skreamer 1 #51 February 1, 2004 QuoteAnd you are certainly allowed to have an opinion. Gee thanks for allowing me an opinion, how magnanimous. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #52 February 1, 2004 QuoteIf it were truly synonymous with the people, they would have simply said the people have the right to keep and bear arms and not repeatedly emphasized the necessity of a well organized militia, as evidenced by the historical quotes that *you* provided. You are interpreting the sentence structure incorrectly. I admit it is confusing, and I wish they hadn't done it that way, however, their explanatory writings are clear on what they intended. "The people" are "the militia". Lets take the wording of the 2nd Amendment, and change the object which is referenced, and see if this sheds any light on the meaning: "Well stocked libraries, being necessary to the maintenance of an educated electorate, the right to keep and read books shall not be abridged." Would this phrase mean that only libraries should be allowed to have books, in your opinion? I doubt that you would agree with that. "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying "militia," which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject "the right," verb "shall"). The right to keep and bear arms is asserted as essential for maintaining a militia. Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms *solely* to "a well-regulated militia"? The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people. Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well-regulated militia is, in fact, necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" null and void? No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence. If it were written today, it might be put this way: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #53 February 1, 2004 QuoteQuote Amendment II 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. Now the Supreme Court, which is the Constitutionally appointed interpreter of said Constitution, has said in the recent and distant past that the "well regulated militia" part is the key. What part of "well regulated militia" does the NRA equate with every day redneck or gang member for that matter? It doesn't matter how anyone interprets "well-regulated militia," since the language construction of the amendment does not in any way, shape or form make the right of the people to keep and bear arms (which shall not be infringed) dependent on service in a militia. It simply says that since everyone knows a militia is good for maintaining a free state, we're not going to allow anyone to fuck with the right to keep and bear arms. Can you not reconcile what I just wrote with the way the actual amendment is written? It really is a match. Honest explication of the sentence structure of the 2nd will confirm that. BTW, there is a new book out by David Kopel, Stephen Halbrook and Alan Korwin called Supreme Court Gun Cases which exhaustively cites USSC decisions that have a bearing on guns, their possession and use, and self defense. It blows away the lies that "the supreme court has settled the gun issue and you must be in a militia to have gun rights." ---Jeffrey-Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #54 February 1, 2004 Quote Well, we can "what if" until the snow here melts. However, historically despots have ALWAYS managed to find enough troops to oppress the rest of the people for them - even professional soldiers, who find it hard to disobey orders. Even in such civilised places as the home of Beethoven, Bach and Schiller, and the home of Pascal and Voltaire. Didn't the Branch Davidians have a bunch of weapons? How did they fare against the government? Oooh, lookie! Sophistry! Yum! Can't we point out that your initial statement is invalid, given that apparently, the oppressive King of England was unable to somehow muster the necessary forces to keep the American Colonies under his thumb forever? I mean, that essentially disproves your theory. And this thing about the Branch Davidians? Would you please control for some of the variable before suggesting, inanely, that this proves your point? For example, let's give the Davidians enough members and equipment to accurately stand-in for the American people, and let's adjust the ratio of Davidians-to-Feds to more like 100,000-1 or something. THEN see if the Feds still prevail. But let's not have more of these bullshit analogies that are so laughably easy to dismantle, okay? They're weak enough to make me wonder if you have ANY good arguments at all on this subject. ---Jeffrey-Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,148 #55 February 1, 2004 QuoteQuoteUnfortunately, the writings of the founding fathers, while often taken as a guide, do NOT, in general, have the force of law. And whether you like it or not, the Supreme Court is, in 2004, the arbiter of the meaning of the Constitution. Do you think that the current Supreme Court should ignore the writings of the founding fathers who first crafted this law, when determining the original intent of it? Quote What I think is not relevant. What they think is relevant. Perhaps you would prefer that they just ignore the history and original intent and come up with their own interpretation of what they want it to mean? Quote That appears to be what they do from time to time. Whether or not you or I agree is irrelevant. "The Constitution is an enduring document but not a 'living' one, and its meaning must be protected and not repeatedly altered to suit the whims of society", U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said. Scalia insisted that only his approach - interpreting the Constitution based on the Framers' precise words and the meaning they intended at the time - can preserve the Constitution's guiding principles. "The Constitution is not an organism," the justice said, "it is a legal document." If you go around ignoring what it was intended to mean, and reinterpret it willy-nilly to suit your whims, then the Constitution becomes meaningless. Scalia is but one of nine. If five of nine come to that opinion, then it is relevant.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,148 #56 February 1, 2004 QuoteQuote Well, we can "what if" until the snow here melts. However, historically despots have ALWAYS managed to find enough troops to oppress the rest of the people for them - even professional soldiers, who find it hard to disobey orders. Even in such civilised places as the home of Beethoven, Bach and Schiller, and the home of Pascal and Voltaire. Didn't the Branch Davidians have a bunch of weapons? How did they fare against the government? Oooh, lookie! Sophistry! Yum! Can't we point out that your initial statement is invalid, given that apparently, the oppressive King of England was unable to somehow muster the necessary forces to keep the American Colonies under his thumb forever? I mean, that essentially disproves your theory. Being charitable, maybe you missed some posts. This sub-thread arose because of the evolution of weaponry available to the government way beyond anything available to the people. That was not the case in 1780. What happened in 1780 is not what would happen now or in the future. If you think it is, then you are living in cloud-cuckoo-land.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Beerlight 0 #57 February 1, 2004 Quote What part of "well regulated militia" does the NRA equate with every day redneck or gang member for that matter? Hey, no name calling now. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites benny 0 #58 February 1, 2004 QuoteYou are interpreting the sentence structure incorrectly. I admit it is confusing, and I wish they hadn't done it that way, however, their explanatory writings are clear on what they intended. "The people" are "the militia". Lets take the wording of the 2nd Amendment, and change the object which is referenced, and see if this sheds any light on the meaning: "Well stocked libraries, being necessary to the maintenance of an educated electorate, the right to keep and read books shall not be abridged." Would this phrase mean that only libraries should be allowed to have books, in your opinion? I doubt that you would agree with that. So now I see you're putting words in the founding father's mouths,asking us how we'd interpret those words and claiming yourself to be some kind of a late-18th century grammatical expert (if you are please cite credentials and I'll gladly shut up). Personally, I don't think any of us really have fucking clue what they were saying other than that the people should have a reasonable right to have arms, given the need for a well regulated militia. They probably meant it as a way for states to protect themselves against the federal government, not so much for individual sake. But that's just my opinion. Listen, all of you would I assume agree that you have to draw a line somewhere, right? The question then is where is the line. Some people think it's perfectly reasonable that they should be allowed to own ak-47s, some people don't. We'll never cease to argue over what gun is too big and what isn't, but the courts have said that the government does have the right to restrict. Supreme Court Cases: UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) LEWIS v. UNITED STATES, 445 U.S. 55 (1980) Actually just do the research yourself at findlaw. I think it's pretty clear we can't take them all away but their can be restrictions on type. Personally I'm with Chris Rock, make all bullets cost $5000, "Man I'd shoot you, but I can't afford to!" Never go to a DZ strip show. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #59 February 1, 2004 QuotePersonally, I don't think any of us really have fucking clue what they were saying other than that the people should have a reasonable right to have arms, given the need for a well regulated militia. They probably meant it as a way for states to protect themselves against the federal government, not so much for individual sake. But that's just my opinion. Listen, all of you would I assume agree that you have to draw a line somewhere, right? The question then is where is the line. Some people think it's perfectly reasonable that they should be allowed to own ak-47s, some people don't. We'll never cease to argue over what gun is too big and what isn't, but the courts have said that the government does have the right to restrict. See, here's part of the problem: on the one hand, the anti-gun hoplophobes (those phobic about weapons) want to ban those guns that are too powerful and big, and on the other hand, they want to ban those guns that are too small and concealable!!!!!! What does that leave us with? They keep narrowing the middle! If you don't believe me, witness the push to ban the .50 caliber rifle, which they're now tarring with the epithet "sniper." There has never been an instance of someone in the U.S. being killed criminally with one. Big crisis, then, right. We gotta ban these evil death-machines which are responsible for, so far, zero deaths. The guns weigh like thirty pounds. They' realllly the gang-bangers "weapon of choice." Terrorists too. Then they want to ban the so-called "Saturday-night specials." The term itself comes from racist origins, derogatory toward blacks. The 1968 laws banned the import of any handguns that did not meet "sporting use" criteria, and a point system was developed that combined things like caliber, height and length. If a handgun is smaller than X, and so on, it doesn't have enough points (I believe this is how it works) and it can't be imported. So a lot of personal defense handguns have to be manufactured here in the U.S., like what they have done with Interarms making the famous Walther PPK. Can't import 'em, but you can license them to be made here -- gee, what a USEFUL RULE! So I guess it keeps people from getting killed with imported guns, and they feel so much better about getting killed with domestic copies of imported guns. (This is the logic of gun control.) So too big, too small -- soon to be "too average": coming soon to a gun control bill near you. You cited something about the Miller decision, with which I'm familiar. Big fallacy, that. Anti-gun people quote Miller as though it proves that if you can't show utility of a given gun for militia purposes, that means the gun is not protected for you to own. It kinda bent the meaning of "militia being necessary..." It was saying that certain GUNS could be possessed, as long as you could demonstrate they were useful in a militia. Miller had been prosecuted for possession of a sawed-off shotgun (oh horror of horrors -- i.e. big fuckin' deal, so it was sawed-off). The court claimed that such a weapon had no militia purpose, and so Miller's appeal was denied. Trouble was, MILLER HAD NOT SHOWN UP FOR HIS TRIAL, and so there was no rebuttal, during which of course it could have been shown that such shotguns as he had possessed had indeed been used by our military forces in combat -- thereby demolishing the court's uninformed opinion. Miller died and there was no rehearing of his appeal. So the Miller case is hardly the bulwark of the anti-gun hypothesis. It can't be. It is fatally flawed. Nothing was proved. Inaccurate and false statements were made, and since the defense did not rebut them though it could have, the statements were erroneously allowed to stand. Get the book Supreme Court Gun Cases, like I plan to. I've already read excerpts that show it provides plenty of documentation where the USSC backs up gun ownership, and gun use in self defense. ---Jeffrey-Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites yardhippie 0 #60 February 1, 2004 I usually steer clear of these type threads. That said, insert your whimsical, condesinding looks here. As I grow older (nearing a mere 28) I'm trying to find my opinion in politics, and society, and with that age, I seem to drift further to the left, yet cannot agree with some of what I hear. There are sooooo many great ideas AND arguments for both sides here, it seems its come to a mere battle of who can come up with the most supporting aruments. Does this not simplify our exsistence? Are we to be stuck in a rut of stagnant disillousion? Why can we not argue the bigger pictures? I dont really know. But if I want a gun, no matter what the make/model. I should be able to own it, legally. Am I willing to have a background check to see if I am unstable/violent/ or buyint massive (I cant quantify this one) amounts of arms? Yes. Do others derserve the right to know that there is a regulatory entity that oversees such things? Yes. I am not a "gun nut" by any standards. But I belive in my right to own, shoot, and kill w/ those weapons. Do I belive that IF I should ever have to do so in and event other than hunting, it would be questionable if I could even do it? Yes. But I belive Im not the norm. I would like to belive that if my live, or those if my "family" (those close to me), were in MORTAL danger I could defent them/myself. I belive the how big and the where of govonrment to be a fluid question. Differing eras and society call for reglation/deregulation. The masses, IMHO, are genrally cattle. Following the herd. Intrest groups can most times bend them to their will with the correct inputs. How many of you wish you could be just let alone, not forgoing common public works, (health, police, transportation, etc). I IMAGINE, a good part of you. I am willing to pay for what must be done, but never what the whims of others belive should be done. I hope this was not simple rambling. I gravitiate toward that. Good life to all.Goddam dirty hippies piss me off! ~GFD "What do I get for closing your rig?" ~ me "Anything you want." ~ female skydiver Mohoso Rodriguez #865 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites AggieDave 6 #61 February 1, 2004 QuoteWhat happened in 1780 is not what would happen now or in the future If you honestly believe that, then I have some beach front land in Arizona I'd like to sell you. Seriously, though, if you've studied history, then you would understand that statements such as yours are not true. For instance, "surely what King Nebakanezzer(sp? i'm lazy/tired tonight) did in his rule would never happen again in modern society" but if you look at the parellels between him and Hitler or even Saddam, then you would be truely surprised. Same with weaponry. The longbow was the WMD at one point, as was the Viking boat, as was the crossbow, as was the long sword, as was the cannon, as was the musket, as was the gatlin gun, as was the repeating rifle, as was an artillery piece with rifling...the list could go on nearly continuously all the way back to a sharpened piece of flint used to kill mammoths or a piece of flint to start a flame with. Honestly, I believe that you get so caught up in your liberal dogma that you truely forget history and its lessons.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites VivaHeadDown 0 #62 February 1, 2004 Blah blah blah, politics, blah blah blah, individual rights, blah blah blah, oooooooo something shiny. Hey, isn't there something that we're all missing here. If you read the article very carefully, somewhere between the lines you'll find a greenie is days away from being another year older. See, I knew this thread was about something that really mattered and not another political forum. Happy Birthday if I'm right. Continue with the mind blowing debates if I'm wrong. Don't Confuse Me With My Own Words Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,148 #63 February 1, 2004 QuoteQuoteWhat happened in 1780 is not what would happen now or in the future If you honestly believe that, then I have some beach front land in Arizona I'd like to sell you. Seriously, though, if you've studied history, then you would understand that statements such as yours are not true. For instance, "surely what King Nebakanezzer(sp? i'm lazy/tired tonight) did in his rule would never happen again in modern society" but if you look at the parellels between him and Hitler or even Saddam, then you would be truely surprised. Same with weaponry. The longbow was the WMD at one point, as was the Viking boat, as was the crossbow, as was the long sword, as was the cannon, as was the musket, as was the gatlin gun, as was the repeating rifle, as was an artillery piece with rifling...the list could go on nearly continuously all the way back to a sharpened piece of flint used to kill mammoths or a piece of flint to start a flame with. Honestly, I believe that you get so caught up in your liberal dogma that you truely forget history and its lessons. 1. Libertarian is not "liberal". You only think I'm a liberal because I think GWB is an expletive deleted lying dupe and you think the sun shines from his rear end. 2. Never before in history have government forces been so overwhelmingly superior to armed civilians in weaponry, communications, and intelligence gathering capability. The weapons you own and frequently write about in adoring terms are peashooters in comparison.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #64 February 1, 2004 If you truly believe what you are saying, then it seems to me that you should be speaking out in favor of citizens having access to that weaponry as well. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,148 #65 February 1, 2004 QuoteIf you truly believe what you are saying, then it seems to me that you should be speaking out in favor of citizens having access to that weaponry as well. What does the 2nd Amendment say? I don't recall any limitation on types of weapons. Where does it say the government can have an "approved" list? What use is a militia if it doesn't have the latest and greatest stuff? (Unless the militia is indeed the National Guard, but that concept upsets so many people).... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites benny 0 #66 February 1, 2004 QuoteBut I belive Im not the norm. I would like to belive that if my live, or those if my "family" (those close to me), were in MORTAL danger I could defent them/myself. Well, it's good that you believe that you aren't the norm because the statistics about "the norm" show that more guns kept in the household are used against one's own faimly members than trespassers. But you're right, you're probably exceptional. Arrh, not meaning to disrespect you or anything man, but this isn't the best argument for guns. Never go to a DZ strip show. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,148 #67 February 1, 2004 Since this thread has gravitated towards 2nd Amendment rights (or lack thereof), how about some thought about the rest of the Bill of Rights? As I see it, the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th Amendments have all been diluted to a great extent, but no-one seems to care as much about those.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sdgregory 0 #68 February 1, 2004 Freedom of speech is overrated anyway. I think anyone who does not think my way and expresses it verbally should be executed publicly. ps - see that thing with the tongue? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites 3ringheathen 0 #69 February 1, 2004 QuoteQuoteIf it were truly synonymous with the people, they would have simply said the people have the right to keep and bear arms and not repeatedly emphasized the necessity of a well organized militia, as evidenced by the historical quotes that *you* provided. Quote You are interpreting the sentence structure incorrectly. It's reassuring to know that you have been blessed with the ability to divine with absolute certainty what others have failed to reach agreement on in a couple of centuries. Personally, I am far more concerned with the erosion of constitutional rights other than my right to bear arms. My mind and voice are far more powerful than any bullet, and recent threats to my ability to use them are greater. Quote Lets take the wording of the 2nd Amendment, and change the object which is referenced, and see if this sheds any light on the meaning: "Well stocked libraries, being necessary to the maintenance of an educated electorate, the right to keep and read books shall not be abridged." I think your analogy is flawed. The connection between books and education is much more straightforward than the connection between guns and an organized militia. That is, while guns have a lot to do with being well armed, they have nothing to do with being well organized. Unfettered access to books on the other hand has a great deal to do with being well educated. Quote If it were written today, it might be put this way: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged." Says you. I think that if the intent is as you interpret it and it were written today, the first half of the sentence would be omitted entirely. Thus giving us the straightforward "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged." -Josh If you have time to panic, you have time to do something more productive. -Me* *Ron has accused me of plagiarizing this quote. He attributes it to Douglas Adams. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ltdiver 3 #70 February 1, 2004 Quote Hey, isn't there something that we're all missing here. If you read the article very carefully, somewhere between the lines you'll find a greenie is days away from being another year older. See, I knew this thread was about something that really mattered and not another political forum. Happy Birthday if I'm right. Continue with the mind blowing debates if I'm wrong. Nope, you're right. And I'll add my Happy B-day to the list as well. ltdiver Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #71 February 1, 2004 QuoteWell, it's good that you believe that you aren't the norm because the statistics about "the norm" show that more guns kept in the household are used against one's own faimly members than trespassers. Source? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #72 February 2, 2004 QuoteDo you think that the current Supreme Court should ignore the writings of the founding fathers who first crafted this law, when determining the original intent of it? What I think is not relevant. What they think is relevant. that opinion, then it is relevant. Speaking of relevancy, you have just made yourself irrelevant in this debate, yet again. You love to drop in like a drive-by shooter and post little snippets, but then you are unwilling to respond and stand up for what you said. I guess you don't really believe in your own arguments. Besides, if you actually provided some thoughts of your own, then you might have to defend them! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #52 February 1, 2004 QuoteIf it were truly synonymous with the people, they would have simply said the people have the right to keep and bear arms and not repeatedly emphasized the necessity of a well organized militia, as evidenced by the historical quotes that *you* provided. You are interpreting the sentence structure incorrectly. I admit it is confusing, and I wish they hadn't done it that way, however, their explanatory writings are clear on what they intended. "The people" are "the militia". Lets take the wording of the 2nd Amendment, and change the object which is referenced, and see if this sheds any light on the meaning: "Well stocked libraries, being necessary to the maintenance of an educated electorate, the right to keep and read books shall not be abridged." Would this phrase mean that only libraries should be allowed to have books, in your opinion? I doubt that you would agree with that. "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying "militia," which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject "the right," verb "shall"). The right to keep and bear arms is asserted as essential for maintaining a militia. Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms *solely* to "a well-regulated militia"? The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people. Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well-regulated militia is, in fact, necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" null and void? No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence. If it were written today, it might be put this way: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #53 February 1, 2004 QuoteQuote Amendment II 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. Now the Supreme Court, which is the Constitutionally appointed interpreter of said Constitution, has said in the recent and distant past that the "well regulated militia" part is the key. What part of "well regulated militia" does the NRA equate with every day redneck or gang member for that matter? It doesn't matter how anyone interprets "well-regulated militia," since the language construction of the amendment does not in any way, shape or form make the right of the people to keep and bear arms (which shall not be infringed) dependent on service in a militia. It simply says that since everyone knows a militia is good for maintaining a free state, we're not going to allow anyone to fuck with the right to keep and bear arms. Can you not reconcile what I just wrote with the way the actual amendment is written? It really is a match. Honest explication of the sentence structure of the 2nd will confirm that. BTW, there is a new book out by David Kopel, Stephen Halbrook and Alan Korwin called Supreme Court Gun Cases which exhaustively cites USSC decisions that have a bearing on guns, their possession and use, and self defense. It blows away the lies that "the supreme court has settled the gun issue and you must be in a militia to have gun rights." ---Jeffrey-Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #54 February 1, 2004 Quote Well, we can "what if" until the snow here melts. However, historically despots have ALWAYS managed to find enough troops to oppress the rest of the people for them - even professional soldiers, who find it hard to disobey orders. Even in such civilised places as the home of Beethoven, Bach and Schiller, and the home of Pascal and Voltaire. Didn't the Branch Davidians have a bunch of weapons? How did they fare against the government? Oooh, lookie! Sophistry! Yum! Can't we point out that your initial statement is invalid, given that apparently, the oppressive King of England was unable to somehow muster the necessary forces to keep the American Colonies under his thumb forever? I mean, that essentially disproves your theory. And this thing about the Branch Davidians? Would you please control for some of the variable before suggesting, inanely, that this proves your point? For example, let's give the Davidians enough members and equipment to accurately stand-in for the American people, and let's adjust the ratio of Davidians-to-Feds to more like 100,000-1 or something. THEN see if the Feds still prevail. But let's not have more of these bullshit analogies that are so laughably easy to dismantle, okay? They're weak enough to make me wonder if you have ANY good arguments at all on this subject. ---Jeffrey-Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #55 February 1, 2004 QuoteQuoteUnfortunately, the writings of the founding fathers, while often taken as a guide, do NOT, in general, have the force of law. And whether you like it or not, the Supreme Court is, in 2004, the arbiter of the meaning of the Constitution. Do you think that the current Supreme Court should ignore the writings of the founding fathers who first crafted this law, when determining the original intent of it? Quote What I think is not relevant. What they think is relevant. Perhaps you would prefer that they just ignore the history and original intent and come up with their own interpretation of what they want it to mean? Quote That appears to be what they do from time to time. Whether or not you or I agree is irrelevant. "The Constitution is an enduring document but not a 'living' one, and its meaning must be protected and not repeatedly altered to suit the whims of society", U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said. Scalia insisted that only his approach - interpreting the Constitution based on the Framers' precise words and the meaning they intended at the time - can preserve the Constitution's guiding principles. "The Constitution is not an organism," the justice said, "it is a legal document." If you go around ignoring what it was intended to mean, and reinterpret it willy-nilly to suit your whims, then the Constitution becomes meaningless. Scalia is but one of nine. If five of nine come to that opinion, then it is relevant.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #56 February 1, 2004 QuoteQuote Well, we can "what if" until the snow here melts. However, historically despots have ALWAYS managed to find enough troops to oppress the rest of the people for them - even professional soldiers, who find it hard to disobey orders. Even in such civilised places as the home of Beethoven, Bach and Schiller, and the home of Pascal and Voltaire. Didn't the Branch Davidians have a bunch of weapons? How did they fare against the government? Oooh, lookie! Sophistry! Yum! Can't we point out that your initial statement is invalid, given that apparently, the oppressive King of England was unable to somehow muster the necessary forces to keep the American Colonies under his thumb forever? I mean, that essentially disproves your theory. Being charitable, maybe you missed some posts. This sub-thread arose because of the evolution of weaponry available to the government way beyond anything available to the people. That was not the case in 1780. What happened in 1780 is not what would happen now or in the future. If you think it is, then you are living in cloud-cuckoo-land.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Beerlight 0 #57 February 1, 2004 Quote What part of "well regulated militia" does the NRA equate with every day redneck or gang member for that matter? Hey, no name calling now. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
benny 0 #58 February 1, 2004 QuoteYou are interpreting the sentence structure incorrectly. I admit it is confusing, and I wish they hadn't done it that way, however, their explanatory writings are clear on what they intended. "The people" are "the militia". Lets take the wording of the 2nd Amendment, and change the object which is referenced, and see if this sheds any light on the meaning: "Well stocked libraries, being necessary to the maintenance of an educated electorate, the right to keep and read books shall not be abridged." Would this phrase mean that only libraries should be allowed to have books, in your opinion? I doubt that you would agree with that. So now I see you're putting words in the founding father's mouths,asking us how we'd interpret those words and claiming yourself to be some kind of a late-18th century grammatical expert (if you are please cite credentials and I'll gladly shut up). Personally, I don't think any of us really have fucking clue what they were saying other than that the people should have a reasonable right to have arms, given the need for a well regulated militia. They probably meant it as a way for states to protect themselves against the federal government, not so much for individual sake. But that's just my opinion. Listen, all of you would I assume agree that you have to draw a line somewhere, right? The question then is where is the line. Some people think it's perfectly reasonable that they should be allowed to own ak-47s, some people don't. We'll never cease to argue over what gun is too big and what isn't, but the courts have said that the government does have the right to restrict. Supreme Court Cases: UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) LEWIS v. UNITED STATES, 445 U.S. 55 (1980) Actually just do the research yourself at findlaw. I think it's pretty clear we can't take them all away but their can be restrictions on type. Personally I'm with Chris Rock, make all bullets cost $5000, "Man I'd shoot you, but I can't afford to!" Never go to a DZ strip show. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #59 February 1, 2004 QuotePersonally, I don't think any of us really have fucking clue what they were saying other than that the people should have a reasonable right to have arms, given the need for a well regulated militia. They probably meant it as a way for states to protect themselves against the federal government, not so much for individual sake. But that's just my opinion. Listen, all of you would I assume agree that you have to draw a line somewhere, right? The question then is where is the line. Some people think it's perfectly reasonable that they should be allowed to own ak-47s, some people don't. We'll never cease to argue over what gun is too big and what isn't, but the courts have said that the government does have the right to restrict. See, here's part of the problem: on the one hand, the anti-gun hoplophobes (those phobic about weapons) want to ban those guns that are too powerful and big, and on the other hand, they want to ban those guns that are too small and concealable!!!!!! What does that leave us with? They keep narrowing the middle! If you don't believe me, witness the push to ban the .50 caliber rifle, which they're now tarring with the epithet "sniper." There has never been an instance of someone in the U.S. being killed criminally with one. Big crisis, then, right. We gotta ban these evil death-machines which are responsible for, so far, zero deaths. The guns weigh like thirty pounds. They' realllly the gang-bangers "weapon of choice." Terrorists too. Then they want to ban the so-called "Saturday-night specials." The term itself comes from racist origins, derogatory toward blacks. The 1968 laws banned the import of any handguns that did not meet "sporting use" criteria, and a point system was developed that combined things like caliber, height and length. If a handgun is smaller than X, and so on, it doesn't have enough points (I believe this is how it works) and it can't be imported. So a lot of personal defense handguns have to be manufactured here in the U.S., like what they have done with Interarms making the famous Walther PPK. Can't import 'em, but you can license them to be made here -- gee, what a USEFUL RULE! So I guess it keeps people from getting killed with imported guns, and they feel so much better about getting killed with domestic copies of imported guns. (This is the logic of gun control.) So too big, too small -- soon to be "too average": coming soon to a gun control bill near you. You cited something about the Miller decision, with which I'm familiar. Big fallacy, that. Anti-gun people quote Miller as though it proves that if you can't show utility of a given gun for militia purposes, that means the gun is not protected for you to own. It kinda bent the meaning of "militia being necessary..." It was saying that certain GUNS could be possessed, as long as you could demonstrate they were useful in a militia. Miller had been prosecuted for possession of a sawed-off shotgun (oh horror of horrors -- i.e. big fuckin' deal, so it was sawed-off). The court claimed that such a weapon had no militia purpose, and so Miller's appeal was denied. Trouble was, MILLER HAD NOT SHOWN UP FOR HIS TRIAL, and so there was no rebuttal, during which of course it could have been shown that such shotguns as he had possessed had indeed been used by our military forces in combat -- thereby demolishing the court's uninformed opinion. Miller died and there was no rehearing of his appeal. So the Miller case is hardly the bulwark of the anti-gun hypothesis. It can't be. It is fatally flawed. Nothing was proved. Inaccurate and false statements were made, and since the defense did not rebut them though it could have, the statements were erroneously allowed to stand. Get the book Supreme Court Gun Cases, like I plan to. I've already read excerpts that show it provides plenty of documentation where the USSC backs up gun ownership, and gun use in self defense. ---Jeffrey-Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
yardhippie 0 #60 February 1, 2004 I usually steer clear of these type threads. That said, insert your whimsical, condesinding looks here. As I grow older (nearing a mere 28) I'm trying to find my opinion in politics, and society, and with that age, I seem to drift further to the left, yet cannot agree with some of what I hear. There are sooooo many great ideas AND arguments for both sides here, it seems its come to a mere battle of who can come up with the most supporting aruments. Does this not simplify our exsistence? Are we to be stuck in a rut of stagnant disillousion? Why can we not argue the bigger pictures? I dont really know. But if I want a gun, no matter what the make/model. I should be able to own it, legally. Am I willing to have a background check to see if I am unstable/violent/ or buyint massive (I cant quantify this one) amounts of arms? Yes. Do others derserve the right to know that there is a regulatory entity that oversees such things? Yes. I am not a "gun nut" by any standards. But I belive in my right to own, shoot, and kill w/ those weapons. Do I belive that IF I should ever have to do so in and event other than hunting, it would be questionable if I could even do it? Yes. But I belive Im not the norm. I would like to belive that if my live, or those if my "family" (those close to me), were in MORTAL danger I could defent them/myself. I belive the how big and the where of govonrment to be a fluid question. Differing eras and society call for reglation/deregulation. The masses, IMHO, are genrally cattle. Following the herd. Intrest groups can most times bend them to their will with the correct inputs. How many of you wish you could be just let alone, not forgoing common public works, (health, police, transportation, etc). I IMAGINE, a good part of you. I am willing to pay for what must be done, but never what the whims of others belive should be done. I hope this was not simple rambling. I gravitiate toward that. Good life to all.Goddam dirty hippies piss me off! ~GFD "What do I get for closing your rig?" ~ me "Anything you want." ~ female skydiver Mohoso Rodriguez #865 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #61 February 1, 2004 QuoteWhat happened in 1780 is not what would happen now or in the future If you honestly believe that, then I have some beach front land in Arizona I'd like to sell you. Seriously, though, if you've studied history, then you would understand that statements such as yours are not true. For instance, "surely what King Nebakanezzer(sp? i'm lazy/tired tonight) did in his rule would never happen again in modern society" but if you look at the parellels between him and Hitler or even Saddam, then you would be truely surprised. Same with weaponry. The longbow was the WMD at one point, as was the Viking boat, as was the crossbow, as was the long sword, as was the cannon, as was the musket, as was the gatlin gun, as was the repeating rifle, as was an artillery piece with rifling...the list could go on nearly continuously all the way back to a sharpened piece of flint used to kill mammoths or a piece of flint to start a flame with. Honestly, I believe that you get so caught up in your liberal dogma that you truely forget history and its lessons.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
VivaHeadDown 0 #62 February 1, 2004 Blah blah blah, politics, blah blah blah, individual rights, blah blah blah, oooooooo something shiny. Hey, isn't there something that we're all missing here. If you read the article very carefully, somewhere between the lines you'll find a greenie is days away from being another year older. See, I knew this thread was about something that really mattered and not another political forum. Happy Birthday if I'm right. Continue with the mind blowing debates if I'm wrong. Don't Confuse Me With My Own Words Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #63 February 1, 2004 QuoteQuoteWhat happened in 1780 is not what would happen now or in the future If you honestly believe that, then I have some beach front land in Arizona I'd like to sell you. Seriously, though, if you've studied history, then you would understand that statements such as yours are not true. For instance, "surely what King Nebakanezzer(sp? i'm lazy/tired tonight) did in his rule would never happen again in modern society" but if you look at the parellels between him and Hitler or even Saddam, then you would be truely surprised. Same with weaponry. The longbow was the WMD at one point, as was the Viking boat, as was the crossbow, as was the long sword, as was the cannon, as was the musket, as was the gatlin gun, as was the repeating rifle, as was an artillery piece with rifling...the list could go on nearly continuously all the way back to a sharpened piece of flint used to kill mammoths or a piece of flint to start a flame with. Honestly, I believe that you get so caught up in your liberal dogma that you truely forget history and its lessons. 1. Libertarian is not "liberal". You only think I'm a liberal because I think GWB is an expletive deleted lying dupe and you think the sun shines from his rear end. 2. Never before in history have government forces been so overwhelmingly superior to armed civilians in weaponry, communications, and intelligence gathering capability. The weapons you own and frequently write about in adoring terms are peashooters in comparison.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #64 February 1, 2004 If you truly believe what you are saying, then it seems to me that you should be speaking out in favor of citizens having access to that weaponry as well. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #65 February 1, 2004 QuoteIf you truly believe what you are saying, then it seems to me that you should be speaking out in favor of citizens having access to that weaponry as well. What does the 2nd Amendment say? I don't recall any limitation on types of weapons. Where does it say the government can have an "approved" list? What use is a militia if it doesn't have the latest and greatest stuff? (Unless the militia is indeed the National Guard, but that concept upsets so many people).... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
benny 0 #66 February 1, 2004 QuoteBut I belive Im not the norm. I would like to belive that if my live, or those if my "family" (those close to me), were in MORTAL danger I could defent them/myself. Well, it's good that you believe that you aren't the norm because the statistics about "the norm" show that more guns kept in the household are used against one's own faimly members than trespassers. But you're right, you're probably exceptional. Arrh, not meaning to disrespect you or anything man, but this isn't the best argument for guns. Never go to a DZ strip show. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #67 February 1, 2004 Since this thread has gravitated towards 2nd Amendment rights (or lack thereof), how about some thought about the rest of the Bill of Rights? As I see it, the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th Amendments have all been diluted to a great extent, but no-one seems to care as much about those.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sdgregory 0 #68 February 1, 2004 Freedom of speech is overrated anyway. I think anyone who does not think my way and expresses it verbally should be executed publicly. ps - see that thing with the tongue? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
3ringheathen 0 #69 February 1, 2004 QuoteQuoteIf it were truly synonymous with the people, they would have simply said the people have the right to keep and bear arms and not repeatedly emphasized the necessity of a well organized militia, as evidenced by the historical quotes that *you* provided. Quote You are interpreting the sentence structure incorrectly. It's reassuring to know that you have been blessed with the ability to divine with absolute certainty what others have failed to reach agreement on in a couple of centuries. Personally, I am far more concerned with the erosion of constitutional rights other than my right to bear arms. My mind and voice are far more powerful than any bullet, and recent threats to my ability to use them are greater. Quote Lets take the wording of the 2nd Amendment, and change the object which is referenced, and see if this sheds any light on the meaning: "Well stocked libraries, being necessary to the maintenance of an educated electorate, the right to keep and read books shall not be abridged." I think your analogy is flawed. The connection between books and education is much more straightforward than the connection between guns and an organized militia. That is, while guns have a lot to do with being well armed, they have nothing to do with being well organized. Unfettered access to books on the other hand has a great deal to do with being well educated. Quote If it were written today, it might be put this way: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged." Says you. I think that if the intent is as you interpret it and it were written today, the first half of the sentence would be omitted entirely. Thus giving us the straightforward "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged." -Josh If you have time to panic, you have time to do something more productive. -Me* *Ron has accused me of plagiarizing this quote. He attributes it to Douglas Adams. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ltdiver 3 #70 February 1, 2004 Quote Hey, isn't there something that we're all missing here. If you read the article very carefully, somewhere between the lines you'll find a greenie is days away from being another year older. See, I knew this thread was about something that really mattered and not another political forum. Happy Birthday if I'm right. Continue with the mind blowing debates if I'm wrong. Nope, you're right. And I'll add my Happy B-day to the list as well. ltdiver Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #71 February 1, 2004 QuoteWell, it's good that you believe that you aren't the norm because the statistics about "the norm" show that more guns kept in the household are used against one's own faimly members than trespassers. Source? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #72 February 2, 2004 QuoteDo you think that the current Supreme Court should ignore the writings of the founding fathers who first crafted this law, when determining the original intent of it? What I think is not relevant. What they think is relevant. that opinion, then it is relevant. Speaking of relevancy, you have just made yourself irrelevant in this debate, yet again. You love to drop in like a drive-by shooter and post little snippets, but then you are unwilling to respond and stand up for what you said. I guess you don't really believe in your own arguments. Besides, if you actually provided some thoughts of your own, then you might have to defend them! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #73 February 2, 2004 QuoteThe weapons you own I'm glad you know what I own, since all I recall ever posting about are a couple of the handguns I have and a couple of the rifles I have. I guess that's all I've got. Quoteyou think the sun shines from his rear end. I don't think he's perfect, I just know he's a hell of a lot better then the people that ran last time and the folks that are running this time. It seems that you assume too much about me, simply because you read stuff I type on the internet, with out having met me. Quote Never before in history have government forces been so overwhelmingly superior to armed civilians in weaponry, communications, and intelligence gathering capability. The weapons you own and frequently write about in adoring terms are peashooters in comparison. You're right, that's why the US military was able to walk through VietNam like a cake-walk and was able to walk through Afganistan like no one was there, and now we're done and all of our boys are back home. Oh, wait, we didn't win VietNam and we're still in Afganistan? But the US Military has far superior weapons, communications and intelligence gathering capabilities. Yup, I guess the physics prof is right again.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #74 February 2, 2004 QuoteQuoteBut I belive Im not the norm. I would like to belive that if my live, or those if my "family" (those close to me), were in MORTAL danger I could defent them/myself. Well, it's good that you believe that you aren't the norm because the statistics about "the norm" show that more guns kept in the household are used against one's own faimly members than trespassers. But you're right, you're probably exceptional. Arrh, not meaning to disrespect you or anything man, but this isn't the best argument for guns. Benny, have you ever wondered where you first "heard" about this supposed increased risk to family members due to having a gun in the house? Most likely, it trickled to you from its source: the long-discredited and debunked "study" by Dr. Arthur Kellerman, who was funded by the very anti-gun, agenda-driven CDC. There is no truth to that claim that you and your family members are in more danger from your own guns than intruders are. The only way that would be likely would be if you or someone in your family is mentally imbalanced and has some higher-than-normal likelihood of attempting to kill other family members! This "study" attempts to scare people into giving up guns or not getting guns, by somehow making the perverse leap of logic that, assuming you are not a psychopath nor is anyone in your family one, having the option of a gun to use in response to an invasion is not as good as depriving yourself of that option. To me, that's like saying that you're in more danger of dying in a fire if you keep a fire extinguisher, since you may use it when you'd be better off fleeing the house. Well DUH, like anything else, it would take an ad hoc determination of whether there was any chance of fighting the fire or if there's no chance, in which case you'd flee and rightly so. But just because there might be some cases in which standing your ground with the extinguisher might get you killed, that's a reason to not keep one at all?? Kellerman never released his data for peer review. NO one was ever able to replicate his results. On top of that, the claim of "how many times more likely" you are to get hurt because you have a gun has varied every time that study has been cited. I believe it started at "43 times," then was down further and further each time I've heard or read it. (Interestingly, the same goes for the number of "children" killed with guns per day.) Congress got so pissed off about the CDC's unabashed anti-gun activism in the guise of academic study that it punished the agency by cutting its budget by exactly what it spent on the anti-gun stuff. Kellerman studied a handful of cherry-picked locations in the U.S. (picking the ones that make the problem look its worst), counted drug-dealing acquaintances as some of the tragically killed people who suffered because they had a gun, and worst of all, counted ONLY KILLING an attacker as a successful defensive use of a gun. That means if a homeowner successfully drove away home invaders who would have robbed and killed him and his family, simply by showing he was armed and saying Get Out!, I have a gun!, that did not go into the "score one for having a gun for defense" colum. Now that's utter crap. Since when is it not a successful defensive gun use unless there's a dead body of an attacker to show for it? What if a woman sends the break-in rapist running? Woundings were also not counted. Sorta makes it easier to be able to claim that you'll hurt a "loved one" more often than you'll use your gun to defend them. I see, though, that the old lies, heavily debunked though they are, still surface. The truth has not yet reached those who heard the lies long ago. Some have latched onto the lies and are even unwilling to accept the truth. It would not surprise me if somewhere down the road you again quote that fallacy in another gun debate. ---Jeffrey-Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #75 February 2, 2004 QuoteQuoteThe weapons you own I'm glad you know what I own, since all I recall ever posting about are a couple of the handguns I have and a couple of the rifles I have. I guess that's all I've got. Quote Why don't you post some pictures of your A10 and your tanks. You're right, that's why the US military was able to walk through VietNam like a cake-walk and was able to walk through Afganistan like no one was there, and now we're done and all of our boys are back home. Oh, wait, we didn't win VietNam and we're still in Afganistan? But the US Military has far superior weapons, communications and intelligence gathering capabilities. Yup, I guess the physics prof is right again. How long before Taliban folded? Three weeks? In Vietnam the politicians didn't allow the military to win. Ask any vet.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
