Posted on 01/28/2008 8:39:17 AM PST by kiriath_jearim
I think you mean that the 5th Circuit and DC Circuit are on my side. Your "side" is that the Second Amendment only protects people who are members of a "well-regulated Militia". You're not on my side.
You do answer my questions. But I get a lot of DIFFERENT answers and many are WRONG. How can you state that the DC Circuit decision was not wrong in one posting and then turn around and say that the Supreme Court would be wrong to agree with it? Words have meanings, you know.
By the time World War II began, stocks of shotguns were too small to support the mobilization and new orders were placed. The well regarded Winchester Model 12 trench and riot guns were again procured with a total of more than 80,000 guns ordered by the U.S. Government by 1945, more than any other combat shotgun of the time. Collectors will notice that there was a change in the ventilated heat shield during WW II from the WW I design of six rows of holes to only 4 rows starting in 1942.
Yes, short barreled shotguns were and are part of the military. Prior to the Miller case, short barreled shotguns, called "trench guns" (below) were used in WWI. They were pump action and had a 20" barrel, sling swivels, barrel shroud, and bayonet mount.
But that doesn't describe Mr. Miller's weapon. His was more like:
I doubt that any court would conclude that Mr. Miller's weapon had a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia".
"Why on God's earth would one (and only the second) of the amendments deal with state rights?"
It doesn't. It deals with individual rights -- those individuals who are part of a well regulated state Militia.
My use of the word "should" was to invite you to carry out your own process to decide what decision an ideal Supreme Court would make, based on your own determination of what "ideal" would be.
You DID answer that the correct ruling would be that "the Second Amendment only protects people who are members of a well regulated Militia".
You posted: "I don't believe [the Second Amendment] protects the people of DC unless they're members of a well regulated Militia."
But you also posted, "I would never say the DC Circuit Court was wrong."
Now, why would you not say that the DC Circuit was WRONG? It is completely opposed to what you believe that an ideal Supreme Court SHOULD decide.
I did not say "correct" or "incorrect". I did not say "right" or "wrong". You either stop this $hit or we are done.
You pressed me for an answer as to what they SHOULD rule. And I responded how the court SHOULD rule based on the various factors I listed.
No, but it's close and it demonstrates the difference between a military weapon and one used by a criminal. It was described to the court as a sawed off "double barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun".
"The second amendment does not say state malitia"
It doesn't say it, but that's what it refers to.
"The maliita act was note even passed by congress until several decades after the the Bill of Rights was ratified"
The Militia Act of 1792 was passed one year after the Bill of Rights was ratified.
"Only a vermin would offer such trite arguments who had an agenda to take away a basic right of self defense"
Your individual gun rights are protected by your state.
Then I guess we are "done", whatever that means.
If you post nonsense about the Second Amendment I intend to challenge it. You refuse to admit that the "right" and "correct" decision is the one that YOU would make. You have the attitudes of a four-year-old with far too much access to conflicting court cases.
Hey, here's an idea. Try challenging it without putting words in my mouth, twisting what I say, or substituting your words for mine.
You just can’t handle it when you are proven wrong time after time so you blame others.
It’s fun to watch for a while then it gets obnoxious.
Okay. I'll try.
From post 116: "I don't believe [the Second Amendment] protects the people of DC unless they're members of a well regulated Militia."
But somehow this does not mean that the DC Circuit was "wrong"? It does not mean that the DC Circuit was "incorrect"? It does not mean that the DC Circuit disagrees with you?
Words have meanings. When you clearly state what you believe the Second Amendment protects, and the DC Court says it means something different, then one of you, at the very least, is WRONG. And certainly, at the very least, one of you is INCORRECT. And certainly, YOU and the DC Court do not agree.
I would like you to clearly state what you believe this picture represents:
Be careful! You don't want to make the WRONG choice! Or the INCORRECT choice!
Is this your clever way of trying to say that YOUR understanding of the Second Amendment and that of the DC Court are just ways to view a genuinely ambiguous issue, and that there is no correct view of the Second Amendment? That you find the DC Court's decision regarding the meaning to be just as valid as yours?
No wonder you post so much nonsense.
That is the dumbest response I could imagine. My right to bare arms is protected by the second amendment so it can't be taken away by any government period! Federal, State, Local, any form of government is prohibited from taking my right to bare arms away. Nor can the judicial branch, executive, or legislative. The second amendment affirms my inalienable right granted by God to self defense and the right perpetually to bare arms. It is the reason and the protection for free men in a free state.
Your thinking was the same as King George and he just didn't get it either until the bullets started flying at Concord and Lexington. My right to bare arms is not granted by government. It is a natural right granted by God and irrevocable. The bill of rights affirms those rights that government in any form can never infringe upon let alone take away. End of discussion!
You can pry my gun from my dead hands but you had better bring a lot of thugs with you because your gonna need them. The first will drop from 1,000 yards off and they will keep falling until you run out of thugs or I run out of ammunition which is not likely. Hundreds of thousands of free men will join me until the tree of liberty has no more thugs left standing in its shade.
The courts interpret the U.S. Constitution. Ever since Marbury v Madison, their interpretation stands as the meaning.
Like the chalice/faces example, there is no right or wrong, correct or incorrect. It just is.
Like the chalice/faces example, there is no right or wrong, correct or incorrect. It just is.
So If I was to tell you that I see four people and two dogs I would be neither correct nor incorrect because there just is four people and two dogs!
So all of your thoughts are neither correct nor incorrect they just are????????? Are what? Are your thoughts nothing?
The moon is really green cheese because “it just is.” According to you that is a correct statement.
So, if the Supreme Court contradicts the DC Court, then the DC Court decision will be WRONG?
And since the DC Court decision already contradicts the Miller Court, then the DC Court is already WRONG?
What about prior to Marbury? Did the Constitution have no meaning simply because the Supreme Court had not claimed the role that they now claim?
If the Supreme Court ruled that involuntary servitude was legal in all cases, would that be the meaning of the Constitution?
Is there no Supreme Court ruling that would constitute tyranny?
Your latest postings explain a whole lot about you, but very little about the Constitution.
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.