mnealtx 0 #126 March 16, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI would say 'think application instead of theory', but since you *still* haven't figured it out, it's likely you never will. In other words... you don't know. Wrong again. Since that's still not an explanation, in other words, you don't know. Wrong again. Quit guessing and start THINKING. QuoteQuoteGuess that's I said "If you can carry (bear) one around, go for it" in post 22 in reference to *gasp* a cannon. Ok then, a) that has nothing to do with Jefferson's letter. You don't need to reference Jefferson's letter to show that it is not possible to carry a cannon, so why the fuck did you bring it up? It absolutely *does* have something to do with Jefferson's letter....if you consider *application* instead of *theory*. The same *application* instead of *theory* also holds true for the modern day. QuoteAnd b) So you think cannons aren't covered by the second amendment because you can't pick them up. Brings us neatly to... QuoteQuotewhile b) arguing that cannons are covered by the second. It's absolute nonsense which you have no way of defending. Your inability to comprehend is YOUR issue, not mine. So you think that cannons are covered by the second amendment. Why? Can you pick them up, or does it not matter that it isn't an individual weapon? See above. QuoteI haven't read nonsense this well constructed since Lewis Carroll. This is why everyone is telling you that you are wrong, and you are the only person defending this ridiculous argument. Everyone? The only one still belaboring the point is YOU - everyone else seemed to have figured the concept out.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,594 #127 March 16, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI would say 'think application instead of theory', but since you *still* haven't figured it out, it's likely you never will. In other words... you don't know. Wrong again. Since that's still not an explanation, in other words, you don't know. Wrong again. Quit guessing and start THINKING. Since that's still not an explanation, in other words, you don't know. QuoteQuoteQuoteGuess that's I said "If you can carry (bear) one around, go for it" in post 22 in reference to *gasp* a cannon. Ok then, a) that has nothing to do with Jefferson's letter. You don't need to reference Jefferson's letter to show that it is not possible to carry a cannon, so why the fuck did you bring it up? It absolutely *does* have something to do with Jefferson's letter....if you consider *application* instead of *theory*. The same *application* instead of *theory* also holds true for the modern day. *What* does it have to do with Jefferson's letter about sports. *What*? QuoteQuoteAnd b) So you think cannons aren't covered by the second amendment because you can't pick them up. Brings us neatly to... QuoteQuotewhile b) arguing that cannons are covered by the second. It's absolute nonsense which you have no way of defending. Your inability to comprehend is YOUR issue, not mine. So you think that cannons are covered by the second amendment. Why? Can you pick them up, or does it not matter that it isn't an individual weapon? See above. There is nothing above that touches on that point. Either cannons are covered or they aren't. If they are, why is the word 'bear' important, if they aren't why did you say they were? QuoteQuoteI haven't read nonsense this well constructed since Lewis Carroll. This is why everyone is telling you that you are wrong, and you are the only person defending this ridiculous argument. Everyone? The only one still belaboring the point is YOU - everyone else seemed to have figured the concept out. Uh, no. Everyone else has realised that it's pointless arguing with you because you will do exactly what you're doing now - resort to belligerent, insulting obfuscation and the avoidance of getting tied down to ever having actually said anything at all. See GeorgiaDon and DanG's comments. Now, did you get around to counting how many people ever agreed with you on the Jefferson letter?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #128 March 16, 2012 Quotebelligerent, insulting obfuscation That's all coming from YOUR keyboard as well..and as usual. QuoteNow, did you get around to counting how many people ever agreed with you on the Jefferson letter? None of the pro-2nd folks disagreed with it, so it looks like it's at least 4 on my side vs. you and Don. Maybe you should have spent the time doing some basic reading instead of trying to think up insults.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jakee 1,594 #129 March 16, 2012 Quote Quote belligerent, insulting obfuscation That's all coming from YOUR keyboard as well..and as usual. So in other words you have no argument. How about it Mike, How about you actually make a cogent, rational statement laying out what exactly your position is and how exactly you're supporting it? What is it that scares you so much about doing that? Let's start with some easy one's: a) are cannons covered by the second amendment? If they are then b) why is the word 'bear' in the text important. Once you've got those out of the way you could move on to c) why Jefferson's letter about which form of gunsport is better for exercise illustrates his thinking about which weapons should be allowed or prohibited. Don't strain yourself though. Quote Quote Now, did you get around to counting how many people ever agreed with you on the Jefferson letter? None of the pro-2nd folks disagreed with it, so it looks like it's at least 4 on my side vs. you and Don. Maybe you should have spent the time doing some basic reading instead of trying to think up insults. Oh is that how it works? If someone doesn't mention a statement then it means they agree with it? Well then since my first reply pointing out how stupid your argument is has 57 views and you're the only person disagreeing, I think that makes 56 to 1 in my favour. 290 views to GeorgiaDon's first reply and still only you disagreeing, so he's doing even better! But how about you drop that obviously stupid tack and count up how many people have actually directly replied to the argument. On one side there's most certainly more than me and Don, on the other side it's still lonely old you.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #130 March 17, 2012 QuoteSo in other words you have no argument. Wrong again. QuoteHow about it Mike, How about you actually make a cogent, rational statement laying out what exactly your position is and how exactly you're supporting it? What is it that scares you so much about doing that? *sigh* For the deliberately (and exceedingly) obtuse, as all of this is simple logic *if* you've actually *read* and *thought* about the issue: The Founding Fathers didn't SPECIFICALLY include or exclude any weapons from the 2nd. However, as has been said over and over (and over and over and over), you have to look at the writings of the FF on the subject as well as the amendment itself. The purpose of the 2nd wasn't to provide arms for a militia, but to ensure that the populace had arms in order to generate a militia if the need arose, and for their own defense. This is plainly laid out both in the Federalist papers and the state constitutions adopted in that time frame. Armies are primarily composed of infantry. That is as true today as it was then. The reason the infantry is called the "Queen of Battle" is because it is the most maneuverable and adaptable. A Stinger missile makes a fine weapon - for taking out an aircraft. For defending yourself or attacking an infantry company, not so much. A tank is a fine weapon - for taking out another tank or a building that someone is shooting from. For defending yourself or attacking an infantry company, not so much. Once you've shot the missile, you're unarmed. Planes and tanks have to rearm/refuel - stocks that can be destroyed, rendering them useless. Pilots and tank crews can be shot, rendering the plane or tank useless. The planes/tanks themselves can be destroyed, making the pilots/tank crews into infantrymen. I'm sure the sheer *idiocy* of the suicide pact involved with a nuke is obvious to all. From the standpoint of resistance to the gov't, the only *realistic* force would be, in fact, a nation of riflemen. That does mean that the FF meant that ONLY personal arms are covered - it means that those personal arms are the most *effective* and suitable means of defense against an invading army, defense against a government that is out of control, or defense of self against a personal attack. Application, not theory.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jakee 1,594 #131 March 17, 2012 QuoteQuoteSo in other words you have no argument. Wrong again. Since that's still not an explanation of why you brought up Jefferson's letter, then in other words, you don't know. Quote*sigh* For the deliberately (and exceedingly) obtuse, as all of this is simple logic *if* you've actually *read* and *thought* about the issue: The Founding Fathers didn't SPECIFICALLY include or exclude any weapons from the 2nd. However, as has been said over and over (and over and over and over), you have to look at the writings of the FF on the subject as well as the amendment itself. The purpose of the 2nd wasn't to provide arms for a militia, but to ensure that the populace had arms in order to generate a militia if the need arose, and for their own defense. This is plainly laid out both in the Federalist papers and the state constitutions adopted in that time frame. Armies are primarily composed of infantry. That is as true today as it was then. The reason the infantry is called the "Queen of Battle" is because it is the most maneuverable and adaptable. A Stinger missile makes a fine weapon - for taking out an aircraft. For defending yourself or attacking an infantry company, not so much. A tank is a fine weapon - for taking out another tank or a building that someone is shooting from. For defending yourself or attacking an infantry company, not so much. Once you've shot the missile, you're unarmed. Planes and tanks have to rearm/refuel - stocks that can be destroyed, rendering them useless. Pilots and tank crews can be shot, rendering the plane or tank useless. The planes/tanks themselves can be destroyed, making the pilots/tank crews into infantrymen. I'm sure the sheer *idiocy* of the suicide pact involved with a nuke is obvious to all. From the standpoint of resistance to the gov't, the only *realistic* force would be, in fact, a nation of riflemen. That does mean that the FF meant that ONLY personal arms are covered - it means that those personal arms are the most *effective* and suitable means of defense against an invading army, defense against a government that is out of control, or defense of self against a personal attack. Application, not theory. Good lord, that is an absolute masterclass in writing a whole load of guff that says absolutely nothing concrete about the limits of the second amendment. I don't give a flying fuck which weapons you think are most effective for a militia and that's not what we've been talking about. This is a thread about the limits of the second amendment, a thread you entered by stating why a certain set of weapons were not covered. So again, some simple, straightforward questions for you: a) are cannons covered by the second amendment? If they are then b) why is the word 'bear' in the text important? And c) why is Jefferson's letter about which form of gunsport is better for exercise illustrative of his thinking about which weapons should be allowed or prohibited?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #132 March 17, 2012 QuoteSo again, some simple, straightforward questions for you: a) are cannons covered by the second amendment? If they are then b) why is the word 'bear' in the text important? And c) why is Jefferson's letter about which form of gunsport is better for exercise illustrative of his thinking about which weapons should be allowed or prohibited? All answered above. Thanks for showing that you're the perfect examplar for my statement above, "You can lead a man to knowledge but you cannot make him think".Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites GeorgiaDon 379 #133 March 17, 2012 QuoteThanks Mike for the explanation. Before I comment specifically on what you wrote, I should say that I am happy to agree with you that the 2nd should apply to "personal arms", useful for self-defense (and hunting to boot!). I guess I am not so trusting of people that I would like to see Stingers readily available to all and sundry. Given the impossibility of a "future nutter detector", we have to live with the chance that a nutter can do a lot of damage even with "just" a "personal" firearm, but that risk is at least balanced by the benefit (not to mention constitutional right) of self defense. A nutter with a Stinger could do a lot more damage, and as a passenger on a plane there isn't anything I could do to defend myself, so I'm happy that nutters can't get Stingers at their local flea market. Nevertheless, I still wonder what would happen if, in the future, some individual or group should gain legal standing and challenge the constitutionality of restrictions on weapons such as Stingers. Now for some comments on your comments: QuoteThe Founding Fathers didn't SPECIFICALLY include or exclude any weapons from the 2nd. Agreed. QuoteHowever, as has been said over and over (and over and over and over), you have to look at the writings of the FF on the subject as well as the amendment itself. Agreed. However it would be silly to expect the FF to have discussed weapons that hadn't been invented yet. There will be no specific discussion of aircraft, or anti-aircraft weapon systems, as those things didn't exist at the time. Still, the constitution has proven to be broadly applicable to many modern problems if one can discern the underlying intent. There is no need for the FF to have discussed wiretaps for the courts to find that the 4th amendment requires a warrant for such a search to be legal. It seems to me one must discern if the intent of the 2nd was to provide for personal protection (no question about that), ability to participate in a militia that could be called up to defend the country (seems pretty clear this was intended too), and/or the ability to resist a tyrannical government. An argument could be developed that weapons that are consistent with these intents would be covered under the 2nd, even if those weapons are not specifically mentioned in the writings of the FF. QuoteThe purpose of the 2nd wasn't to provide arms for a militia, but to ensure that the populace had arms in order to generate a militia if the need arose, and for their own defense. This is plainly laid out both in the Federalist papers and the state constitutions adopted in that time frame. Agreed. QuoteArmies are primarily composed of infantry. That is as true today as it was then. The reason the infantry is called the "Queen of Battle" is because it is the most maneuverable and adaptable. True, but you've pre-determined the value of infantries by constraining it to "armies". There is a reason the modern military invests so much in drones, and aircraft-mounted weapon systems. QuoteA Stinger missile makes a fine weapon - for taking out an aircraft. For defending yourself or attacking an infantry company, not so much. A tank is a fine weapon - for taking out another tank or a building that someone is shooting from. For defending yourself or attacking an infantry company, not so much.Agreed. But one might expect a tyrannical government to use aircraft and tanks, as well as infantry. Is the intent of the 2nd to provide for defense against a tyrannical gov't, or not? QuoteOnce you've shot the missile, you're unarmed. Why? It's not as if people are restricted to just one weapon, any more than they are restricted to owning just one gun. Maybe you have more than one missile, or a firearm, but it's unlikely you'll be unarmed. QuotePlanes and tanks have to rearm/refuel - stocks that can be destroyed, rendering them useless. Pilots and tank crews can be shot, rendering the plane or tank useless. The planes/tanks themselves can be destroyed, making the pilots/tank crews into infantrymen.This has always been true of any weapon system, as well as of the means needed to get them to the battle lines. Doesn't stop modern militaries from investing in those systems. It's not like we only have infantry in the military, even if that's where things would ultimately end up in an actual conflict once all the more advanced systems were used up or destroyed. The military that limits itself to infantry on such an argument is going to lose to one that at least can start with an effective air force etc. QuoteI'm sure the sheer *idiocy* of the suicide pact involved with a nuke is obvious to all. Yes it is. I've stipulated several times that it's clear that nukes, as well as biological and chemical weapons, are off the table. QuoteFrom the standpoint of resistance to the gov't, the only *realistic* force would be, in fact, a nation of riflemen. That does mean that the FF meant that ONLY personal arms are covered - it means that those personal arms are the most *effective* and suitable means of defense against an invading army, defense against a government that is out of control, or defense of self against a personal attack.So, the argument is that one should immediately go to the tactics of asymmetrical guerrilla warfare. The fact that no modern military consists solely of infantry should indicate that other weapon systems can be much more effective in appropriate circumstances. The real point, I suppose, is that the "government" is so far ahead in the weapons they have at their disposal (more on this in a minute) that it is futile, and perhaps suicidal, for any individual or small militia to even attempt to match them. On the other hand one could at least be a nuisance as an underground militia. Such a force would probably never be able to overthrow a determined government, though. Non-violent resistance, such as mass refusal to cooperate with such a government, would be more likely to be effective in the long run. Times have changed since the days of the FF, when the federal military was intentionally restricted to a small force, smaller than most state militias. Ultimately, I think our best defense against a tyrannical government is that the military would be unlikely to support or enforce clearly unconstitutional actions, such as the suspension of free elections or an order for people to turn over their guns. I would like to believe that the government has the military "at its disposal" only to the extent that the government itself adheres to the law. The FF were able to create a system of checks and balances that, at least so far, allows for independent judicial review of proposed laws, and prevents the government from enforcing laws that have been found to be unconstitutional in the courts (whatever particular individuals may believe about those laws). QuoteApplication, not theory. I see your point, and in this case don't really disagree. However, often application follows from theory. This is especially true in constitutional matters, otherwise we might still have Jim Crow laws. Again, although I might not agree with all your reasoning I am happy to agree that the 2nd should not be applied to weapons such as Stinger missiles. Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #134 March 17, 2012 QuoteThe real point, I suppose, is that the "government" is so far ahead in the weapons they have at their disposal (more on this in a minute) that it is futile, and perhaps suicidal, for any individual or small militia to even attempt to match them. On the other hand one could at least be a nuisance as an underground militia. Such a force would probably never be able to overthrow a determined government, though. Non-violent resistance, such as mass refusal to cooperate with such a government, would be more likely to be effective in the long run. Times have changed since the days of the FF, when the federal military was intentionally restricted to a small force, smaller than most state militias. On an individual or small group basis, I would tend to agree - all else being equal. However, if said individual/group had a modicum of support of the community, that would act as a multiplier. As an example, look at the Taliban - they have at least the general silence of the community in their support and so are much harder to track down than would otherwise be the case. Non-violent resistance definitely has it's place. I disagree with your point about relative manning levels - there's roughly 1.5 million active and reserve combat soldiers (Army/USMC). Some 40-45% (47-53 million) homes in the US have some sort of firearm. That's a awfully large disparity, even with the multipliers that military arms *could* provide. QuoteSo, the argument is that one should immediately go to the tactics of asymmetrical guerrilla warfare. The fact that no modern military consists solely of infantry should indicate that other weapon systems can be much more effective in appropriate circumstances. Any uprising *would* be an asymmetric guerrilla war, if for no other reason *than* the disparity in arms mentioned in your OP. The fact that the military has drones or artillery doesn't mean the infantryman is useless, just as the flexibility of missions that the infantry can cover doesn't make drones or artillery useless. Obviously they all have their own strengths and their own best uses. You can 'make the rubble bounce' with an artillery barrage, but you don't *control* it until you have 'boots on the ground'. Please don't take my prior post to mean that I believe no weapon system but infantry weapons are viable - I certainly don't ascribe to that POV. What I *am* saying is that those other weapon systems, while certainly effective in their own right, have liabilities that could be readily exploited to nullify them. QuoteUltimately, I think our best defense against a tyrannical government is that the military would be unlikely to support or enforce clearly unconstitutional actions, such as the suspension of free elections or an order for people to turn over their guns. I would like to believe that the government has the military "at its disposal" only to the extent that the government itself adheres to the law. The FF were able to create a system of checks and balances that, at least so far, allows for independent judicial review of proposed laws, and prevents the government from enforcing laws that have been found to be unconstitutional in the courts (whatever particular individuals may believe about those laws). That is VERY well said, Don.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites GeorgiaDon 379 #135 March 17, 2012 Cheers Mike. Have a good evening (I'm assuming you're still overseas). Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #136 March 17, 2012 Yup, still overseas - looking forward to vacation in a few months, though!Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jakee 1,594 #137 March 17, 2012 QuoteQuoteSo again, some simple, straightforward questions for you: a) are cannons covered by the second amendment? If they are then b) why is the word 'bear' in the text important? And c) why is Jefferson's letter about which form of gunsport is better for exercise illustrative of his thinking about which weapons should be allowed or prohibited? All answered above. Thanks for showing that you're the perfect examplar for my statement above, "You can lead a man to knowledge but you cannot make him think". No, they weren't: as is easy to demonstrate by the fact that you a) never mentioned cannons; b) never mentioned the word 'bear' and c) never mentioned Jefferson's letter. You were, as you damn well know, exceedingly careful not to give a definite answer on any of those questions. There is no possible way for me to come to a conclusion about your thoughts on those precise questions that you would not claim was false. The closest you come is this statement "That does mean that the FF meant that ONLY personal arms are covered" which completely contradicts your earlier statement that cannons were covered (which in turn totally contradicts your ever bringing up Jefferson's letter in the first place). So how about you try again, and actually answer the questions? a) are cannons covered by the second amendment? If they are then b) why is the word 'bear' in the text important? And c) why is Jefferson's letter about which form of gunsport is better for exercise illustrative of his thinking about which weapons should be allowed or prohibited?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DaVinci 0 #138 March 19, 2012 QuoteNo. It's not. Nice try but that's not supported by any legal definition of the term now or at the time of the founding of the country. False "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426) "The militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, ... all men capable of bearing arms;..." — "Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic", 1788 (either Richard Henry Lee or Melancton Smith). "Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People." — Tench Coxe, 1788. It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government. — Thomas Paine "The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- (Thomas Jefferson) "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence ... From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good" (George Washington) "What country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms." (Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, Dec. 20, 1787, in Papers of Jefferson, ed. Boyd et al.) "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights, Walter Bennett, ed., Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican, at 21,22,124 "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8) "The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..." (James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8, 1789]) "What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.... 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." (Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment [ I Annals of Congress at 750 {August 17, 1789}]) So the Founding Fathers disagree with you.... But what would they know about the intent of the Constitution right? And I know you said LEGAL.... So how about. Maybe something from the SC? The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28. How about some others? "The maintenance of the right to bear arms is a most essential one to every free people and should not be whittled down by technical constructions." [State vs. Kerner, 181 N.C. 574, 107 S.E. 222, at 224 (1921)] " `The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the milita, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right." [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)] Plus you might want to read the Militia Act of 1903 which presently consist of every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who are not members of the National Guard or Naval Militia Maybe you might want to read the Militia Act of 1792 "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act." To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million 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. Besides the advantage of being armed, it forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. The governments of Europe are afraid to trust the people with arms. If they did, the people would surely shake off the yoke of tyranny, as America did. 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."- (Source I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789) So there is plenty to back up my position...... I ask again (what the 10th time) Find me ONE quote from a founding father against the individual having the right to bear arms. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites quade 4 #139 March 19, 2012 Debates, letters and ramblings are not legal definitions. Nice try though. You are right when you write; Quote Plus you might want to read the Militia Act of 1903 which presently consist of every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who are not members of the National Guard or Naval Militia Maybe you might want to read the Militia Act of 1792 "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act." Now, show me where that gives EVERYBODY the right to bear arms due to your previous claim that everyone is part of the militia.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DaVinci 0 #140 March 19, 2012 QuoteThanks guys. So again we see the argument that a significant purpose of the 2nd was/is to ensure "the people" can defend themselves against the government if need be One of the reasons, yes. There is also the ability for citizens to defend the Constitution against other citizens and foreign attackers. There are also other reasons such as self defense, sport and hunting. QuoteAnd that purpose cannot be met if "the people" are limited to "personal arms" (which seems about as well defined as "assault weapons") and the government has access to the big toys. That is not true... Look at Afghanistan, look at Iraq, look at Vietnam. Fact is that an insurgency is very difficult to beat. And we are ignoring that not all of the 'official' military will just blindly follow orders to attack the insurgents. QuoteWould it be too much to say that 2nd amendment proponents consider TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 113B, § 2332g to be unconstitutional? I'd say yes. The simple fact is that I have nothing to fear from an honest person having any type of weapon under the sun. And we have seen time after time that criminals don't follow laws (hence being a 'criminal') I had an extreme anti-gun person once tell me that no one should be allowed to own a gun. I asked them point blank if they would trust a guy like me with a handgun and they said yes, that they trusted me. I then asked how do you know that you can't trust that guy over there? His only answer was that he didn't know them. After a while he realized that he has nothing to fear from honest citizens, only criminals and that criminals are not going to follow a law banning something anyway. This person still thinks they should be registered and regulated since he didn't buy into the 'defend the Constitution' angle.... But he is starting to understand that criminals are not going to follow a law saying they were not allowed to own something.... But it is a start. But to answer your question... I think honest citizens should be allowed to own pretty much anything they can afford and can reasonably control and protect. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,146 #141 March 19, 2012 QuoteQuoteThanks guys. So again we see the argument that a significant purpose of the 2nd was/is to ensure "the people" can defend themselves against the government if need be One of the reasons, yes. There is also the ability for citizens to defend the Constitution against other citizens and foreign attackers. There are also other reasons such as self defense, sport and hunting. QuoteAnd that purpose cannot be met if "the people" are limited to "personal arms" (which seems about as well defined as "assault weapons") and the government has access to the big toys. That is not true... Look at Afghanistan, look at Iraq, look at Vietnam. Fact is that an insurgency is very difficult to beat. And we are ignoring that not all of the 'official' military will just blindly follow orders to attack the insurgents. QuoteWould it be too much to say that 2nd amendment proponents consider TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 113B, § 2332g to be unconstitutional? I'd say yes. The simple fact is that I have nothing to fear from an honest person having any type of weapon under the sun. And we have seen time after time that criminals don't follow laws (hence being a 'criminal') A number of gun massacres have been perpetrated by honest folks who are mentally unbalanced. Quote But to answer your question... I think honest citizens should be allowed to own pretty much anything they can afford and can reasonably control and protect. Indeed. But can someone who is mentally unhinged "reasonably control" a firearm? History suggests that the answer is "no".... 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 DaVinci 0 #142 March 19, 2012 Quote Debates, letters and ramblings are not legal definitions. Nice try though. Yeah, the opinions of the folks that founded the Country, debated the freedoms, wrote and voted on the founding documents have no clue huh? Quote Now, show me where that gives EVERYBODY the right to bear arms due to your previous claim that everyone is part of the militia. Seem to have missed the SC ruling in Heller huh? The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28. It says 'males' but laws have shown that women have the same rights as males (see the 19th).. Unless you want to claim women don't count? But it also goes on to say "the people", "citizens" (yes illegals would not count), and it says "individuals". Scalia asserted in the Court's opinion that the "people" to whom the Second Amendment right is accorded are the same "people" who enjoy First and Fourth Amendment protection. And "But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home." Now, if you disagree... maybe you should take that up with Scalia. But I would say a SC ruling trumps your personal opinion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DaVinci 0 #143 March 19, 2012 QuoteA number of gun massacres have been perpetrated by honest folks who are mentally unbalanced. Yes, and murder is a crime. So work on the crime, not the object. QuoteIndeed. But can someone who is mentally unhinged "reasonably control" a firearm? History suggests that the answer is "no". And they are already prohibited by the GCA of 1968. Again 99% of gun owners are no problem. Maybe you should focus on things that will affect that 1% and not the 99% that are not the problem? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites quade 4 #144 March 19, 2012 Again, Scalia's is but one of many legal opinions. It's not actually a legal definition. Two, three, five years from now, another justice can write a different opinion. It doesn't change the LEGAL DEFINITION of what a militia is.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,146 #145 March 20, 2012 QuoteQuoteA number of gun massacres have been perpetrated by honest folks who are mentally unbalanced. Yes, and murder is a crime. So work on the crime, not the object. QuoteIndeed. But can someone who is mentally unhinged "reasonably control" a firearm? History suggests that the answer is "no". And they are already prohibited by the GCA of 1968. Again 99% of gun owners are no problem. Maybe you should focus on things that will affect that 1% and not the 99% that are not the problem? If you bothered to read what I wrote instead of inventing your own strawmen, you will see that it is the 1% that I am concerned about. I want it to be much more difficult for felons and the mentally deranged to get guns. Why do you have a problem with that? Why do you want it to be trivially easy for a disqualified person to get a gun?... 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 Andy9o8 2 #146 March 20, 2012 QuoteAgain, Scalia's is but one of many legal opinions. It's not actually a legal definition. Two, three, five years from now, another justice can write a different opinion. It doesn't change the LEGAL DEFINITION of what a militia is. One wouldn't think that the words "the" and "a" are problem words in your sentence, but in fact they are. "A" militia is a generic term. "The" militia is not; but the further problem is that there is not simply "The" legal definition of the militia, there are multiple legal definitions of the militia. I'm trying to keep this concise (thus it will be imprecise); but I will basically repeat what I said up-thread: - "Militia" is referenced in the Constitution, but it is not defined. - The Constitution does not delegate to the Congress the power to define "militia", whether by the enactment of statutes, or otherwise. -Thus, although Congress can use its power to write and pass laws (like the Militia Act) to set ONE definition of militia for certain purposes (for example, military conscription, etc.), Congress may not set the ONLY definition of "militia" as that term is contemplated in the Constitution; only the federal judiciary has the power to do that, for only the federal judiciary has the power to interpret the Constitution. - Therefore, any analysis of the definition of the term "militia" as used in the 2nd Amendment which takes into consideration the Militia Act or ANY other law passed by Congress is fatally flawed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DaVinci 0 #147 March 26, 2012 QuoteTwo, three, five years from now, another justice can write a different opinion. It doesn't change the LEGAL DEFINITION of what a militia is. And the legal definition can change.... The original definition did not include ages, only those willing to stand up and defend. The INTENT of the Founding Fathers is what is important. Otherwise the internet should not be protected by free speech and your computer should not be protected by the 4th. Again, please find ONE quote or comment from a Founding Father (you know, the ones that actually created the govt) that says an individual should not have the right to keep and bear arms. I have asked you for this several times and you have failed to provide one. Instead you try to hide behind interpretations. When I show you that the current legal system does not agree with you.... You try to say that it can change. Again, ONE quote from a Founding Father.... ONE!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DaVinci 0 #148 March 26, 2012 QuoteI want it to be much more difficult for felons and the mentally deranged to get guns Great, so do I.... Now, I want it to be in a way that does not limit the rights of a citizen and that can't be used against an honest citizen. You don't care about limiting any others rights as long as you get what you want. I don't think stepping on the rights of 99% of the people to try and catch 1% is worth it. QuoteWhy do you want it to be trivially easy for a disqualified person to get a gun? That thought is in your head, not in anything I have ever written. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,146 #149 March 26, 2012 QuoteQuoteI want it to be much more difficult for felons and the mentally deranged to get guns Great, so do I.... Now, I want it to be in a way that does not limit the rights of a citizen and that can't be used against an honest citizen. You don't care about limiting any others rights as long as you get what you want. I don't think stepping on the rights of 99% of the people to try and catch 1% is worth it. QuoteWhy do you want it to be trivially easy for a disqualified person to get a gun? That thought is in your head, not in anything I have ever written. Everything you have written on the topic is complaining about your rights, and nothing on making it more difficult for felons and deranged people to get guns.... 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 DaVinci 0 #150 March 26, 2012 QuoteEverything you have written on the topic is complaining about your rights, and nothing on making it more difficult for felons and deranged people to get guns. False, don't blame me that you didn't pay attention to my posts and only remember what you *think* was written. And I don't complain just about *my* rights. I complain about EVERY innocent persons rights you want to trample on..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next Page 6 of 7 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
mnealtx 0 #128 March 16, 2012 Quotebelligerent, insulting obfuscation That's all coming from YOUR keyboard as well..and as usual. QuoteNow, did you get around to counting how many people ever agreed with you on the Jefferson letter? None of the pro-2nd folks disagreed with it, so it looks like it's at least 4 on my side vs. you and Don. Maybe you should have spent the time doing some basic reading instead of trying to think up insults.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,594 #129 March 16, 2012 Quote Quote belligerent, insulting obfuscation That's all coming from YOUR keyboard as well..and as usual. So in other words you have no argument. How about it Mike, How about you actually make a cogent, rational statement laying out what exactly your position is and how exactly you're supporting it? What is it that scares you so much about doing that? Let's start with some easy one's: a) are cannons covered by the second amendment? If they are then b) why is the word 'bear' in the text important. Once you've got those out of the way you could move on to c) why Jefferson's letter about which form of gunsport is better for exercise illustrates his thinking about which weapons should be allowed or prohibited. Don't strain yourself though. Quote Quote Now, did you get around to counting how many people ever agreed with you on the Jefferson letter? None of the pro-2nd folks disagreed with it, so it looks like it's at least 4 on my side vs. you and Don. Maybe you should have spent the time doing some basic reading instead of trying to think up insults. Oh is that how it works? If someone doesn't mention a statement then it means they agree with it? Well then since my first reply pointing out how stupid your argument is has 57 views and you're the only person disagreeing, I think that makes 56 to 1 in my favour. 290 views to GeorgiaDon's first reply and still only you disagreeing, so he's doing even better! But how about you drop that obviously stupid tack and count up how many people have actually directly replied to the argument. On one side there's most certainly more than me and Don, on the other side it's still lonely old you.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #130 March 17, 2012 QuoteSo in other words you have no argument. Wrong again. QuoteHow about it Mike, How about you actually make a cogent, rational statement laying out what exactly your position is and how exactly you're supporting it? What is it that scares you so much about doing that? *sigh* For the deliberately (and exceedingly) obtuse, as all of this is simple logic *if* you've actually *read* and *thought* about the issue: The Founding Fathers didn't SPECIFICALLY include or exclude any weapons from the 2nd. However, as has been said over and over (and over and over and over), you have to look at the writings of the FF on the subject as well as the amendment itself. The purpose of the 2nd wasn't to provide arms for a militia, but to ensure that the populace had arms in order to generate a militia if the need arose, and for their own defense. This is plainly laid out both in the Federalist papers and the state constitutions adopted in that time frame. Armies are primarily composed of infantry. That is as true today as it was then. The reason the infantry is called the "Queen of Battle" is because it is the most maneuverable and adaptable. A Stinger missile makes a fine weapon - for taking out an aircraft. For defending yourself or attacking an infantry company, not so much. A tank is a fine weapon - for taking out another tank or a building that someone is shooting from. For defending yourself or attacking an infantry company, not so much. Once you've shot the missile, you're unarmed. Planes and tanks have to rearm/refuel - stocks that can be destroyed, rendering them useless. Pilots and tank crews can be shot, rendering the plane or tank useless. The planes/tanks themselves can be destroyed, making the pilots/tank crews into infantrymen. I'm sure the sheer *idiocy* of the suicide pact involved with a nuke is obvious to all. From the standpoint of resistance to the gov't, the only *realistic* force would be, in fact, a nation of riflemen. That does mean that the FF meant that ONLY personal arms are covered - it means that those personal arms are the most *effective* and suitable means of defense against an invading army, defense against a government that is out of control, or defense of self against a personal attack. Application, not theory.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,594 #131 March 17, 2012 QuoteQuoteSo in other words you have no argument. Wrong again. Since that's still not an explanation of why you brought up Jefferson's letter, then in other words, you don't know. Quote*sigh* For the deliberately (and exceedingly) obtuse, as all of this is simple logic *if* you've actually *read* and *thought* about the issue: The Founding Fathers didn't SPECIFICALLY include or exclude any weapons from the 2nd. However, as has been said over and over (and over and over and over), you have to look at the writings of the FF on the subject as well as the amendment itself. The purpose of the 2nd wasn't to provide arms for a militia, but to ensure that the populace had arms in order to generate a militia if the need arose, and for their own defense. This is plainly laid out both in the Federalist papers and the state constitutions adopted in that time frame. Armies are primarily composed of infantry. That is as true today as it was then. The reason the infantry is called the "Queen of Battle" is because it is the most maneuverable and adaptable. A Stinger missile makes a fine weapon - for taking out an aircraft. For defending yourself or attacking an infantry company, not so much. A tank is a fine weapon - for taking out another tank or a building that someone is shooting from. For defending yourself or attacking an infantry company, not so much. Once you've shot the missile, you're unarmed. Planes and tanks have to rearm/refuel - stocks that can be destroyed, rendering them useless. Pilots and tank crews can be shot, rendering the plane or tank useless. The planes/tanks themselves can be destroyed, making the pilots/tank crews into infantrymen. I'm sure the sheer *idiocy* of the suicide pact involved with a nuke is obvious to all. From the standpoint of resistance to the gov't, the only *realistic* force would be, in fact, a nation of riflemen. That does mean that the FF meant that ONLY personal arms are covered - it means that those personal arms are the most *effective* and suitable means of defense against an invading army, defense against a government that is out of control, or defense of self against a personal attack. Application, not theory. Good lord, that is an absolute masterclass in writing a whole load of guff that says absolutely nothing concrete about the limits of the second amendment. I don't give a flying fuck which weapons you think are most effective for a militia and that's not what we've been talking about. This is a thread about the limits of the second amendment, a thread you entered by stating why a certain set of weapons were not covered. So again, some simple, straightforward questions for you: a) are cannons covered by the second amendment? If they are then b) why is the word 'bear' in the text important? And c) why is Jefferson's letter about which form of gunsport is better for exercise illustrative of his thinking about which weapons should be allowed or prohibited?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #132 March 17, 2012 QuoteSo again, some simple, straightforward questions for you: a) are cannons covered by the second amendment? If they are then b) why is the word 'bear' in the text important? And c) why is Jefferson's letter about which form of gunsport is better for exercise illustrative of his thinking about which weapons should be allowed or prohibited? All answered above. Thanks for showing that you're the perfect examplar for my statement above, "You can lead a man to knowledge but you cannot make him think".Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon 379 #133 March 17, 2012 QuoteThanks Mike for the explanation. Before I comment specifically on what you wrote, I should say that I am happy to agree with you that the 2nd should apply to "personal arms", useful for self-defense (and hunting to boot!). I guess I am not so trusting of people that I would like to see Stingers readily available to all and sundry. Given the impossibility of a "future nutter detector", we have to live with the chance that a nutter can do a lot of damage even with "just" a "personal" firearm, but that risk is at least balanced by the benefit (not to mention constitutional right) of self defense. A nutter with a Stinger could do a lot more damage, and as a passenger on a plane there isn't anything I could do to defend myself, so I'm happy that nutters can't get Stingers at their local flea market. Nevertheless, I still wonder what would happen if, in the future, some individual or group should gain legal standing and challenge the constitutionality of restrictions on weapons such as Stingers. Now for some comments on your comments: QuoteThe Founding Fathers didn't SPECIFICALLY include or exclude any weapons from the 2nd. Agreed. QuoteHowever, as has been said over and over (and over and over and over), you have to look at the writings of the FF on the subject as well as the amendment itself. Agreed. However it would be silly to expect the FF to have discussed weapons that hadn't been invented yet. There will be no specific discussion of aircraft, or anti-aircraft weapon systems, as those things didn't exist at the time. Still, the constitution has proven to be broadly applicable to many modern problems if one can discern the underlying intent. There is no need for the FF to have discussed wiretaps for the courts to find that the 4th amendment requires a warrant for such a search to be legal. It seems to me one must discern if the intent of the 2nd was to provide for personal protection (no question about that), ability to participate in a militia that could be called up to defend the country (seems pretty clear this was intended too), and/or the ability to resist a tyrannical government. An argument could be developed that weapons that are consistent with these intents would be covered under the 2nd, even if those weapons are not specifically mentioned in the writings of the FF. QuoteThe purpose of the 2nd wasn't to provide arms for a militia, but to ensure that the populace had arms in order to generate a militia if the need arose, and for their own defense. This is plainly laid out both in the Federalist papers and the state constitutions adopted in that time frame. Agreed. QuoteArmies are primarily composed of infantry. That is as true today as it was then. The reason the infantry is called the "Queen of Battle" is because it is the most maneuverable and adaptable. True, but you've pre-determined the value of infantries by constraining it to "armies". There is a reason the modern military invests so much in drones, and aircraft-mounted weapon systems. QuoteA Stinger missile makes a fine weapon - for taking out an aircraft. For defending yourself or attacking an infantry company, not so much. A tank is a fine weapon - for taking out another tank or a building that someone is shooting from. For defending yourself or attacking an infantry company, not so much.Agreed. But one might expect a tyrannical government to use aircraft and tanks, as well as infantry. Is the intent of the 2nd to provide for defense against a tyrannical gov't, or not? QuoteOnce you've shot the missile, you're unarmed. Why? It's not as if people are restricted to just one weapon, any more than they are restricted to owning just one gun. Maybe you have more than one missile, or a firearm, but it's unlikely you'll be unarmed. QuotePlanes and tanks have to rearm/refuel - stocks that can be destroyed, rendering them useless. Pilots and tank crews can be shot, rendering the plane or tank useless. The planes/tanks themselves can be destroyed, making the pilots/tank crews into infantrymen.This has always been true of any weapon system, as well as of the means needed to get them to the battle lines. Doesn't stop modern militaries from investing in those systems. It's not like we only have infantry in the military, even if that's where things would ultimately end up in an actual conflict once all the more advanced systems were used up or destroyed. The military that limits itself to infantry on such an argument is going to lose to one that at least can start with an effective air force etc. QuoteI'm sure the sheer *idiocy* of the suicide pact involved with a nuke is obvious to all. Yes it is. I've stipulated several times that it's clear that nukes, as well as biological and chemical weapons, are off the table. QuoteFrom the standpoint of resistance to the gov't, the only *realistic* force would be, in fact, a nation of riflemen. That does mean that the FF meant that ONLY personal arms are covered - it means that those personal arms are the most *effective* and suitable means of defense against an invading army, defense against a government that is out of control, or defense of self against a personal attack.So, the argument is that one should immediately go to the tactics of asymmetrical guerrilla warfare. The fact that no modern military consists solely of infantry should indicate that other weapon systems can be much more effective in appropriate circumstances. The real point, I suppose, is that the "government" is so far ahead in the weapons they have at their disposal (more on this in a minute) that it is futile, and perhaps suicidal, for any individual or small militia to even attempt to match them. On the other hand one could at least be a nuisance as an underground militia. Such a force would probably never be able to overthrow a determined government, though. Non-violent resistance, such as mass refusal to cooperate with such a government, would be more likely to be effective in the long run. Times have changed since the days of the FF, when the federal military was intentionally restricted to a small force, smaller than most state militias. Ultimately, I think our best defense against a tyrannical government is that the military would be unlikely to support or enforce clearly unconstitutional actions, such as the suspension of free elections or an order for people to turn over their guns. I would like to believe that the government has the military "at its disposal" only to the extent that the government itself adheres to the law. The FF were able to create a system of checks and balances that, at least so far, allows for independent judicial review of proposed laws, and prevents the government from enforcing laws that have been found to be unconstitutional in the courts (whatever particular individuals may believe about those laws). QuoteApplication, not theory. I see your point, and in this case don't really disagree. However, often application follows from theory. This is especially true in constitutional matters, otherwise we might still have Jim Crow laws. Again, although I might not agree with all your reasoning I am happy to agree that the 2nd should not be applied to weapons such as Stinger missiles. Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #134 March 17, 2012 QuoteThe real point, I suppose, is that the "government" is so far ahead in the weapons they have at their disposal (more on this in a minute) that it is futile, and perhaps suicidal, for any individual or small militia to even attempt to match them. On the other hand one could at least be a nuisance as an underground militia. Such a force would probably never be able to overthrow a determined government, though. Non-violent resistance, such as mass refusal to cooperate with such a government, would be more likely to be effective in the long run. Times have changed since the days of the FF, when the federal military was intentionally restricted to a small force, smaller than most state militias. On an individual or small group basis, I would tend to agree - all else being equal. However, if said individual/group had a modicum of support of the community, that would act as a multiplier. As an example, look at the Taliban - they have at least the general silence of the community in their support and so are much harder to track down than would otherwise be the case. Non-violent resistance definitely has it's place. I disagree with your point about relative manning levels - there's roughly 1.5 million active and reserve combat soldiers (Army/USMC). Some 40-45% (47-53 million) homes in the US have some sort of firearm. That's a awfully large disparity, even with the multipliers that military arms *could* provide. QuoteSo, the argument is that one should immediately go to the tactics of asymmetrical guerrilla warfare. The fact that no modern military consists solely of infantry should indicate that other weapon systems can be much more effective in appropriate circumstances. Any uprising *would* be an asymmetric guerrilla war, if for no other reason *than* the disparity in arms mentioned in your OP. The fact that the military has drones or artillery doesn't mean the infantryman is useless, just as the flexibility of missions that the infantry can cover doesn't make drones or artillery useless. Obviously they all have their own strengths and their own best uses. You can 'make the rubble bounce' with an artillery barrage, but you don't *control* it until you have 'boots on the ground'. Please don't take my prior post to mean that I believe no weapon system but infantry weapons are viable - I certainly don't ascribe to that POV. What I *am* saying is that those other weapon systems, while certainly effective in their own right, have liabilities that could be readily exploited to nullify them. QuoteUltimately, I think our best defense against a tyrannical government is that the military would be unlikely to support or enforce clearly unconstitutional actions, such as the suspension of free elections or an order for people to turn over their guns. I would like to believe that the government has the military "at its disposal" only to the extent that the government itself adheres to the law. The FF were able to create a system of checks and balances that, at least so far, allows for independent judicial review of proposed laws, and prevents the government from enforcing laws that have been found to be unconstitutional in the courts (whatever particular individuals may believe about those laws). That is VERY well said, Don.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites GeorgiaDon 379 #135 March 17, 2012 Cheers Mike. Have a good evening (I'm assuming you're still overseas). Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #136 March 17, 2012 Yup, still overseas - looking forward to vacation in a few months, though!Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jakee 1,594 #137 March 17, 2012 QuoteQuoteSo again, some simple, straightforward questions for you: a) are cannons covered by the second amendment? If they are then b) why is the word 'bear' in the text important? And c) why is Jefferson's letter about which form of gunsport is better for exercise illustrative of his thinking about which weapons should be allowed or prohibited? All answered above. Thanks for showing that you're the perfect examplar for my statement above, "You can lead a man to knowledge but you cannot make him think". No, they weren't: as is easy to demonstrate by the fact that you a) never mentioned cannons; b) never mentioned the word 'bear' and c) never mentioned Jefferson's letter. You were, as you damn well know, exceedingly careful not to give a definite answer on any of those questions. There is no possible way for me to come to a conclusion about your thoughts on those precise questions that you would not claim was false. The closest you come is this statement "That does mean that the FF meant that ONLY personal arms are covered" which completely contradicts your earlier statement that cannons were covered (which in turn totally contradicts your ever bringing up Jefferson's letter in the first place). So how about you try again, and actually answer the questions? a) are cannons covered by the second amendment? If they are then b) why is the word 'bear' in the text important? And c) why is Jefferson's letter about which form of gunsport is better for exercise illustrative of his thinking about which weapons should be allowed or prohibited?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DaVinci 0 #138 March 19, 2012 QuoteNo. It's not. Nice try but that's not supported by any legal definition of the term now or at the time of the founding of the country. False "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426) "The militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, ... all men capable of bearing arms;..." — "Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic", 1788 (either Richard Henry Lee or Melancton Smith). "Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People." — Tench Coxe, 1788. It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government. — Thomas Paine "The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- (Thomas Jefferson) "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence ... From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good" (George Washington) "What country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms." (Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, Dec. 20, 1787, in Papers of Jefferson, ed. Boyd et al.) "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights, Walter Bennett, ed., Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican, at 21,22,124 "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8) "The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..." (James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8, 1789]) "What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.... 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." (Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment [ I Annals of Congress at 750 {August 17, 1789}]) So the Founding Fathers disagree with you.... But what would they know about the intent of the Constitution right? And I know you said LEGAL.... So how about. Maybe something from the SC? The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28. How about some others? "The maintenance of the right to bear arms is a most essential one to every free people and should not be whittled down by technical constructions." [State vs. Kerner, 181 N.C. 574, 107 S.E. 222, at 224 (1921)] " `The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the milita, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right." [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)] Plus you might want to read the Militia Act of 1903 which presently consist of every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who are not members of the National Guard or Naval Militia Maybe you might want to read the Militia Act of 1792 "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act." To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million 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. Besides the advantage of being armed, it forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. The governments of Europe are afraid to trust the people with arms. If they did, the people would surely shake off the yoke of tyranny, as America did. 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."- (Source I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789) So there is plenty to back up my position...... I ask again (what the 10th time) Find me ONE quote from a founding father against the individual having the right to bear arms. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites quade 4 #139 March 19, 2012 Debates, letters and ramblings are not legal definitions. Nice try though. You are right when you write; Quote Plus you might want to read the Militia Act of 1903 which presently consist of every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who are not members of the National Guard or Naval Militia Maybe you might want to read the Militia Act of 1792 "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act." Now, show me where that gives EVERYBODY the right to bear arms due to your previous claim that everyone is part of the militia.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DaVinci 0 #140 March 19, 2012 QuoteThanks guys. So again we see the argument that a significant purpose of the 2nd was/is to ensure "the people" can defend themselves against the government if need be One of the reasons, yes. There is also the ability for citizens to defend the Constitution against other citizens and foreign attackers. There are also other reasons such as self defense, sport and hunting. QuoteAnd that purpose cannot be met if "the people" are limited to "personal arms" (which seems about as well defined as "assault weapons") and the government has access to the big toys. That is not true... Look at Afghanistan, look at Iraq, look at Vietnam. Fact is that an insurgency is very difficult to beat. And we are ignoring that not all of the 'official' military will just blindly follow orders to attack the insurgents. QuoteWould it be too much to say that 2nd amendment proponents consider TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 113B, § 2332g to be unconstitutional? I'd say yes. The simple fact is that I have nothing to fear from an honest person having any type of weapon under the sun. And we have seen time after time that criminals don't follow laws (hence being a 'criminal') I had an extreme anti-gun person once tell me that no one should be allowed to own a gun. I asked them point blank if they would trust a guy like me with a handgun and they said yes, that they trusted me. I then asked how do you know that you can't trust that guy over there? His only answer was that he didn't know them. After a while he realized that he has nothing to fear from honest citizens, only criminals and that criminals are not going to follow a law banning something anyway. This person still thinks they should be registered and regulated since he didn't buy into the 'defend the Constitution' angle.... But he is starting to understand that criminals are not going to follow a law saying they were not allowed to own something.... But it is a start. But to answer your question... I think honest citizens should be allowed to own pretty much anything they can afford and can reasonably control and protect. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,146 #141 March 19, 2012 QuoteQuoteThanks guys. So again we see the argument that a significant purpose of the 2nd was/is to ensure "the people" can defend themselves against the government if need be One of the reasons, yes. There is also the ability for citizens to defend the Constitution against other citizens and foreign attackers. There are also other reasons such as self defense, sport and hunting. QuoteAnd that purpose cannot be met if "the people" are limited to "personal arms" (which seems about as well defined as "assault weapons") and the government has access to the big toys. That is not true... Look at Afghanistan, look at Iraq, look at Vietnam. Fact is that an insurgency is very difficult to beat. And we are ignoring that not all of the 'official' military will just blindly follow orders to attack the insurgents. QuoteWould it be too much to say that 2nd amendment proponents consider TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 113B, § 2332g to be unconstitutional? I'd say yes. The simple fact is that I have nothing to fear from an honest person having any type of weapon under the sun. And we have seen time after time that criminals don't follow laws (hence being a 'criminal') A number of gun massacres have been perpetrated by honest folks who are mentally unbalanced. Quote But to answer your question... I think honest citizens should be allowed to own pretty much anything they can afford and can reasonably control and protect. Indeed. But can someone who is mentally unhinged "reasonably control" a firearm? History suggests that the answer is "no".... 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 DaVinci 0 #142 March 19, 2012 Quote Debates, letters and ramblings are not legal definitions. Nice try though. Yeah, the opinions of the folks that founded the Country, debated the freedoms, wrote and voted on the founding documents have no clue huh? Quote Now, show me where that gives EVERYBODY the right to bear arms due to your previous claim that everyone is part of the militia. Seem to have missed the SC ruling in Heller huh? The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28. It says 'males' but laws have shown that women have the same rights as males (see the 19th).. Unless you want to claim women don't count? But it also goes on to say "the people", "citizens" (yes illegals would not count), and it says "individuals". Scalia asserted in the Court's opinion that the "people" to whom the Second Amendment right is accorded are the same "people" who enjoy First and Fourth Amendment protection. And "But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home." Now, if you disagree... maybe you should take that up with Scalia. But I would say a SC ruling trumps your personal opinion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DaVinci 0 #143 March 19, 2012 QuoteA number of gun massacres have been perpetrated by honest folks who are mentally unbalanced. Yes, and murder is a crime. So work on the crime, not the object. QuoteIndeed. But can someone who is mentally unhinged "reasonably control" a firearm? History suggests that the answer is "no". And they are already prohibited by the GCA of 1968. Again 99% of gun owners are no problem. Maybe you should focus on things that will affect that 1% and not the 99% that are not the problem? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites quade 4 #144 March 19, 2012 Again, Scalia's is but one of many legal opinions. It's not actually a legal definition. Two, three, five years from now, another justice can write a different opinion. It doesn't change the LEGAL DEFINITION of what a militia is.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,146 #145 March 20, 2012 QuoteQuoteA number of gun massacres have been perpetrated by honest folks who are mentally unbalanced. Yes, and murder is a crime. So work on the crime, not the object. QuoteIndeed. But can someone who is mentally unhinged "reasonably control" a firearm? History suggests that the answer is "no". And they are already prohibited by the GCA of 1968. Again 99% of gun owners are no problem. Maybe you should focus on things that will affect that 1% and not the 99% that are not the problem? If you bothered to read what I wrote instead of inventing your own strawmen, you will see that it is the 1% that I am concerned about. I want it to be much more difficult for felons and the mentally deranged to get guns. Why do you have a problem with that? Why do you want it to be trivially easy for a disqualified person to get a gun?... 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 Andy9o8 2 #146 March 20, 2012 QuoteAgain, Scalia's is but one of many legal opinions. It's not actually a legal definition. Two, three, five years from now, another justice can write a different opinion. It doesn't change the LEGAL DEFINITION of what a militia is. One wouldn't think that the words "the" and "a" are problem words in your sentence, but in fact they are. "A" militia is a generic term. "The" militia is not; but the further problem is that there is not simply "The" legal definition of the militia, there are multiple legal definitions of the militia. I'm trying to keep this concise (thus it will be imprecise); but I will basically repeat what I said up-thread: - "Militia" is referenced in the Constitution, but it is not defined. - The Constitution does not delegate to the Congress the power to define "militia", whether by the enactment of statutes, or otherwise. -Thus, although Congress can use its power to write and pass laws (like the Militia Act) to set ONE definition of militia for certain purposes (for example, military conscription, etc.), Congress may not set the ONLY definition of "militia" as that term is contemplated in the Constitution; only the federal judiciary has the power to do that, for only the federal judiciary has the power to interpret the Constitution. - Therefore, any analysis of the definition of the term "militia" as used in the 2nd Amendment which takes into consideration the Militia Act or ANY other law passed by Congress is fatally flawed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DaVinci 0 #147 March 26, 2012 QuoteTwo, three, five years from now, another justice can write a different opinion. It doesn't change the LEGAL DEFINITION of what a militia is. And the legal definition can change.... The original definition did not include ages, only those willing to stand up and defend. The INTENT of the Founding Fathers is what is important. Otherwise the internet should not be protected by free speech and your computer should not be protected by the 4th. Again, please find ONE quote or comment from a Founding Father (you know, the ones that actually created the govt) that says an individual should not have the right to keep and bear arms. I have asked you for this several times and you have failed to provide one. Instead you try to hide behind interpretations. When I show you that the current legal system does not agree with you.... You try to say that it can change. Again, ONE quote from a Founding Father.... ONE!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DaVinci 0 #148 March 26, 2012 QuoteI want it to be much more difficult for felons and the mentally deranged to get guns Great, so do I.... Now, I want it to be in a way that does not limit the rights of a citizen and that can't be used against an honest citizen. You don't care about limiting any others rights as long as you get what you want. I don't think stepping on the rights of 99% of the people to try and catch 1% is worth it. QuoteWhy do you want it to be trivially easy for a disqualified person to get a gun? That thought is in your head, not in anything I have ever written. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,146 #149 March 26, 2012 QuoteQuoteI want it to be much more difficult for felons and the mentally deranged to get guns Great, so do I.... Now, I want it to be in a way that does not limit the rights of a citizen and that can't be used against an honest citizen. You don't care about limiting any others rights as long as you get what you want. I don't think stepping on the rights of 99% of the people to try and catch 1% is worth it. QuoteWhy do you want it to be trivially easy for a disqualified person to get a gun? That thought is in your head, not in anything I have ever written. Everything you have written on the topic is complaining about your rights, and nothing on making it more difficult for felons and deranged people to get guns.... 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 DaVinci 0 #150 March 26, 2012 QuoteEverything you have written on the topic is complaining about your rights, and nothing on making it more difficult for felons and deranged people to get guns. False, don't blame me that you didn't pay attention to my posts and only remember what you *think* was written. And I don't complain just about *my* rights. I complain about EVERY innocent persons rights you want to trample on..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next Page 6 of 7 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
mnealtx 0 #134 March 17, 2012 QuoteThe real point, I suppose, is that the "government" is so far ahead in the weapons they have at their disposal (more on this in a minute) that it is futile, and perhaps suicidal, for any individual or small militia to even attempt to match them. On the other hand one could at least be a nuisance as an underground militia. Such a force would probably never be able to overthrow a determined government, though. Non-violent resistance, such as mass refusal to cooperate with such a government, would be more likely to be effective in the long run. Times have changed since the days of the FF, when the federal military was intentionally restricted to a small force, smaller than most state militias. On an individual or small group basis, I would tend to agree - all else being equal. However, if said individual/group had a modicum of support of the community, that would act as a multiplier. As an example, look at the Taliban - they have at least the general silence of the community in their support and so are much harder to track down than would otherwise be the case. Non-violent resistance definitely has it's place. I disagree with your point about relative manning levels - there's roughly 1.5 million active and reserve combat soldiers (Army/USMC). Some 40-45% (47-53 million) homes in the US have some sort of firearm. That's a awfully large disparity, even with the multipliers that military arms *could* provide. QuoteSo, the argument is that one should immediately go to the tactics of asymmetrical guerrilla warfare. The fact that no modern military consists solely of infantry should indicate that other weapon systems can be much more effective in appropriate circumstances. Any uprising *would* be an asymmetric guerrilla war, if for no other reason *than* the disparity in arms mentioned in your OP. The fact that the military has drones or artillery doesn't mean the infantryman is useless, just as the flexibility of missions that the infantry can cover doesn't make drones or artillery useless. Obviously they all have their own strengths and their own best uses. You can 'make the rubble bounce' with an artillery barrage, but you don't *control* it until you have 'boots on the ground'. Please don't take my prior post to mean that I believe no weapon system but infantry weapons are viable - I certainly don't ascribe to that POV. What I *am* saying is that those other weapon systems, while certainly effective in their own right, have liabilities that could be readily exploited to nullify them. QuoteUltimately, I think our best defense against a tyrannical government is that the military would be unlikely to support or enforce clearly unconstitutional actions, such as the suspension of free elections or an order for people to turn over their guns. I would like to believe that the government has the military "at its disposal" only to the extent that the government itself adheres to the law. The FF were able to create a system of checks and balances that, at least so far, allows for independent judicial review of proposed laws, and prevents the government from enforcing laws that have been found to be unconstitutional in the courts (whatever particular individuals may believe about those laws). That is VERY well said, Don.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon 379 #135 March 17, 2012 Cheers Mike. Have a good evening (I'm assuming you're still overseas). Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #136 March 17, 2012 Yup, still overseas - looking forward to vacation in a few months, though!Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,594 #137 March 17, 2012 QuoteQuoteSo again, some simple, straightforward questions for you: a) are cannons covered by the second amendment? If they are then b) why is the word 'bear' in the text important? And c) why is Jefferson's letter about which form of gunsport is better for exercise illustrative of his thinking about which weapons should be allowed or prohibited? All answered above. Thanks for showing that you're the perfect examplar for my statement above, "You can lead a man to knowledge but you cannot make him think". No, they weren't: as is easy to demonstrate by the fact that you a) never mentioned cannons; b) never mentioned the word 'bear' and c) never mentioned Jefferson's letter. You were, as you damn well know, exceedingly careful not to give a definite answer on any of those questions. There is no possible way for me to come to a conclusion about your thoughts on those precise questions that you would not claim was false. The closest you come is this statement "That does mean that the FF meant that ONLY personal arms are covered" which completely contradicts your earlier statement that cannons were covered (which in turn totally contradicts your ever bringing up Jefferson's letter in the first place). So how about you try again, and actually answer the questions? a) are cannons covered by the second amendment? If they are then b) why is the word 'bear' in the text important? And c) why is Jefferson's letter about which form of gunsport is better for exercise illustrative of his thinking about which weapons should be allowed or prohibited?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #138 March 19, 2012 QuoteNo. It's not. Nice try but that's not supported by any legal definition of the term now or at the time of the founding of the country. False "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426) "The militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, ... all men capable of bearing arms;..." — "Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic", 1788 (either Richard Henry Lee or Melancton Smith). "Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People." — Tench Coxe, 1788. It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government. — Thomas Paine "The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- (Thomas Jefferson) "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence ... From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good" (George Washington) "What country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms." (Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, Dec. 20, 1787, in Papers of Jefferson, ed. Boyd et al.) "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights, Walter Bennett, ed., Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican, at 21,22,124 "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8) "The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..." (James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8, 1789]) "What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.... 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." (Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment [ I Annals of Congress at 750 {August 17, 1789}]) So the Founding Fathers disagree with you.... But what would they know about the intent of the Constitution right? And I know you said LEGAL.... So how about. Maybe something from the SC? The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28. How about some others? "The maintenance of the right to bear arms is a most essential one to every free people and should not be whittled down by technical constructions." [State vs. Kerner, 181 N.C. 574, 107 S.E. 222, at 224 (1921)] " `The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the milita, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right." [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)] Plus you might want to read the Militia Act of 1903 which presently consist of every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who are not members of the National Guard or Naval Militia Maybe you might want to read the Militia Act of 1792 "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act." To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million 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. Besides the advantage of being armed, it forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. The governments of Europe are afraid to trust the people with arms. If they did, the people would surely shake off the yoke of tyranny, as America did. 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."- (Source I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789) So there is plenty to back up my position...... I ask again (what the 10th time) Find me ONE quote from a founding father against the individual having the right to bear arms. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #139 March 19, 2012 Debates, letters and ramblings are not legal definitions. Nice try though. You are right when you write; Quote Plus you might want to read the Militia Act of 1903 which presently consist of every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who are not members of the National Guard or Naval Militia Maybe you might want to read the Militia Act of 1792 "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act." Now, show me where that gives EVERYBODY the right to bear arms due to your previous claim that everyone is part of the militia.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #140 March 19, 2012 QuoteThanks guys. So again we see the argument that a significant purpose of the 2nd was/is to ensure "the people" can defend themselves against the government if need be One of the reasons, yes. There is also the ability for citizens to defend the Constitution against other citizens and foreign attackers. There are also other reasons such as self defense, sport and hunting. QuoteAnd that purpose cannot be met if "the people" are limited to "personal arms" (which seems about as well defined as "assault weapons") and the government has access to the big toys. That is not true... Look at Afghanistan, look at Iraq, look at Vietnam. Fact is that an insurgency is very difficult to beat. And we are ignoring that not all of the 'official' military will just blindly follow orders to attack the insurgents. QuoteWould it be too much to say that 2nd amendment proponents consider TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 113B, § 2332g to be unconstitutional? I'd say yes. The simple fact is that I have nothing to fear from an honest person having any type of weapon under the sun. And we have seen time after time that criminals don't follow laws (hence being a 'criminal') I had an extreme anti-gun person once tell me that no one should be allowed to own a gun. I asked them point blank if they would trust a guy like me with a handgun and they said yes, that they trusted me. I then asked how do you know that you can't trust that guy over there? His only answer was that he didn't know them. After a while he realized that he has nothing to fear from honest citizens, only criminals and that criminals are not going to follow a law banning something anyway. This person still thinks they should be registered and regulated since he didn't buy into the 'defend the Constitution' angle.... But he is starting to understand that criminals are not going to follow a law saying they were not allowed to own something.... But it is a start. But to answer your question... I think honest citizens should be allowed to own pretty much anything they can afford and can reasonably control and protect. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #141 March 19, 2012 QuoteQuoteThanks guys. So again we see the argument that a significant purpose of the 2nd was/is to ensure "the people" can defend themselves against the government if need be One of the reasons, yes. There is also the ability for citizens to defend the Constitution against other citizens and foreign attackers. There are also other reasons such as self defense, sport and hunting. QuoteAnd that purpose cannot be met if "the people" are limited to "personal arms" (which seems about as well defined as "assault weapons") and the government has access to the big toys. That is not true... Look at Afghanistan, look at Iraq, look at Vietnam. Fact is that an insurgency is very difficult to beat. And we are ignoring that not all of the 'official' military will just blindly follow orders to attack the insurgents. QuoteWould it be too much to say that 2nd amendment proponents consider TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 113B, § 2332g to be unconstitutional? I'd say yes. The simple fact is that I have nothing to fear from an honest person having any type of weapon under the sun. And we have seen time after time that criminals don't follow laws (hence being a 'criminal') A number of gun massacres have been perpetrated by honest folks who are mentally unbalanced. Quote But to answer your question... I think honest citizens should be allowed to own pretty much anything they can afford and can reasonably control and protect. Indeed. But can someone who is mentally unhinged "reasonably control" a firearm? History suggests that the answer is "no".... 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
DaVinci 0 #142 March 19, 2012 Quote Debates, letters and ramblings are not legal definitions. Nice try though. Yeah, the opinions of the folks that founded the Country, debated the freedoms, wrote and voted on the founding documents have no clue huh? Quote Now, show me where that gives EVERYBODY the right to bear arms due to your previous claim that everyone is part of the militia. Seem to have missed the SC ruling in Heller huh? The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28. It says 'males' but laws have shown that women have the same rights as males (see the 19th).. Unless you want to claim women don't count? But it also goes on to say "the people", "citizens" (yes illegals would not count), and it says "individuals". Scalia asserted in the Court's opinion that the "people" to whom the Second Amendment right is accorded are the same "people" who enjoy First and Fourth Amendment protection. And "But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home." Now, if you disagree... maybe you should take that up with Scalia. But I would say a SC ruling trumps your personal opinion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #143 March 19, 2012 QuoteA number of gun massacres have been perpetrated by honest folks who are mentally unbalanced. Yes, and murder is a crime. So work on the crime, not the object. QuoteIndeed. But can someone who is mentally unhinged "reasonably control" a firearm? History suggests that the answer is "no". And they are already prohibited by the GCA of 1968. Again 99% of gun owners are no problem. Maybe you should focus on things that will affect that 1% and not the 99% that are not the problem? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #144 March 19, 2012 Again, Scalia's is but one of many legal opinions. It's not actually a legal definition. Two, three, five years from now, another justice can write a different opinion. It doesn't change the LEGAL DEFINITION of what a militia is.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #145 March 20, 2012 QuoteQuoteA number of gun massacres have been perpetrated by honest folks who are mentally unbalanced. Yes, and murder is a crime. So work on the crime, not the object. QuoteIndeed. But can someone who is mentally unhinged "reasonably control" a firearm? History suggests that the answer is "no". And they are already prohibited by the GCA of 1968. Again 99% of gun owners are no problem. Maybe you should focus on things that will affect that 1% and not the 99% that are not the problem? If you bothered to read what I wrote instead of inventing your own strawmen, you will see that it is the 1% that I am concerned about. I want it to be much more difficult for felons and the mentally deranged to get guns. Why do you have a problem with that? Why do you want it to be trivially easy for a disqualified person to get a gun?... 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
Andy9o8 2 #146 March 20, 2012 QuoteAgain, Scalia's is but one of many legal opinions. It's not actually a legal definition. Two, three, five years from now, another justice can write a different opinion. It doesn't change the LEGAL DEFINITION of what a militia is. One wouldn't think that the words "the" and "a" are problem words in your sentence, but in fact they are. "A" militia is a generic term. "The" militia is not; but the further problem is that there is not simply "The" legal definition of the militia, there are multiple legal definitions of the militia. I'm trying to keep this concise (thus it will be imprecise); but I will basically repeat what I said up-thread: - "Militia" is referenced in the Constitution, but it is not defined. - The Constitution does not delegate to the Congress the power to define "militia", whether by the enactment of statutes, or otherwise. -Thus, although Congress can use its power to write and pass laws (like the Militia Act) to set ONE definition of militia for certain purposes (for example, military conscription, etc.), Congress may not set the ONLY definition of "militia" as that term is contemplated in the Constitution; only the federal judiciary has the power to do that, for only the federal judiciary has the power to interpret the Constitution. - Therefore, any analysis of the definition of the term "militia" as used in the 2nd Amendment which takes into consideration the Militia Act or ANY other law passed by Congress is fatally flawed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #147 March 26, 2012 QuoteTwo, three, five years from now, another justice can write a different opinion. It doesn't change the LEGAL DEFINITION of what a militia is. And the legal definition can change.... The original definition did not include ages, only those willing to stand up and defend. The INTENT of the Founding Fathers is what is important. Otherwise the internet should not be protected by free speech and your computer should not be protected by the 4th. Again, please find ONE quote or comment from a Founding Father (you know, the ones that actually created the govt) that says an individual should not have the right to keep and bear arms. I have asked you for this several times and you have failed to provide one. Instead you try to hide behind interpretations. When I show you that the current legal system does not agree with you.... You try to say that it can change. Again, ONE quote from a Founding Father.... ONE!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #148 March 26, 2012 QuoteI want it to be much more difficult for felons and the mentally deranged to get guns Great, so do I.... Now, I want it to be in a way that does not limit the rights of a citizen and that can't be used against an honest citizen. You don't care about limiting any others rights as long as you get what you want. I don't think stepping on the rights of 99% of the people to try and catch 1% is worth it. QuoteWhy do you want it to be trivially easy for a disqualified person to get a gun? That thought is in your head, not in anything I have ever written. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #149 March 26, 2012 QuoteQuoteI want it to be much more difficult for felons and the mentally deranged to get guns Great, so do I.... Now, I want it to be in a way that does not limit the rights of a citizen and that can't be used against an honest citizen. You don't care about limiting any others rights as long as you get what you want. I don't think stepping on the rights of 99% of the people to try and catch 1% is worth it. QuoteWhy do you want it to be trivially easy for a disqualified person to get a gun? That thought is in your head, not in anything I have ever written. Everything you have written on the topic is complaining about your rights, and nothing on making it more difficult for felons and deranged people to get guns.... 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
DaVinci 0 #150 March 26, 2012 QuoteEverything you have written on the topic is complaining about your rights, and nothing on making it more difficult for felons and deranged people to get guns. False, don't blame me that you didn't pay attention to my posts and only remember what you *think* was written. And I don't complain just about *my* rights. I complain about EVERY innocent persons rights you want to trample on..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
