL REGULATED militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country. - James Madison

As the greatest danger to liberty is from large standing armies, it is best to prevent them by an effectual provision for a good militia. - James Madison

I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people. - George Mason

From all of those quotes, you can derive one common theme, that ALL citizens were expected to compose the militia, and that the militia was to be trained and armed exactly as a regular, full-time, standing army. Therefore, it was the Founding Fathers' intention that all citizens would have access to military training and weaponry.

Please try to find fault with my arguments, but I'll only respond, non-dismissively or non-sarcasticlly, to those who can posit a reasoned argument.

You ask us to try and find fault in your posts, yet you become insulting when I and others do just that. Additionally, I have yet to see a post of yours that is NOT dismissive, sarcastic, or to see one that is a reasoned argument.

And If I don't reply to you, consider that I don't consider you in my league, much less worth my time.
I welcome well-reasoned debate (how else can I learn?), and have been known to concede a point when I'm wrong. However, I do not suffer fools, or those who make-up their own facts, gladly.

And here you go again trying to elevate yourself intellectually above others. I really enjoyed this part...

However, I do not suffer fools, or those who make-up their own facts, gladly.

. You say that, yet you continually make up your own facts.

By the way, I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on tv. I have the same training a lawyer does, but I'm not a lawyer.

If that's true, then how did you make the money to supposedly retire before you were 30? I think my previous thought on that matter was correct. You know, the one where I stated that you must be slinging some hardcore primo good dope, and partaking of it yourself.

Marlin T: I have no idea about what you mean. Oh yeah, I see now. He isn't not oo brights is he? Good catch.

Apparently, neither are you, what with your "5 people in black robes" comment. And I think you posted a coherent thought in that one. "He isn't not oo brights is he?" Another nugget of pure intellect from belercous.

You know, I don't blame you for wanting to ignore my posts. If I were you, I'd also ignore my posts. I'm ever so sorry that I actually use facts to back up my arguments and I'm really sorry that I have proof to back up my facts. I guess I should just start claiming to be a constitutional scholar like you and expect everyone to take what I say as gospel. Just because you claim to be a constitutional scholar and law school grad, does not make it fact. I could claim to be Khavek IV, Emperor of the Klingon Empire, but that doesn't make it true. You claim to have an extensive legal education, yet someone with only a high school education has continually proven you wrong. Whoever paid for your supposed education got ripped off.

[Eddie N]

Hope you don't mind my two cents, but I find the Constitution to be very self explanatory, if a little bit hard to read because of the language. Just read it as is and there you have it. And the second amendment says, in part, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed! And there was very good reason for this, and still is. And anybody who tries to take my "protection" away is asking for a severe case of lead poisoning! My apologies if I said anything I shouldn't have, but I have very strong feelings about this.

[bcj1755]

Originally Posted by belercous

The reason the Supreme Court has not given the right to own guns to the people is that, to date, the 2nd Amen. has always been held by the court to be a collective right of the people, a right given to each state. Like the 3rd Amen. Admittedly, the wording of the 2nd. Amen. could be clearer. If it were this would have been hashed out a long time ago. It seems the trouble with interpreting the 2nd Amen. as an individual right has to do with its preamble "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state.." Militias are not the same as me or you owning guns. Militias back then required certain responsibilities of their members, such as attendance at "musters." We have nothing like this in America today, but the Swiss model of militias are close to what our founders understanding of "militia" meant. The "security of a free state" part gives problems because it implies the right to own guns is granted for the benefit of the state, not individuals. The argument goes that if the Founding Fathers intended for individuals to own guns, they would have said so, but they didn't. They knew how to use words, they were the best, brightest and most edcuated people in America at that time.
"Bearing" arms meant, in 1789, carrying arms, as one would do at a militia muster. "Keeping" arms meant just that, keeping or owning them. The 2 words are not synonomous. The Founders (or so the prevailing wisdom of constituional scholars holds) did not put extraneous verbiage in the Constitution, every word has a meaning and no word is unneeded.

Maybe you need to do some more research about SCOTUS and the 2nd Amendment.

"Indeed, is not this so of acts done in the execution of any crime? Discharging a loaded pistol at a target is an innocent pastime; discharging a loaded pistol at a human being, with felonious intent, takes a quality from such intent and may constitute murder."

- Mr. Justice McKenna, Delivering the opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court, [HYDE v. U S, 225 U.S. 347 (1912), Page 225 U.S. 347, 360]

"If the Fifth Amendment confers its rights on all the world except Americans engaged in defending it, the same must be true of the companion civil-rights Amendments, for none of them is limited by its express terms, territorially or as to persons. Such a construction would mean that during military occupation irreconcilable enemy elements, guerrilla fighters, and "werewolves" could require the American Judiciary to assure them freedoms of speech, press, and assembly as in the First Amendment, right to bear arms as in the Second, security against "unreasonable" searches and seizures as in the Fourth, as well as rights to jury trial as in the Fifth and Sixth Amendments."

- MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, U.S. Supreme Court, [JOHNSON v. EISENTRAGER, 339 U.S. 763 (1950). Decided June 5, 1950. Page 339 U.S. 763, 784]

"The question, whether a law be void for its repugnancy to the constitution, is, at all times, a question of much delicacy, which ought seldom, if ever, to be decided in the affirmative in a doubtful case. The court, when impelled by duty to render such a judgment, would be unworthy of its station, could it be unmindful of the solemn obligations which that station imposes. But it is not on slight implication and vague conjecture that the legislature is to be pronounced to have transcended its powers, and its acts to be considered as void. The opposition between the constitution and the law should be such that the judge feels a clear and strong conviction of their incompatibility with each other.

- Chief Justice John Marshall, U.S. Supreme Court, Fletcher V. Peck, [6 Cranch, 87.] 1810.

"Also, the conditions and circumstances of the period require a finding that while the stated purpose of the right to arms was to secure a well-regulated militia, the right to self-defense was assumed by the Framers."

- John Marshall, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice. [As quoted in Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846); State v. Dawson, 272 N.C. 535, 159 S.E.2d 1, 9 (1968).]

"The Constitution and laws of the United States "are the supreme law of the land," anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary, notwithstanding." Their supremacy is thus declared in express terms: "Whatever conflicts therewith has no operative or obligatory force. Allegiance to the United States, and loyalty to the United States Constitution and laws, are the paramount duty of every citizen. Within their legitimate sphere, they command the obedience of all, and no State Constitution or statute can absolve any one therefrom....As it is both the right and duty of every citizen to become fully informed upon all governmental affairs, so as to discharge his many political obligations intelligently at the ballot-box, and in other legitimate ways; and the freedom of the press and of speech are guaranteed to him for that as well as other essential purposes; and as the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition for the redress of grievances, and to keep and bear arms, cannot be lawfully abridged or infringed...”

- CHARGE TO THE GRAND JURY BY THE COURT, United States Circuit Court, DISTRICT OF MISSOURI, SPECIAL JULY TERM, PRESENT: HON. JOHN CATRON, An Associate Justice of Supreme Court of United States. 1861. JULY 10, 1861.

Man, it looks like your "legal education" was spotty, at best.

[Bobitis]

I live in the State of Mind.
Therefore my security is paramount.
If I'm not safe in my own State, I'm worthless to anyone else.

Makes sense to me.

[Double D]

I am not edumacated enough to have a conversation with you belercous. I will say though that sometimes education stands in the way of common sense. I have attempted to read your posts and quite frankly I dont agree with your way of thinking. I feel like I am reading from someone who "thinks" they know it all. I am not attempting to fight with you but rather point out that your way of communication is a turn off. You come across as most liberals do. Its kind of like "I need to teach you a thing or two if your smart enough". Maybe its just me. Maybe its just that I dont share the same views. I honestly dont believe that the raw solid facts could sway you.

Since I have not been involved in these conversations, I may be out of line for jumping in at the end. Heck I may just be out of line. I just for the life of me cant figure out what it is you are trying to accomplish here. You said you wouldnt respond to anything that didnt fit your mold so you may not respond at all. You are not obligated to. I dont have any authority here any more than you do. It just doesnt seem to me that you are here to get to know anybody or share your gun stories or be part of the forum. Again maybe I am wrong.

I hold the members here in high regard. I hope to one day get to meet them all. I dont really care if they dont share all of my views or politcal stance. I feel like people here are like an extended family of sorts. And I think most of them are trustworthy good folks. So I guess im just not sure why you are here? Just wondering.......

[Teejay9]

Ah, sensible, respectful discourse. That's what makes this place so interesting. Guns certainly Aren't my life, either, but I do rather enjoy them. As for the 2nd Amnd., well, I guess we must agree to disagree. I believe that if it did NOT mean that THE PEOPLE were understood to have the God given right to keep and bear arms, the Ferderals would have begun to disarm the population immediately after the Civil War, what with all the killing and all. But no, they didn't even have an argument in Congress over it at that time. They just kept on letting people arm and protect themselves. Now, I myself, have no attachment to either party. I have found myself voting Republican over the years because they USED to let me keep my money and they USED to create jobs where I could make money. I find myself in the Libertarian/Independent class, but that's just a wasted vote (for now). I find it strange that some people get so riled up over a topic over which they have no control. I find it stranger that some people like to agitate others. But hey, that's just me. Harballer, thanks for the links, I thoroughly enjoyed them and they supported my already held beliefs. The rest of you, agitators and agitated, please continue. It's quite absorbing. TJ

[RDak]

The biggest point I think belercous misses is this IMHO:

The SCOTUS ruled in Heller, supra, that an individual, unconnected to a militia, can own a firearm for self defense purposes.

It was a close decision but that is now the law of the land. And Scalia wrote a very detailed explanation as to why that is now the law of the land.

There has never been a 2nd Amendment case heard by the SCOTUS addressing incorporation. And this is especially "brought home" when reading Heller.

Footnote 23, in Heller states:

“With respect to Cruikshank’s continuing validity on incorporation, a question not presented by this case, we note that Cruikshank also said that the First Amendment did not apply against the States and did not engage in the sort of Fourteenth Amendment inquiry required by our later cases. Our later decisions in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 265 (1886) and Miller v. Texas, 153 U. S. 535, 538 (1894), reaffirmed that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government.”

I'm curious how anyone unbiased could read this footnote and still feel the Court will deny incorporation. This footnote begs for future litigation and the Court did accept the incorporation case VERY quickly.

Belercous has to remember that the States signed a contract to become part of the Union. Certain universal rights have to be honored by the States as part of this contract. Sure this is a double edged sword but I cannot think of a more basic, universal right than the right allowed in Heller (i.e., that an individual, unconnected with a militia, has the right to own a firearm for self-defense purposes).

The Heller decision details why this individual right is fundamental and universal. Heller concludes this right precedes the constitution and has, for all intents and purposes, a life of its own based on my reading of Heller.

No it is not a "coin-toss" whether we win the incorporation case as belercous opines IMHO. It is a slam dunk IMHO. It may be a 5-4 decision but so be it.

I guess what I'm saying is belercous should read, and reread, Heller to gain a full understanding of how the 2nd Amendment is now interpreted by the highest court in the land. (His opinions seem to be based on arguments decided upon and rejected by Heller, supra, IMHO.)

By doing so, he will gain an understanding that the founding fathers clearly assumed, and wanted, individuals to have the unfettered right to own firearms to guard against tyranny, (i.e., whether it be tyranny from government intrusion or tyranny derived from lawlessness).

[GMFWoodchuck]

Belercous, if your education in law school never brought you to the federalist papers written by our founding fathers, and their intentions of the constitution and bill of rights, then I understand the total dimay of our legal system.

If a law is in violation of a supreme law (constitutional law) it is, by definition, an illegal law. If you chose to use the word "invalid" then so be it. Most anyone else will chose not to pervert the constitution and use words to attempt to soften the blow of a gross violation of the costitution. And, what difference it makes I have no idea? Illegal, unconstitutional, invalid. They all point to the same meaning....Flat out WRONG!!

If you think our interpretation of the constitution is static, then I suggest that you get off of that computer of yours being that you think that the writers of the constitution never saw the internet coming and therefore must not apply to the first ammendment. I fully assure you of the fact that, our founding fathers all imagined the concept of a repeating rifle without ever a second thought to even a concept of what the internet is.

The intentions of our founding fathers is very clear. If you chose not to understand their writings on the constitution, then so be it. Do not pretend to be a scholar when you ignore the fact they there are tons and tons of information written by almost every single person directly involved in the birth of the concept of our nation and the intentions be each and every single word they wrote in the constitution.

When you chose to not read posts by other members in this forum because you can not comprehend the valid thoughts that they provide it only shows what our law schools are teaching our potential lawmaker. Pure ignorance through refusal to understand simple basic concepts.

The constitution was designed to make our government(s) weak and fearful of the citizenry. The constitution was designed to make the citzenry the holder of absolute power. Hence the reasons for the bill of rights. No, we are not a democracy. No one has the time to deal with the daily nonsense of the affairs of our government. We hire politicians to vote on the day to day business. I have no intentions of going to a voting booth every thirty seconds just because my fellow citizen(s) thought of an idea that should be motioned into law. No group of large people will ever be a democracy. However, as a citizen of the United States of America, no person shall ever take away my basic right to speech and self-defense. That is wht the constitution and bill of rights is all about. The constitution is about who maintains the ultimate control. I intend on keeping my fair share of it.

If you think your experience with a traffic tickets will give you your guns back, have a ball and run with that fleeting dream. Because when a ban comes, and it will, it has in the course in every single nations' history, I will KEEP my share of what's mine. You do not seem to understand that when a government intitutes a weapons ban against it's citizens, it's for quite negative reasons.

Our founding fathers meant for us to have the same very weapons that the militia has. Be it flintlocks or the M249 SAW. Our founding fathers wrote the 2nd ammendment. And explained it in the ferderalist papers (which you apparently have never heard of) afterwards, that because a government needs a militia (this is not the local citizens militia, they were clearly talking about an organized army and navy) we need a means of self defense against that very militia. The ultimate check and balance. The freedom of speech is the ultimate check and balance to the "militia's" command structure.

But this, I'm sure, will fall on your deaf ears; Belercous. Because you seem to think that our president has done none of these things to circumvent us. You believe that our president didn't marginalize our troops. You believe that our president didn't try to take away FOX's ability to report the news. You must also, I presume, believe that our president never voted to ban handguns in Illinois. You must believe that our president is like every other politician in office. An honest, caring, man who takes care of his constituents. One who takes care of his grandmother in Kenya as she lives on the edge of starvation in a shed not good enough for your lawnmower.

Keep believing that our leaders are a good group of people. And keep believing that you will get your guns back after they take them away and melt them down. Keep believing this as did Hitler's and Pol Pot's constituients.

[Double D]

I have said in previous posts that it is impossible to "reason" with certain people. This is in fact the perfect representation of that mindset. I hate to see so much effort go to waste.

[GMFWoodchuck]

Originally Posted by Double D

I have said in previous posts that it is impossible to "reason" with certain people. This is in fact the perfect representation of that mindset. I hate to see so much effort go to waste.

Unfortunately, you are correct.

[armedandsafe]

While it might be impossible to "reason" with certain people, it is good exercise for us to do so here. Many of the points brought up here, on both sides, are presented in such a way that we can hone our thinking, preparations and arguments for the coming fights to keep and regain our rights.

Good job, folks. Thank you.

Pops

[Double D]

Pops, while I do agree with you about debate being a good brain exercise, I have a hard time with the know it all additude and the "I will only respond if someone is on my level" mindset. While I have had a couple of small debates with a member or two, I will never try to take the stance that I am smarter than someone else or that they dont warrant a response. I have used some strong one sided language in a few conversations and I have also made a few attempts to reach out to some with the opposite views.
I am not an expert on anything. I will never make that claim. I dont like it much when I feel like myself or others are being talked down to. Heck we all pull our pants up the same way. Im just sayin......

[armedandsafe]

DD, I understand what you are saying. However, by drawing him out we have made him "show his true colors" as it were. That is a good thing.

Pops

[PharmrJohn]

Originally Posted by armedandsafe

While it might be impossible to "reason" with certain people, it is good exercise for us to do so here. Many of the points brought up here, on both sides, are presented in such a way that we can hone our thinking, preparations and arguments for the coming fights to keep and regain our rights.

Good job, folks. Thank you.

Pops

Ab*so*lute*ly. I posted my thought, sat back....and read the posts. And I have learned quite a lot from this. There are points on both sides, at least, it seems to me there is. I would post more.....but frankly, I know just about as much as I said in my first post. A cut and paste with, quite frankly, a pretty lame interpretation. But since it was all I had....I went with it.

And while the reasoning part of it goes both ways, that is what a good debate is for. To strengthen each other's knowledge base.

Thank you all for your posts. Rock on.......John.

[GMFWoodchuck]

Originally Posted by armedandsafe

DD, I understand what you are saying. However, by drawing him out we have made him "show his true colors" as it were. That is a good thing.

Pops

True, some arguments are worth having. Especially if it shows true colors.

[Bobitis]

Originally Posted by GMFWoodchuck

True, some arguments are worth having. Especially if it shows true colors.

I'm not here to argue with anyone. The term just sounds non-winable.
Debate? Yes, by all means.
And that term would imply one is open to new ideas worthy of exploration.

That is a good thing for all involved.
None have perfect insight. All are subject to new ideas.

When we chooose to ignore all other ideas, we lose.

Plenty of room at the table.

[Southern Boy]

HMMMMM, while some on this site are not sure what the founding fathers really meant in the 2nd. amendment, we can know for sure. How you may ask? Just read what they themselves had to say on the subject.----http://www.scribd.com/doc/19804397/ContemplatIons-of-Our-Founding-Fathers-and-Others-on-the-Right-to-Keep-and-Bear-Arms --or this one -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9P49P6aZR7c --There are many other sites where this type of info can be found on line. They most certainly had a lot to say on the matter, to support their arguement for the citizens to keep and bear arms.

[DemoDick115]

I believe that the 2nd Amendment states that militias and arms are to be protected. Militias being any group of men between the ages of 18 and 45. Arms was to mean ANY weapon. Weapon bans are completely un-Constitutional wether it is banning a knife, a firearm, a sword, etc etc. What alot of people go nuts over is the word "regulated" as in "A well REGULATED militia..." As determined by the Supreme Court "regulated" means trained and/or disciplined. Also training does NOT have to come from a U.S. Gov. Agency as said by the Supreme Court. I could go out and teach a group of men how to shoot rifles and that would suffice in the way of "regulated" And for those on this site who know i am only 14 the Supreme Court ruling said nothing on the age of the teacher for i would not be a part of the militia thus i would not have to be between the ages of 18 and 45. Just to cover my ass

[Diamondback]

This has been an interesting thread. I have learned in my lifetime that an education does not impart either wisdom or knowledge. Belercous you are, IMHO, an educated moron. The thought that we should not fight back because we could lose didn't enter into the founding fathers reasoning. After all, if they had placidly handed over their weapons simply because the king said to then we would still subjects of the english royalty.
I read the Declaration, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in high school and had absolutely no problem understanding what they meant to say.
I have to admit that the last time I read or heard such drivel from a mewling, slackjawed, inbred cretin was the time I heard gore claiming he was robbed. I didn't buy into his idiocy either.

I ask the moderators to please forgive what may be considered flaming, but sometimes..............

As for you belecous if I have in any offended or upset you---- tango sierra. Take your whining rant to the Chaplain. Maybe he will hold your hand.

[Double D]

Originally Posted by Diamondback

This has been an interesting thread. I have learned in my lifetime that an education does not impart either wisdom or knowledge. Belercous you are, IMHO, an educated moron. The thought that we should not fight back because we could lose didn't enter into the founding fathers reasoning. After all, if they had placidly handed over their weapons simply because the king said to then we would still subjects of the english royalty.
I read the Declaration, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in high school and had absolutely no problem understanding what they meant to say.
I have to admit that the last time I read or heard such drivel from a mewling, slackjawed, inbred cretin was the time I heard gore claiming he was robbed. I didn't buy into his idiocy either.

I ask the moderators to please forgive what may be considered flaming, but sometimes..............

As for you belecous if I have in any offended or upset you---- tango sierra. Take your whining rant to the Chaplain. Maybe he will hold your hand.

Uhh, this person you are worried about offending is a "former guest" from two years ago. Not really sure why this old thread was dug up....

[Diamondback]

Originally Posted by Double D

Uhh, this person you are worried about offending is a "former guest" from two years ago. Not really sure why this old thread was dug up....

Unusual for me I didn't look at the original post date, DUH. as for offending him I just don't GAS. I was more worried about offending the mods.

[TotheTop83]

old thread but WTH, might as well throw this out there.

Check out US v Miller, Printz v US, and Lewis v US.

In a nutshell: The 2nd Amendment technically doesn't protect any weapon that is not in "common usage in modern warfare." Miller was found guilty of violating the national firearms act (the merits of which can be debated in another discussion) with a short-barreled shotgun not because it was considered too dangerous, but because it was NOT a weapon of modern warfare. In reality, it was, the court just didn't realize that. The point is, the court decided that the 2nd Amendment protects the right of citizens to possess the very "assault" weapons that so many people are opposed to.

Secondly (and I can't remember the case, sorry. I'm too lazy to look it up.) in order to decide on what "well regulated militia" meant, the court actually went back to dictionaries from the time the amendment was written to decide what the writers meant. The court found that (as someone above me mentioned) any male of fighting age was deemed to be part of the militia. There was no requirement for formal drilling of any kind; just to be a male and be 18-45 or so.

Just thought I'd throw that out there in case some people weren't already aware. Our Supreme Court actually seems to be holding the line on the 2nd Amendment, for now. When Obozo appoints his two new justices I'm sure that'll change.

[armedandsafe]

US v Miller is an interesting display of misinterpretation. What the Court said was that they could not rule on whether the weapon was in common use in the military because NO EVIDENCE HAD BEEN PRESENTED by the defendant, Miller, who was dead at the time. The Court cannot rule on what was not presented and cannot rule on points that are not before the Court.

If you go to court to defend yourself on a traffic violation, don't complain that the Court didn't find Nixon innocent during your trial.

Pops

[TotheTop83]

The court wrote: "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."

Which implies that had evidence been presented, the second amendment would guarantee the right to keep and bear such an instrument. In other words, show us it has a relationship to a militia and it is protected.