Welcome To The Wild West???

POSTED BY: deepgirl187
UPDATED: Monday, April 7, 2025 06:19
VIEWED: 7905
PAGE 6 of 13

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE

KWICKO

Friday, June 27, 2008 11:37 PM

Quote:
No worries, Kwicko. Posting on the RWE is always a toss of the dice in terms of arguments and such.

Ain't that the truth...

Quote:
And I meant to say other side of the state, but somehow it seems much cooler that way.

Very much cooler. Keep it the way it is; don't change a thing. Make it your sig. Or I might have to steal - er, I mean, BORROW - it. :)

M

KHYRON

Saturday, June 28, 2008 7:11 AM

http://www.236.com/news/2008/06/27/news_network_stock_footage_arc_1_74
08.php

------------------------------

This isn't my signature. I have to type this every time I make a post.

RIVERLOVE

Saturday, June 28, 2008 9:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
True. Let us get back to topic.

I have a question: Why did the "Wild West" fail?

I mean, there was plenty of land, and very little laws. Everyone was armed.

How did it turn from that almost utopian society to this?

I think that's a very interesting question. I believe you can point to the following list as a good start:
Christianity
Mankind's upward progression towards modernization
Law and Order advocacy
Federal and State beaurocratic regulations & manipulations

CITIZEN

Saturday, June 28, 2008 9:52 AM

I apologise, frem, I missed this piece of idiocy before, so thought I'd mention it now:

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
If yer unwilling to do the research to support your opinion, offer it as opinion, not fact, then!

No, but thank you for lying about what I said, it's always nice to see the person who bitches about people twisting his words the most, being the person most willing to do just that to others. I have researched my opinion, and I am more than willing to provide direct quotes of what I'm talking about if asked, what I won't do is supply a long list of links and ask other people to find the evidence for me, because I'm too lazy to do my own research, as you did. You asked us to go find the evidence to back up your opinion, I've done the research of my opinion, I'm just unwilling to do your research for you as well.

Quote:
You want specifics ?
Easy enough.

The "Militia" of the United States is us, all of us, any of us, both willing and able to pick up and use a firearm at all - this was universally understood and acknowledged by both Federalist and AntiFederalists to a point where it was generally assumed.

Fair enough (though only one of those was a signatory on the Declaration of Independence, weren't they?) But it doesn't remove the idea of 'well regulated' from the militia, nor the idea that it was intended to be much more official than handing out guns and screaming "Go git 'em boys!". You can't deny the well regulated part, which in your earlier post is indicated to mean that the militia is under the control of the state government, and the state government is responsible for appointing the officers of that Militia. So yeah, I still wonder if the "the militia is everyone" is more of an idealistic assumption that everyone will join the State Militia in time of crisis. The Well Regulated part, and the clarification in other statements suggests that the Militia is a far more formal entity than a everyone owning a gun.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

CITIZEN

Saturday, June 28, 2008 10:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by nvghostrider:

I have to apologise first off, because I didn't read the rest of your post, but the assertion of this image is flat out wrong. In 1900 violent gun crime was higher in the UK than it is today. The only UK Police who carry Sub-Machine Guns are the armed police, such as SO19, roughly analogous to the American SWAT force. The only time you see them on the streets is outside secure military and government sites, where armed military officers were once used. It's more assuming things were better and are going out of control now that you'll see in the Daily Mail, and rather light on the truth.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

GEEZER

Saturday, June 28, 2008 1:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
The only suggestion that militia means the entire population (To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands) could just as easily mean he expected the whole state populace to rise up and join the state militia, if the Federal Army was to ever attack, than the Militia IS the entire populace.

But the whole militia argument is rendered moot in the first sentence of the Supreme Court's decision.

Quote:
Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf

"Keep the Shiny side up"

CITIZEN

Saturday, June 28, 2008 1:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
The only suggestion that militia means the entire population (To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands) could just as easily mean he expected the whole state populace to rise up and join the state militia, if the Federal Army was to ever attack, than the Militia IS the entire populace.

But the whole militia argument is rendered moot in the first sentence of the Supreme Court's decision.
Quote:
Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf

"Keep the Shiny side up"

So? They may have ignored the half the sentence, but it doesn't mean they should have done. I was talking about what the founding fathers may have meant based on the language they used, not how the supreme court reads it after ignoring half of what was written. When trying to work out it's meaning for myself, I'm not willing to ignore the bits I don't like, or do like, or whatever. So the supreme court is, bully for them.

Besides, if the supreme court can ignore half the amendment, why can't I ignore half their ruling? Assuming "to bear arms" meant "private gun ownership" (it didn't), the phrasing is clear in the amendment, the right to bear is how the well regulated militia is to be brought about. Anyone who can read English properly should be able to tell that the second fragment is meant to support the first, not be taken in void of it. So the supreme court can't read, not my problem.

Perhaps a crash course in English Language comprehension would do them good? Since they've decided two clauses in the same sentence are 'unconnected', it seems they really do need one.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

PIRATECAT

Saturday, June 28, 2008 2:56 PM

The language Oh my.

"Battle of Serenity, Mal. Besides Zoe here, how many-" "I'm talkin at you! How many men in your platoon came out of their alive".

GEEZER

Saturday, June 28, 2008 4:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
So? They may have ignored the half the sentence, but it doesn't mean they should have done.

If you'll read the decision, you'll note that they didn't ignore half the sentence, they explain in detail their reasoning.

Quote:
Besides, if the supreme court can ignore half the amendment, why can't I ignore half their ruling?

Probably because the Supreme Court has the Constitutional authority to rule on questions of law, and you don't.

Sorry, Cit, but your opinion is not law. The Supreme Court's, on the other hand, is.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

KWICKO

Saturday, June 28, 2008 4:48 PM

Quote:
They may have ignored the half the sentence, but it doesn't mean they should have done. I was talking about what the founding fathers may have meant based on the language they used, not how the supreme court reads it after ignoring half of what was written. When trying to work out it's meaning for myself, I'm not willing to ignore the bits I don't like, or do like, or whatever. So the supreme court is, bully for them.

Besides, if the supreme court can ignore half the amendment, why can't I ignore half their ruling? Assuming "to bear arms" meant "private gun ownership" (it didn't), the phrasing is clear in the amendment...

Cit, I respectfully disagree.

As the Supreme Court said in its opinion, it's not "ignoring" half the Amendment, it's responding to the OPERATIVE CLAUSE of the Amendment. They then went on to list no less than nine State Constitutions or Charters in which the right of individuals to keep and bear arms was guaranteed, with no mention of militia service whatsoever.

Quote:

See Pa. Declaration of Rights §XIII, in 5 Thorpe 3083 (“That the
people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the
state. . . ”); Vt. Declaration of Rights §XV, in 6 id., at 3741 (“That the
people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the
State. . .”); Ky. Const., Art. XII, cl. 23 (1792), in 3 id., at 1264, 1275
(“That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves
and the State shall not be questioned”); Ohio Const., Art. VIII, §20
(1802), in 5 id., at 2901, 2911 (“That the people have a right to bear
arms for the defence of themselves and the State . . . ”); Ind. Const., Art.
I, §20 (1816), in 2 id., at 1057, 1059 (“That the people have a right to
bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State. . . ”); Miss.
Const., Art. I, §23 (1817), in 4 id., at 2032, 2034 (“Every citizen has a
right to bear arms, in defence of himself and the State”); Conn. Const.,
Art. I, §17 (1818), in 1 id., at 536, 538 (“Every citizen has a right to bear
arms in defence of himself and the state”); Ala. Const., Art. I, §23
(1819), in 1 id., at 96, 98 (“Every citizen has a right to bear arms in
defence of himself and the State”); Mo. Const., Art. XIII, §3 (1820), in 4
id., at 2150, 2163 (“[T]hat their right to bear arms in defence of them-
selves and of the State cannot be questioned”). See generally Volokh,
State Constitutional Rights to Keep and Bear Arms, 11 Tex. Rev. L. &
Politics 191 (2006).

They cite these instances to indicate the intent of the phrasing of the Amendment and the common usages of the words and their meanings DURING THE GENERATION in which the Amendment was written. In all cases, the right of the INDIVIDUAL to keep and bear arms is tantamount, whether it be for the defense and security of the State, or for the defense and security of THE INDIVIDUAL.

The INDIVIDUAL maintains the right to keep and bear arms, even if by your narrow view that right is only to fulfill their "membership" of a militia. There's no mention of any central armory that will hand out weapons if such a militia is called forth. It is intended that when you come into such militia service, if and when such is required, you bring your own arms with you. In order to do that, you must first HAVE those arms, and be able to "keep and bear" them.

So what's your definition of "militia", anyway? It's not a standing army; the Framers were abundantly clear about that. It's the *opposite* of a standing army; it's the entire citizenry, ready to rise up and repel any threat against the nation, whether foreign or domestic! And that extends to threats against any individual as well, as a nation of threatened individuals is a threatened nation.

Wiki defines a militia thusly:

Quote:
The term militia is commonly used today to refer to a military force composed of ordinary[1] citizens to provide defense, emergency law enforcement, or paramilitary service, in times of emergency without being paid a regular salary or committed to a fix

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE