Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 11/02/2001 2:54:29 PM PST by Fixit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-28 next last
To: *bang_list
Oops, I lost a <p> there towards the end between the last paragraph and the bio.
2 posted on 11/02/2001 2:55:42 PM PST by Fixit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Fixit
The Amendment speaks of a "militia"

It sure does. Too bad this brain-dead moron doesn't realize that there were three "branches" of the military in the Revolutionary era - regulars (Washington's troops), irregulars (Minutemen), and militia (every other able-bodied male).
3 posted on 11/02/2001 2:58:24 PM PST by FreedomIsSimple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Fixit
...the Constitution guarantees a limited right... Orwellian doublespeak ROTB
4 posted on 11/02/2001 3:21:44 PM PST by dasboot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Fixit
The phrase "bear arms" in 1789 was at its core a military phrase: it referred to those who bore arms in the context of military service rather than those who carried guns merely for hunting or sport.

Back then, words meant different things than they do now. Just hand over your guns, it's what the framers would have wanted. </sarcasm>

6 posted on 11/02/2001 3:36:15 PM PST by xm177e2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: AnnaZ; Mercuria
PING for your input
7 posted on 11/02/2001 3:39:41 PM PST by 68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Fixit
The Second Amendment's syntax, too, suggests that the "militia" and the "people" are, roughly speaking, synonymous; the use of "people" in the Amendment's second clause in effect refers back to the use of "militia" in its introductory clause...


Well I'll be. I think he's right, everybody, I THINK HE'S HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD!

If the people and the militia are one in the same, then only the people/militia are entitled to the rights outlined in the constitution. And according to him, that typically excludes women, children, anyone unwilling to serve his or her country, etc....
9 posted on 11/02/2001 3:43:28 PM PST by Demosthenes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Fixit
Jointly and separately, they have published over one hundred law review review articles and four books....And they're STILL dumbassed liberal commie ba$tards!!
10 posted on 11/02/2001 3:44:42 PM PST by gimme1ibertee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Fixit
��5{��������g to ask some real questions and I'm not looking for flames, so let's be serious here.

Why does the ammendment bring up the militia? If the framers wanted an unlimited individual right to bear arms why did they include that at all?

Should there be an unlimited right to bear arms or are some restrictions ok? And where to you draw the line?

How do you even define "arms"? Certainly, weapons exist now that the framers couldn't even imagine. Can you own a cannon.... a tank? Only handheld? How about hand-held rocket launchers, machine guns, grenade launchers?

If you believe that some reasonable regulation is ok, do you think it's a mistake for the NRA to take a Zero-regulation stance instead of working for a compromise?

Again, I'm not taking a stance here and not looking for flames; just interested in some well-thought out opinions.
12 posted on 11/02/2001 3:47:23 PM PST by moderation_is_not_a_bad_thing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Fixit
They don't dare consult the words of the people that actually wrote the Constitution, now do they?
13 posted on 11/02/2001 3:49:19 PM PST by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Fixit
The Fourteenth Amendment is likewise infamous. The Reconstruction Act would not allow the Southern states that had not yet passed the Amendment back into Congress unless they passed the Amendment.

So, the Fourteenth Amendment, if it was ever passed at all, was passed under duress.

Also, "priveleges and immunities" are granted by the government and not the same as rights, which are not granted by government but possessed by citizens.

So the view of the Civil War legislators is not so much individualistic as it is paternalistic, and that is a fraud when the subject of concern is liberty.

And is "keep" a military phrase too?

The authors are guilty of the same selective vision they would project on the Fifth Circuit.

14 posted on 11/02/2001 3:52:51 PM PST by SteveH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Fixit
Oh, I see.......The Bill of Rights is of the people, for the people & by the people...EXCEPT #2? Yeah, THAT makes sense. And, while I'm at it...since WHEN does a state have to GIVE ITSELF A RIGHT???
21 posted on 11/02/2001 4:12:41 PM PST by Puppage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Fixit
This article is full of lies and half-truths.

You should have posted this with a LIAR alert.

26 posted on 11/02/2001 4:32:10 PM PST by wcbtinman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Fixit
Government negates what the individual is. They claim individuals are incompetent to own guns without 20,000 laws/restrictions placed on them. Weapons don't kill people-- people kill people.

The government attempts to negate the fact that each individual must be responsible for his or her own actions. They compromise every individual's right to be an individual. An individual is responsible for his or her own acts. As individuals, most congresspersons must be held accountable for their irresponsible actions.

Just as criminals must be held accountable for abusing an individual and/or their property, politicians must be held responsible for abusing individuals. Politicians abuse individuals by passing laws that have no respect for what an individual is. The government must stop abusing the plentiful good apples in false hope of hindering the few bad apples.

This is not just a gun issue. Congress has passed laws that are abusive to individuals in just about every other area they can pass laws on. 

28 posted on 11/02/2001 4:40:39 PM PST by Zon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Fixit
The text of the Second 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.'

I don't see the word limited anywhere, nor do I see anything related to "Non-Military" type weapons.

30 posted on 11/02/2001 4:46:44 PM PST by da_toolman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Fixit
60 Hard Truths about gun hating Liberals.

Author: Various Posted on 05/04/2001 12:04:41 PDT by moyden Improvements and additions welcome -

1. At the most basic level, the liberal is an adolescent forever in search of a world without moral consequence.

2. Freedom from moral consequence can only be secured by a collectivist, totalitarian state.

3. Liberals use moralistic tones and catch-phrases like "social justice", but their only moral is the accumulation of power

4. Liberals ideologies tend inevitably towards world-wide totalitarianism.

5. All non-sexual individual freedoms are despised by the liberal because they demand moral responsibility.

6. The fundamental power struggle of the liberal is individual v. collective. The individual must be relieved of all power in favor of the collective.

7. Individualism demands moral responsibility. Collectivism hopes to eliminate the need for moral responsibility.

8. The U.S. Constitution - specifically the individualistic Bill of Rights - is the enemy of the liberal.

9. The liberal despises the United States because it is the premier gaurantor and promoter of individualism in the world.

10. All institutions and concerns - schools, environment, courts, etc. - serve no relevant purpose other than the promotion of collectivism.

11. Abortion is necessary to gaurantee genital freedom and eliminate moral consequence.

12. The basis of psychology is the elimination of moral responsibility.

13. The liberal must create an atmosphere of crisis and fear to justify collectivist oppression.

14. Any religious person who believes or promotes moral consequence is the enemy of the liberal and must be oppressed.

15. Despite decades of spectacular failure, the liberal clings to the collectivist dream because it is far more than a theory of government. It is a religion.

17. The liberal seeks to dominate any institution which can weaken or destroy individual parental rights - public schools, child abuse agencies, pediatric associations, etc..

18. The liberal applauds the imprisoning of homeschooling parents who dare to raise their children outside the control of collectivist public schools.

19. Private ownership of guns is the single greatest symbol of individual power, and therefore despised.

20. All individual freedoms demand the responsible behaviour of the individual, and therefore demand a moral code. Liberals despise freedom because they despise morality.

21. The liberal loves Bill Clinton because of who he is, not in spite of who he is.

22. The liberal despises national sovereignty which protects individual freedoms.

23. The liberal promotes international governments (UN, EU, etc.) which seek to destroy individualism protected by sovereign states.

24. The liberal fears any hint of individualism in any part of the world, and is obsessed with the centralized control of all human activity and thought.

25. "Multi-culturalism" is the code world for a single, oppressive, collectivist culture.

26. Liberals speak often of tolerance, but only tolerate liberals.

27. The liberal seeks to criminalize any speech which promotes morality or individualism as "hate speech".

28. Environmentalists lie as a matter of course.

29. The liberal's only method of debate is to insult and discredit anyone who dares to disagree.

30. When possible, liberals opress anyone who questions their beliefs.

31. Liberals despise all innocence - especially the innocence of a child.

32. Liberals seek the sexualization of children and the normalization of pedophilia, all in the pursuit of genital freedom.

33. In the liberal mind, your freedom is their oppression.

34. Private property and individual wealth is integral to individualism, and the enemy of the liberal.

35. The liberal hates you.

36. The liberal seeks to replace a moral world view with an emotional world view.

37. The liberal typically chooses a career which produces nothing of value - lawyer, bureaucrat, "activist", etc. - and uses government to extract the wealth of others.

38. Liberal programs enrich liberals and do little to help the poor.

39. The liberal despises masculinity as a symbol of individual power.

40. Feminists groups are about lesbianism and socialism, not equal rights for women.

41. Liberals are perfectly willing to destroy you financially, remove your children, and imprison you for what you believe.

42. Liberals fear technology and change - because neither can be centrally controlled.

43. Liberals are not obsessed with sex, but with promiscuity. Promiscuity is the dominate theme of the liberal media culture.

44. Liberals despise the suburbs as a manifestation of individual prosperity, private property ownership, and the family.

45. Liberals despise marriage and family because they are institutions which frown on promiscuity.

46. Liberals are never satisfied with the power they have gained over the lives of individuals - they must control every thought and detail of human activity.

47. Liberals seek to control public schools, and force all children into them, in order to foster promiscuity and collectivist ideology in children.

48. Other diseases kill millions more, but liberals are obsessed with Aids because it is a moral consequence of promiscuity.

49. Liberals are more committed than conservatives because their politics is also their religion.

50. Liberal activities are all about ego - to demonstrate "I care more than you do" without really helping anyone.

51. Whenever a liberal expresses concern "for the children", they are using and targeting children to expand promiscuity, collectivism, and their own pocketbooks and egos.

52. Because collectivist politics is their only morality, liberals have no problem with deceit, oppression, or violence in their pursuit of collectivism.

53. Liberals are elitests who exempt themselves from the oppressive rules they impose on the general population.

54. Liberals howl if a transvestite or convicted felon is even slightly offended, but openly bash Christians.

55. Liberals dream of a return to a centralized, 1940's urban environment. We all ride the bus from a small, dirty, big city apartment to an 8-5 union job.

56. Liberals believe that wealth is static - anyone who makes money must be stealing it from someone else.

57. Liberals claim to be against violence, but makes excuses for liberals like Castro who torture political dissidents.

58. Liberals have enormous compassion for criminal predators, but little for the victims.

59. In the liberal world, all problems stem from individualism, and all solutions are collective.

60. Liberals believe that passing religious values to children is a form of child abuse. Let's review some leftist definitions: x42="Honest Man" Appeasing those who have declared themselves your mortal enemies="Peace Process" Supplying secret military technology to Red China="Constructive Engagement" Tyranny="Living Constitution" Slut="Liberated Woman" Acting like a slut="infatuated" Man="Rapist" Rape="Personal Matter" Using an intern like a whore="counseling" Perjury="Personal Matter" Obstruction of Justice="Full Cooperation" Navy EP-3 Crew="Spies" .01 C increase in global mean temperature="Environmental Catastrophe" Boys and girls are different="News" Ignorant journalist's opinion="News story" Satan's minion="Attorney" Seems as though they can't stand to hear the truth.

31 posted on 11/02/2001 4:58:02 PM PST by CHICAGOFARMER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Fixit
Akhil graduated from Yale College and Yale Law School, clerked for then-judge Stephen Breyer, and teaches at Yale Law School. Vikram graduated from U.C. Berkeley and Yale Law School, clerked for Judge William Norris and Justice Harry Blackmun,

I think that about says it all.

This is just more PC crap from the collectivist/fascist academic community. The 5th circuit's Emerson decision has really got them shaking in their pink boots.

32 posted on 11/02/2001 4:58:05 PM PST by epow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Fixit
This is a pretty good example of how rights are lost. Note the final use of Blacks and women as battering rams against what remains of the old structure. I would have thought both groups would have been glad to have the right to bear arms in self-defense. Notice too the slight of hand that procedes from making the right to keep and bear arms a "collective" right exercisable by the militia, or all men of a given age, to the confiscation of arms in the name of the government since it is a "collective right". The idea that the Minutemen of Lexington and Concord took up arms against what they took to be an oppressive government somehow escapes the Amars, who don't seem to concede the possiblity that government could ever become oppressive or that an armed citizenry might be able to act against such a tyranny.

Here is Blackstone in 1765:

The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute I W. & M. st. 2. c. 2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.

This does not appear to suggest that gun ownership is to be reserved to an organized militia. Here is St. George Tucker's 1803 Commentary on Blackstone:

This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty. . . . The right of self defence 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. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour 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.

Here is Elbridge Gerry in the ratification debates for the Second Amendment:

What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins. This was actually done by Great Britain at the commencement of the late revolution. They used every means in their power to prevent the establishment of an effective militia to the eastward. The Assembly of Massachusetts, seeing the rapid progress that administration were making to divest them of their inherent privileges, endeavored to counteract them by the organization of the militia; but they were always defeated by the influence of the Crown.

The militia was intended as an alternative to oppressive standing armies, not simply as another government institution.

You can find out more at the "Founder's Constitution" site, the Liberty Library site, and, if you know what you are looking for, at the Century of Lawmaking site. There is also an interesting article here, which takes issue at least in part with the Amars, arguing that the individual vs. collective right scheme is flawed, since the amendment represented a compromise.

40 posted on 11/02/2001 7:24:23 PM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Fixit
Author: Akhil Reed Amar and Vikram David Amar

Hmmm. Hello, FBI? I think I found a couple more terrorists...
42 posted on 11/02/2001 10:36:27 PM PST by VRWC_Member428
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Fixit
These guys haven't got a clue. Well, actually, they do. They understand their anti-gun viewpoint has been dealt a severe blow and they are doing their best (which isn't very good), to counter it. Their arguments are shallow, badly researched, sophitical and rely in a number of instances on misreading case law (e.g., the 2nd amendment implications of Dred Scott)
45 posted on 11/03/2001 9:22:04 PM PST by sailor4321
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Fixit
These guys haven't got a clue. Well, actually, they do. They understand their anti-gun viewpoint has been dealt a severe blow and they are doing their best (which isn't very good), to counter it. Their arguments are shallow, badly researched, sophitical and rely in a number of instances on misreading case law (e.g., the 2nd amendment implications of Dred Scott)
46 posted on 11/03/2001 9:22:26 PM PST by sailor4321
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-28 next last

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson