THat it was not renewed shows how desperate you are to tout a victory.
The right to own weapons is being discussed as a personal right for the first time in decades.
Yep, before it was taken for granted.
Note in Miller the scotus did not rule the collective right, but tha the weapon involved was not a militia weapon. Of course, a little defense (Miller was dead), might have pointed out that a short barrelled shotgun has numerous applications as a military weapon, thus the premise of the ruling was in error: the court was misinformed.
But for some reason Conservatives have this penchant for predicting the imminent end of the freedom, so lets just forget our responsibilities to vote.
Yes! Because complacency guarantees the end of freedom. If every statute is not studied in its worst light, its greatest potential abuse, then it will eventually be used that way. Best to nip it in the bud.
Keep in mind, too, that we are the ones who have had our core issues nibbled away at by the herd who would mouth nonsense about waiting until next time, about lesser evils, and how you get 80%, so what if you don't get the other 20? No loss of freedom is tolerable to conservatives, it is those who tout compromise who are selling our liberty piecemeal for convenience.
One thing that conservatives could learn from liberals is their eternal optimism and determination.
First, we are about as determined as it gets. We are still here, even though the purveyors of Republican-ism have crapped on us time and time again. We have not given up.
Second, I have a positive attitude. I am positive, that given any advantage, pecuniary or otherwise, my government will continue to amass to itself power at the expense of my liberty. That is human nature, and to get starry-eyed and start doing the happy-feely kumbaya bit might work for the socialists' drones, but they are oblivious to the freedom they are losing in the process.
No matter how often they are defeated, they keep coming because they have faith in their cause.
As do we. Faith in our cause, in God, in the ultimate desire of people to live secure, productive, and happy lives--and to pass those freedoms, that security, and the fruits of our labors on to our progeny.
The biggest difference is in how we desire to attain that goal.
I have a mother and a father, God Bless them, and I learned the concepts of personal responsibility at their knee. I do not need the State to act as a surrogate, not then, and certainly not now, when I am a great-grandfather.
Would that conservatives had that same kind of faith in theirs, instead of 'I am going to hunker down with my rifle and ammo and wait for the United States to collapse'.
Perhaps a few do have that idea in mind, but most of us would rather prevent that collapse. If you or anyone else wants an idea what happens to a modern city in a year of warfare, look at Sarajevo, the jewell of the Balkans, and site of the Winter olympics (I forget the year). No one wants that for America except our enemies. No one wants to live like East Germany in the '60s either.
But, in extremis, the rifle and ammo are there--and will continue to be, regardless.
THat it was not renewed shows how desperate you are to tout a victory.
Not desperate, but happy.
I am willing to call a victory a victory, espically since there was such intense pressure by the Left to keep it on the books.
Had the Democrats been in control of Congress it would have been.
[ The right to own weapons is being discussed as a personal right for the first time in decades. ]
Yep, before it was taken for granted.
Not by the Democrats it isn't.
Note in Miller the scotus did not rule the collective right, but tha the weapon involved was not a militia weapon. Of course, a little defense (Miller was dead), might have pointed out that a short barrelled shotgun has numerous applications as a military weapon, thus the premise of the ruling was in error: the court was misinformed.
[ But for some reason Conservatives have this penchant for predicting the imminent end of the freedom, so lets just forget our responsibilities to vote. ] Yes! Because complacency guarantees the end of freedom. If every statute is not studied in its worst light, its greatest potential abuse, then it will eventually be used that way. Best to nip it in the bud.
Best to stop it before it gets started.
Were any new gun control laws enacted when the GOP controlled congress?
Keep in mind, too, that we are the ones who have had our core issues nibbled away at by the herd who would mouth nonsense about waiting until next time, about lesser evils, and how you get 80%, so what if you don't get the other 20? No loss of freedom is tolerable to conservatives, it is those who tout compromise who are selling our liberty piecemeal for convenience.
No, it those who are advocating 'dropping out' that is ensuring that the next generation will have less freedom then ours.
[ One thing that conservatives could learn from liberals is their eternal optimism and determination. ]
First, we are about as determined as it gets. We are still here, even though the purveyors of Republican-ism have crapped on us time and time again. We have not given up.
Really?
The Left has been working to socialize this nation for decades and don't give up because they haven't obtained their goal.
Second, I have a positive attitude. I am positive, that given any advantage, pecuniary or otherwise, my government will continue to amass to itself power at the expense of my liberty. That is human nature, and to get starry-eyed and start doing the happy-feely kumbaya bit might work for the socialists' drones, but they are oblivious to the freedom they are losing in the process.
No, they are confident that they will win in the end and thus, they continue moving forward, while Conservatives retreat and make no attempts to actually roll back socialism.
[ No matter how often they are defeated, they keep coming because they have faith in their cause. ]
As do we. Faith in our cause, in God, in the ultimate desire of people to live secure, productive, and happy lives--and to pass those freedoms, that security, and the fruits of our labors on to our progeny.
No, you are not 'coming back' you are advocating giving up.
[ The biggest difference is in how we desire to attain that goal. ]
I have a mother and a father, God Bless them, and I learned the concepts of personal responsibility at their knee. I do not need the State to act as a surrogate, not then, and certainly not now, when I am a great-grandfather.
And who does?
[ Would that conservatives had that same kind of faith in theirs, instead of 'I am going to hunker down with my rifle and ammo and wait for the United States to collapse'. ]
Perhaps a few do have that idea in mind, but most of us would rather prevent that collapse. If you or anyone else wants an idea what happens to a modern city in a year of warfare, look at Sarajevo, the jewell of the Balkans, and site of the Winter olympics (I forget the year). No one wants that for America except our enemies. No one wants to live like East Germany in the '60s either.
Well, the way to prevent that politically is at the voting booth.
But, in extremis, the rifle and ammo are there--and will continue to be, regardless.
If it comes to that, then we have failed when we had a chance to change things peacefully.
"A" short barreled shotgun, maybe. But not Miller's.
"thus the premise of the ruling was in error: the court was misinformed."
The court was not misinformed. The court was not informed, period. They remanded the case for further clarification.
Actually when arguments were presented, well argument by the Government, he was alive. He was killed, with a .38, a few weeks before the decision was announced. But even if he had been dead, there was his former co-defendent, Frank Layton, who should have been represented at the Supreme Court. He or they would have been "respondents", not defendents, just as "Heller" is in the current case. The government (US or DC) being the one who asked the Supreme Court to review the decision of a lower court in each case
Read all about "Miller" at this collection of court and other documents
But here is the part that address's Miller's death and Layton's "disposition"
The Southwest American reported on April 6, 1939, that Miller's body had been found in the "nearly dry" bed of Little Spencer creek, nine miles southwest of Chelesa, Oklahoma. He had been shot four times with a .38. Miller's ".45 calibre pistol," from which he had fired three shots in his defense, was found near his body. He was forty years old.
The indictment had been quashed by the district court judge on JANUARY 3, 1939. The government petitioned for appeal directly to the Supreme Court January 30, 1939. The government's brief was filed in March of 1939, Oral argument was presented March 30, 1939. The decision was released May 15, 1939.
One of the documents in that collection is the government's brief in the case, it contains many of the same arguments presented by DC and by the US solicitor general in their Heller briefs, most of which the Court ignored.
Little was reported regarding Frank Layton. He pleaded guilty to the charge of transporting a sawed-off shotgun after the Supreme Court decision and was placed on five year's probation by Judge Heartsill Ragon on January 8, 1940.