Posted on 03/18/2008 9:25:56 AM PDT by NinoFan
http://www.cspan.org/watch/cs_cspan_wm.asp?Cat=TV&Code=CS
That would create a priviliged (sp?) citizen. Also, government could essentially make the testing virtually impossible to pass thus voiding the 2nd.
Yes, some citizens would be priviliged. I'm talking here about not only owning hunting weapons and handguns for personal protection. I'm talking about, according to the verbiage of the Constitution, a citizen being able to own virtually any kind of weapon that a militiaman can carry, including machine guns, 50 cal. sniper rifles, grenade launchers, and even rocket launchers -- the kinds of things that show up on that Discovery Channel program.
I believe it is "self evident" that we should interpret the Constitution as a document instructed and informed by the principles of the Declaration, our national charter. Hence, individuals should be able to, if participating in state militias, be enabled to oppose a hopelessly corrupted, unconstitutional government.
It is up to judges to make sure that regulations do not become violations of rights.
Gosh, what did people do from 1787 to 1968? I'm sure the country must have been bloodbath all during that time.
For some reason, a lot of liberals (and apparently you) seem to think that there are zillions of people out there who would be extreme menaces to society if they were allowed to buy weapons, but perfectly harmless otherwise. I guess I don't see it. Why would someone be too dangerous to trust with a gun, but not too dangerous to trust with a car? Or with matches and gasoline? Or any other dangerous objects or substances?
Judges need to recognize that any legislation which designed to disarm free people is by definition an infringement of rights. The only regulations which would not constitute infringement would be those whose intention and effect promoted effective armament.
Not hardly.
No way I want just any of my neighbors to have machine guns, grenades, and rocket launchers.
Show me the case if there is one, of the courts allowing mentally ill people or criminals to privately own arsenals of cannons, mortars, and grenades, from anytime, 1787.
The questioning provides hope, but we must also remember not to read too much into the questioning. The justices are often playing devil’s advocate with their questions. The individual right to bear arms is brain-dead obvious to us, but having the issue before SCOTUS still provides some nail-biting angst.
MM (in TX)
Thanks for the ping...reading 400+post...was stuck doing MOUT training all day.
Such people were wards of the state, and as such were not free people.
Defending your home = War on black males!
Chicago Alderman Dorothy Tillman,... said the law will "lead to open war on black males." .... "It's almost a way to eliminate people. Black men will be under the ground more than ever."
Incredible - Tillman is essentially saying that black men are inherently home invasion robbers. If I were black, I’d be insulted.
Not all the mentally impaired were wards of the state. Neither all the intemperate, nor those liable to get violent when drunk, etc.
You may want the punks and bullies down the street to have rocket launchers, but not me.
Amazing, isn't it?
Can you show me any pre-20th-Century laws which forbade those who would otherwise be recognized as free people from possessing arms?
I guess I’m wrong.
In Federalist 46:
The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism. Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it.Doing the math above, Madison figured the militia to be every able-bodied man not already in the army, and that such a force (outnumbering the army by 25 to 1) would be sufficient to easily defeat such an army, regardless of how much better trained the army was
In the 18th century, private individuals owned cannons and armed ships. A broadside of 18th-century cannons will toss a quite respectable amount of lead around
Also, keep in mind that in the United States today, private individuals DO privately own crew-served weapons. There are lots of full-auto machine guns in private hands (I think on the order of 100,000), and we never hear about any being misused.
I would settle for being entitled to own any firearm that any "law enforcement" agency at any level may own (including SWAT toys). If they have a legitimate need for something in order to deal with violent criminals or rioters, then so do I
Frankly, I don't have the time to explore fully, but I suspect they were there, not long after it was found that the nasty alcoholic up Broadway was building a private armory with bombs, etc.
Go to this post for a transcript of the oral argument:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1987832/posts
mark
-PJ
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.