Posted on 07/30/2004 8:17:31 AM PDT by Hillary's Lovely Legs
I am filling out a survey about gun ownership and have been asked about a .50 cal BMG rifle.
Could you please explain to me what this is and what it's used for?
Thank you
Tell me why you believe that the second amendment is referring to an entity other than state militias (as in the state of Virginia).
Problem is, you don't think that.
Yes. If you have good reason to believe that there is a fire, then it should not be illegal to yell "Fire". If someone mistakenly tells you that there is a fire, and you believe them, it should not be illegal to warn others. If it should turn out that you were deceived, even purposely, that should not make you guilty of a criminal act.
If you are a performer on a stage, acting the role of a night watchman who is depicted discovering a fire, then it should not be illegal to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater. This actually occurs in the movie "Torn Curtain" and I don't think Paul Newman should be considered guilty of a crime.
The speech itself is protected. The consequences of the intentions of the speaker are the legal issue. And with the Second Amendment, the right of the people to keep and bear arms should not be infringed. If someone's keeping and bearing of arms results in an intentional and unjustified harmful result, then that result may have legal consequences.
There can even be legal consequences to unintentional, unjustified harmful results, though they tend to be situational and the punishments lighter. With no harmful result, then no crime.
Yeah, they're called "gangs".
You're really reaching with this "unorganized militia" argument. Yes, the militia is us. Some of us be armed. That does not mean we qualify for second amendment protection. Geez.
(yes to your 397)
There is an unalienable right to life which includes self defense. This cannot be taken away.
But the type of self defense can be regulated by law. Just because you have that right doesn't mean you can use a gun to accomplish it.
I most certainly do think that. And so did the US Supreme Court in Miller. They didn't consider what state Miller was from and read the Constitution of that state.
The concept is that of securing a free state. It applies to any government. Do you think that the security of a free territory, pre-statehood, is somehow achieved without a well-regulated militia?
You seem to equate lack of protection to lack of necessity. The Ninth Circuit's decision in Silveira didn't suddenly make the necessity of a well-regulated militia disappear for Kalifornia. The necessity wasn't created by the Constitution any more than the right to keep and bear arms was created by the Second Amendment.
Governments are instituted among men and derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. How can a territory adopt a constitution and become a state of the union without some appreciation for the rights of man. First comes the consent. Then the derived powers. The consent cannot be given by a disarmed people.
But if you can use mace, pepper spray, a club, knife, taser, etc., then that's better than nothing. Otherwise, change the state constitution or move.
I am quoting case law.
Well, you won't get that on these threads. You get honesty -- it just sounds like atttude.
You can't fix something until you know where it's broken.
What nonsense.
You may remove the claws from a mother bear. But you cannot remove the innate justification for the bear being born with claws.
Every disarmed person who dies at the hands of criminals in the state of Kalifornia has been denied their right to life by the state.
Every disarmed Jew who was gassed in the ovens at Aushwitz was denied their right to life by the state. Do you think they were justifiably disarmed? It was perfectly legal in Germany to ship them off to camps and kill them.
Our nation is just one terror attack away from a new understanding of self-defense. The people on flight 93 had to face box-cutters with coffee pots and bare hands. They saved the lives of people on the ground but they were not successful at saving themselves.
You can believe that the government has the power to dictate how you defend yourself. I know better and I will act long before allowing attackers to have the upper hand.
Is that what you think of the WWII soldiers returning to Athens, Tennessee. They took up arms to drive a corrupt sheriff out of town. Were they just a gang? Or did they have every right to defend themslves from official corruption?
Gangs use their arms to commit crimes. The unorganized militia uses its arms to secure a free state. Were the Korean shopkeepers during the L.A. riots just a gang? Or were they defending themselves. Do you expect them to use mace against a mob intent on sacking their stores and taking off the inventory that took them a lifetime to accumulate?
That militia disappeared long before Silveira showed up.
If California had a decent state constitution that protected the RKBA, Silveira wouldn't need to seek second amendment protection from the federal government. His own state constitution would protect his rights.
The citizens of California have spoken. So be it.
Haven't you heard the term "tyranny of the majority"? Kalifornia is caught in a "pure democracy" trap. Entitlements have become so lucrative that people flock to the state to take advantage of them.
There is no way to wrest control of this greedy majority. The representatives, who our Founders expected would be motivated by the highest ideals of human accomplishment, instead pander to the lowest expectation.
Budgets are not passed on time and include deficit spending hidden with smoke and mirrors. The courts allow any liberal joke to go unchallenged. The majority in Kalifornia is getting what it wants, but it will destroy the state.
You have told me to change the state constitution or move. Those are the two priorities in my life now. But when the time comes that I do move, it will probably be the last move. If I move to your state and the majority infringes my rights, what then?
Got it.
Now, how does robertpaulsen interpret the Second Amendment?
Typo. Are you going to address the point or not?
We didn't get to this point, where our rights are so circumscribed, overnight and we're not going to get them back overnight either. Demanding all or nothing, immediately, will result in nothing - or worse, further infringements.
Everything in your post is a legitimate gripe, but it doesn't change the meaning of the Constitution. If the 2nd amendment can be properly enforced (that is, by de-fanging all federal gun-control "laws", including the 1968 act), then it will be considerably harder for states to maintain enforcement of their gun control.
But the more case law I read, the more I'm drifting to the "limited individual rights model". I do not believe in the "collective rights model".
In Miller, why did the USSC question the weapons relationship to a militia? If the second amendment guarantees an individual RKBA (as you say), then why is the type of arms important to the USSC? And why must those arms be related to a militia?
Let's be honest here. If that were the criteria, then the right to keep and bear machine guns must be allowed -- they are certainly used by a well regulated militia in modern times.
Let's say the Miller case came back to the USSC with the finding that this weapon was indeed used by militia. What do you think the USSC would have said? Do you think that the USSC would have allowed this militia weapon to be owned and used by an individual outside the confines of a well regulated militia? (ie., for personal use?)
And what makes you think that?
The militia clause is there for a reason.
The reason is to explain why the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed - because a well-regulated (properly-functioning) militia is necessary to the security of a Free State.
How "Free" are we if the government can throw us in jail for merely possessing the same arms used by our standing army?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.