Posted on 01/07/2005 9:56:54 AM PST by neverdem
Along a good supply of hand grenades, and a few LAW rockets and launchers in each squad or company. The other side uses RPGs in lieu of the LAWs, but the purpose is the same.
the whole "militia" argument is spurious anyway: "milita" means every (male) citizen of able body at least 17 years of age.
nice to see that someone else understands the ramifications of USCon:Sec8:11.
Don't forget the HIPPA regulations that outlaw revealing someone's medical files.
Let me ask you this: Does a person lose his right to speak forever after being convicted of slander? If a person yelled "FIRE!" in a crowded theather and caused a panic where people were killed, is that person barred from becoming a writer? Is that person barred from partaking in their own defense or can they be compelled to give witness against themselves?
The Second Amendment is just as important and valid as the First.
Perhaps because it just isn't so.
Our Founders had no intention to restrict in any fashion the arms that would be kept by the people.
As an example, the First Amendment prohibits Congress from abridging freedom of speech. At the time this amendment was written the Internet didn't exist. There would have been no way for someone to violate a copyright by sending several million copies electronically in milliseconds at the push of a button. Our Founders MIGHT have considered this to be an important exception, but they didn't mention it. And it is NOT an exception.
Likewise, our Founders didn't consider the possibility that millions of people could be murdered in a flash at the push of a button. They might have considered this an important exception. BUT THEY DIDN'T !!!
What they did forsee was the periodic necessity to amend the Constitution. They explicitly stated how it was to be done. It has been successfully done over two dozen times. Such a mechanism is available whenever the PEOPLE decide to use it. But don't waste your breath suggesting to me that it be done until all illegal registrations of my firearms are destroyed, when it is legal for me to remove the serial number from my firearms, and when the tyrannical state of Kalifornia is prohibited from infringing my right to keep and bear arms.
Even us gun nuts can figure this.. - Why can't you?
144 jones
Perhaps because it just isn't so.
Our Founders had no intention to restrict in any fashion the arms that would be kept by the people.
Do you really think the founders meant to protect a 'right' to carry & use smallpox infected blankets or vials of poison?
Chemical & biological weapons existed in colonial times, and their use could hardly have been meant to be protected by our RKBA's.
>>But not among patriots...<<
Are you referring to the patriots who wrote the Patriot Acts?
This old saw about "Private Ownership Of Nukes" always gets trotted out because it makes good sensationalism.
However, it does raise the question of whether there is a boundary condition for possession of indiscriminately destructive materials.
The issue with area weapons is not their destructiveness, but their *indiscriminate* destructiveness. How one can split hairs in legal definitions is a good question. For instance, in my favorite example, while nuclear devices are indiscriminately dangerous if detonated on Earth, a progressive civilization (Eat that word, DU trolls) might well legalize them for target practice in 155 mm howitzers in the asteroid belt.
Only one thing is certain: if I get a spacecraft, a 155mm howitzer, and a supply of shells, that damned Dick Cheney will one-up me by buying a full-auto one.
(Think the argument's gone far enough yet?)
I agree. I have always held that the term "collective right" was an oxymoron, not unlike the words, the "living dead". Rights are the reserve of individuals. Government does not have any rights, only powers. When a "right" has been truly demoted to being considered "collective", it ceases to be a right and is now a government power. You're right about it being nothing but a ploy of words that sound like they mean something, but mean nothing.
The Founding Fathers were conscious of the use of the terms "Rights" and "Powers". They used them purposely and specifically, never interchangeably. Had their intent been a "collective right" (?) for states militias, the 2nd Amendment would have read: "..,Congress shall not infringe upon the powers of the states to organize and arm militias". We both know that's not how the 2nd. Amendment reads, or what it means.
There is no way the 2nd Amendment could possibly refer to anything other than an individual right, because there is NO NEED to codify a collective right to bear arms!
Does anyone think the Founding Fathers were so trivially stupid that they would have bothered to codify the right of the Government to raise an army?
When in the entire history of mankind (prior to Karl Marx, at least) has the right of sovereign states to defend themselves by armed force been in question? No one who should be allowed out without a minder, would bother to AMEND a Constitution to codify such a right!
(Note for students of logic... this proof is called a "reductio ad absurdum" - you assume the claim is true, and then if when extrapolating to its logical outcome it produces a nonsensical conclusion, the original claim is proven to be false.)
(Note to leftist Demonrat trolls - the preceding is beyond your comprehension, so just keep screaming mindlessly for gun control so we can continue to defeat you.)
Perhaps you can quote me some federal law at that time against those.
I vaguely recall reading that dead animals were catapulted into Vicksburg during the Civil War siege in order to create a diseased environment which would encourage capitulation. Am I mistaken about this?
You would certainly not make the claim that nuclear weapons do not have a useful military purpose, would you? There apparently exist very low yield tactical nuclear weapons. What is so magical about them that the US government and its military can use them but you would deny them to a militia intent on freeing the people from a tyrannical government?
Irresponsible use of any arms can be criminalized. Keeping and bearing arms of any kind is protected from infringement by the Second Amendment.
Would you personally refuse to use smallpox to defeat a United Nations army occupying the US? If a vial of poison was available to you and was the only means you had to protect your family from being murdered, would you hesitate?
One of the first acts of a tyranny is to disarm the enslaved population.
For a test of how clear the distinctions you have in mind are, try writing the Amendment necessary to restrict the arms you have in mind.
But neither do its restrictions prevent you from shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater, that is really on fire. Even limits have limits. The fact is that the 2nd. Amendment is an individual right, but no right, including the 2nd., is absolute. What are its limits in regard to the individual vs society, with the individual consideration paramount in all limits? That, IMHO, is the real question.
You're right at the core of the issue here.
Leftists would rather restrict the rights of ALL of us, than keep the mentally ill locked up. That's socialism - you just hammer everyone down to the lowest common denominator.
Since we just "Can't" keep dangerous criminals and the mentally ill locked up permanently, because it wouldn't be "Fair" to them, we would rather, in the interest of "Fairness", just assume everyone is a criminal or a nut when they want to purchase a firearm, and then subject them to an "Insatant Check" (or whatever) to make them prove that they're NOT a criminal or a nutcase!! (That's more "Fair", in the mind (?) of a leftist Demonrat socialist subhuman insect microbe ground-zero NUKE target.) (Is my attitude showing, or anything?)
Meanwhile, note that(1) the aforementioned "Insatant Check" can ONLY detect those who have ALREADY BEEN DEEMED BY THE GOVERNMENT (all bow) to be untrustworthy - it can't POSSIBLY detect anyone who doesn't already HAVE a record - and (2) the SELFSAME GOVERNMENT (on your knees, scum!) which let the aforementioned unworthies OUT in the first place, is now demanding that we ordinary, non-criminal, non-nutcase citizens prove that we are not somebody the Government (On your FACE, worm!!) doesn't trust!!!
Makes perfect sense to ME... (at least, when viewed through a telescopic sight).
But you're making my point... it's the deployment that's the issue, not the mere possession.
Even a million pounds of blackpowder can be stored safely, if it's in small units kept far enough apart to prevent chain detonation, or stored behind blast doors, etc... but "walking around" with it, is a different story.
Actually, it didn't even say that. All it said was that if Miller/Layton wanted to make such claim, they would have to prove it in court; the only reason they failed to do so is that the government plea-bargained the case on the only surviving co-defendant to 'time served'.
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.