Posted on 01/07/2005 9:56:54 AM PST by neverdem
This is not about my happiness or yours.
cyn, these people are exhausting. :)
I ain't giving up until one of you gun-nuts tells me why it's okay for a naturalized muslim terrorist(or anybody else for that matter) to walk arround with a nuke.
115 vic heller
:)
I ain't giving up until one of you gun-nuts tells me why it's okay for a naturalized muslim terrorist(or anybody else for that matter) to walk arround with a nuke.
115 vic heller
Some very good info in my opinion.
It's purpose?
To keep us quiet while the gun grabbers enact more 'law'.
jones
Vic check comment# 129.
Frank do you still have that essay of yours? Happy New Year!
Most folks will agree that individual rights to small arms, i.e. handguns, rifles and shotguns, should not be infringed. At the time the Militia Act was written in 1792, most crew served weapons, i.e. cannons and mortars, were stored in the local armory. It is legal for civilians to own machineguns, although you need a probably unconstitutional license from the feds.
Explosive ordinance for modern weapons is quite expensive, if not illegal, and there's almost nowhere to go to blast off and have fun. The proverbial "suitcase nuke" would not be too easy to tote around unless there's no shielding around it to prevent the escape of radiation.
I was busy before. This is the first chance I had to answer.
Ambiguity? Bull Pucky!! With just a few changes in nouns, the so-called ambiguity dissappears...
"A well-regulated Orchestra being necessary to the Pride of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear trombones shall not be infringed."
There is absolutely nothing I said that would qualify me as a "gungrabber".
You are thoroughly discredited.
BTW, I did. I can't help it if you have poor comprehension skills.
...because you can't give me a clear definition of Second Amendment rights.
It's given in the Justice Depts Memorandum. -- Obviously, you haven't even bothered to read it.
Again, I'm trying to learn your position on arms. Help!
Sorry kiddo, but your posts here belie that you're trying to learn. I'd say you're trying to bash us "gun nuts", as you've put it more than once.
Sure do and I shall post it for your perusal.
Gun grabbers are increasingly trying to separate the right to keep and bear arms from its constitutional underpinnings. To everyone but liberals and gun grabbers the word militia implies a body organized for military use. The Supreme Court Miller decision of 1939 held that the militia was '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."
To begin with, only the national government was represented at the trial. With nobody arguing to the contrary, the court followed standard court procedure and assumed that the law was constitutional until proven otherwise. If both sides were present, the outcome may have been much different.
However, since only one party showed up, the case will stand in the court records as is. As to the militia, Mr. Justice McReynolds related the beliefs of the Founding Fathers when commenting historically about the Second Amendment. He stated that, ". . .The common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the militia- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.
"The significance attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.
It is clear that the firearms that are most suited for modern-day militia use are those semi automatic military pattern weapons that the yellow press calls "assault weapons". Since nations such as the Swiss trust their citizenry with true selective fire assault rifles, it seems to me that this country ought to be at least able to trust its law-abiding citizenry with the semi automatic version.
Self-defense is a vital corollary benefit of the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. But its primary constitutional reason for being is for service in the well-regulated militia which is necessary to the security of a free state. WE must be prepared to maintain that security against even our own forces that are responding to the orders of a tyrannical government, and the only viable way to counter a standing army's qualitative advantage is with a huge quantitative one. Don't let the gun grabbers and their politician allies separate us from the constitutional reason for the right to keep and bear arms. Miltary pattern weapons are precisly the weapons that should be MOST constitutionally protected. Even defenders of the right often neglect the constitutional aspect of it, and concentrate on their near non-existent use in crime.
Gun grabbers love to haul out their straw man argument of tanks, howitzers, bazookas, flame throwers, satchel charges, whenever we defenders of the constitution reference the type of modern day INDIVIDUAL military small arm protected by Amendment #2. The modern day individual firearm for a soldier is usually a selective fire assault rifle and/or a semi-auto handgun.
We need to constantly remind the people what the militia in the 2nd amendment is REALLY for..... A citizen body organized for military purposes and by extension, logically equipped with weapons of military utility. Just consider that the founders of our nation had just finished defeating the greatest military power on the planet, thanks in no small part to a citizen militia, armed with military weapons such as the smooth bore Brown Bess musket, and often technologically superior rifled muskets. It is the height of absurdity to think that the second amendment in the Bill of Rights is primarily concerned with shooting bunny rabbits.
If we don't constantly emphasize the constitutional reasons for the Second Amendment than we shall surely lose it, because hunting, while a worthy enterprise, is too trivial a reason to maintain it has a constitutional protection. We need to emphasize to our hunting bretheren that maintenance of the second amendment's constitutional rationale serves to protect their rights to continue to own firearms for hunting. The second amendment is literally the final check for the preservation of our republic from the depredations of untrammeled tyranny.
The Bill of Rights does not confer or grant rights, it protects and codifies preexisting rights granted by the The Creator.
Actually, while it may have been dicta, it need not (and wasn't IIRC) an amendment. Dicta is language in a court's opinion which doesn't directly bear upon the rational for the bottom line decision. Emerson *lost* in the 5th circuit (although he needed to lose there if the Supreme Court were to take up the case, which they refused to do). Some would call the pro individual right language in the 5th Circuit's decision dicta, others would not. I'm in the later group myself.
Dershowitz has also come down on the right side of this argument, i.e., as an individual right.
Thank you Frank!
Vic read comment# 153.
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.