Welcome To The Wild West???

POSTED BY: deepgirl187
UPDATED: Monday, April 7, 2025 06:19
VIEWED: 7905
PAGE 1 of 2

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

DEEPGIRL187

Thursday, June 26, 2008 3:25 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080626/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_guns

I honestly don't know what this means for this country. On one hand, I don't want to see guns in the hands of kids, criminals, or drunken idiots. On the other hand, I can see why some people feel the need to own guns in their homes. Any other thoughts?

****************************************************

"This is my timey-wimey detector. It goes ding when there's stuff. Also, it can boil an egg at 30 paces, whether you want it to or not, actually, so I've learned to stay away from hens. It's not pretty when they blow."

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, June 26, 2008 5:03 PM

"I honestly don't know what this means for this country. On one hand, I don't want to see guns in the hands of kids, criminals, or drunken idiots. On the other hand, I can see why some people feel the need to own guns in their homes. Any other thoughts?"
-------------------------------------------------

Ever been to D.C.? Its a nightmare. The central area (read: tourist/rich/government) is the only semi-safe place for 15 miles.

For most of the rest of D.C. its a war zone.

The SE region is one of the most dangerous places in the country.

Most of the outlying areas, stretching well into Maryland, are ghettos full of the worst kind of trash.

The gun-ban just served to show that only the criminals had the guns. And, the criminals, the animals, used them.

Far too many innocents paid the price for the illegal enforcement of the unconstitutional law against the human right to defend oneself.

Maybe, now, those in the ghettos who are good, hardworking folks, (read: worth saving) will finally have the means to take back the streets from the garbage/animals that have held sway there for far too long.

One can only hope.

STORYMARK

Thursday, June 26, 2008 5:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Maybe, now, those in the ghettos who are good, hardworking folks, (read: worth saving) will finally have the means to take back the streets from the garbage/animals that have held sway there for far too long.

Or, more likely, they'll think they have the tools to do so, and get shot in the attempt.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, June 26, 2008 5:39 PM

Well, better to die on your feet fighting than cringing on your knees.

JONGSSTRAW

Thursday, June 26, 2008 6:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
"I honestly don't know what this means for this country. On one hand, I don't want to see guns in the hands of kids, criminals, or drunken idiots. On the other hand, I can see why some people feel the need to own guns in their homes. Any other thoughts?"
-------------------------------------------------

Ever been to D.C.? Its a nightmare. The central area (read: tourist/rich/government) is the only semi-safe place for 15 miles.

For most of the rest of D.C. its a war zone.

The SE region is one of the most dangerous places in the country.

Most of the outlying areas, stretching well into Maryland, are ghettos full of the worst kind of trash.

The gun-ban just served to show that only the criminals had the guns. And, the criminals, the animals, used them.

Far too many innocents paid the price for the illegal enforcement of the unconstitutional law against the human right to defend oneself.

Darn tootin'!

DEEPGIRL187

Thursday, June 26, 2008 8:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Ever been to D.C.? Its a nightmare. The central area (read: tourist/rich/government) is the only semi-safe place for 15 miles.

For most of the rest of D.C. its a war zone.

The SE region is one of the most dangerous places in the country.

Most of the outlying areas, stretching well into Maryland, are ghettos full of the worst kind of trash.

The gun-ban just served to show that only the criminals had the guns. And, the criminals, the animals, used them.

Far too many innocents paid the price for the illegal enforcement of the unconstitutional law against the human right to defend oneself.

Maybe, now, those in the ghettos who are good, hardworking folks, (read: worth saving) will finally have the means to take back the streets from the garbage/animals that have held sway there for far too long.

One can only hope.

I'm not necessarily against this ruling, I just don't know if it's a good thing either. People can do some really dumb-ass stuff where firearms are involved, especially when they don't have the training to use them properly. But I also think people should have the right to protect themselves and their families, especially in areas like the one you're describing. I'm originally from the inner city myself, so I'm more than familiar with rough neighborhoods. There was a drive-by a few years ago right in front of my grandparents house.

I guess I wonder if this ruling is the best way to go about things. Or if there even is a correct way to deal with the issue of gun ownership.

**************************************************

"This is my timey-wimey detector. It goes ding when there's stuff. Also, it can boil an egg at 30 paces, whether you want it to or not, actually, so I've learned to stay away from hens. It's not pretty when they blow."

CHRISISALL

Thursday, June 26, 2008 8:20 PM

In a country where creeps will have a gun if they so desire, letting citizens have that ability legally only makes sense.
The only other answer is to make it a capital offense to commit a crime with a firearm, and I don't see that happening anytime soon.
So...cool.

P90 Chrisisall

JONGSSTRAW

Thursday, June 26, 2008 8:27 PM

{In a dissent he summarized from the bench, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."}

I guess he could have said the same thing about free speech & other Bill of Rights Amendments, but of course never would.

ARCLIGHT

Thursday, June 26, 2008 8:42 PM

Charlton Heston is smiling.

CHRISISALL

Thursday, June 26, 2008 8:45 PM

If you take guns from humans, only apes will have guns.

Damn dirty Chrisisall

FIVVER

Thursday, June 26, 2008 8:59 PM

Yeah Jong, not the most intelligent of quotes. The second amendment is not about shooting Bambi or the guy climbing in through your window. Those are just icing on the cake. It's about the people being able to protect themselves from an overbearing government. Here's what Framer James Madison had to say about the right to bear arms in Federalist Paper 46.

Quote:
Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.

AURAPTOR

Thursday, June 26, 2008 9:10 PM

It means that the 2nd Amendment finally means what it was suppose to mean. What's so hard to understand ?

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

KWICKO

Thursday, June 26, 2008 10:10 PM

Making it a crime to have a gun does not reduce crime - it simply turns well-intentioned, law-abiding gun owners into criminals. It doesn't stop someone who was already a criminal from getting or using a gun simply because it's against the law; burglary, carjacking, dealing drugs, those are all against the law, and that hasn't stopped them. Neither have tougher sentences for gun crimes stopped them from happening. Letting ordinary law-abiding citizens defend themselves isn't any guarantee that things will get better, but it's a start.

In my neighborhood, the police response time is a fucking joke. There are cops everywhere; they just don't come when you call 911. I've had drive-bys, I had a guy shot in the fucking head because some crack-smoker wanted his watch - and it was a fucking $20 TIMEX, not even a nice watch! I've called the cops for things like drive-by shootings, and they were good enough to show up THREE HOURS LATER. When my car was stolen, they showed up the next day.

Sad to say, in some cities, and in some neighborhoods of those cities, the cops are worse than useless. I say "worse than" because there is the myth that they'll come running when you call, so you have this fantasy that you're protected. You're not, unless you can protect yourself. The standard line around here is, "We only call 911 after the shit goes down, to come and clean up the mess."

Sad but true.

So I'm a gun owner. Does that mean I'm looking for an excuse to shoot someone? Hell to tha NO! I'm hoping I never, ever have to - but I'm trained just in case. Had I been aware that someone was stealing my car, I wouldn't have shot them - I'd have put a 7.62x39mm full metal jacketed bullet right into my own engine block. That means the car isn't going anywhere; I built that engine, and I've got spares, so that's the least harmful way to finish that situation. After that, if the thieves were in their own car, I'd have pumped a couple rounds into THEIR engine block. Now they're not going anywhere in a hurry. At that point, I'd have held them until the cops showed up, and I'd have probably faced a misdemeanor weapons charge for discharging a firearm inside city limits - but that beats a manslaughter charge and it's cheaper than buying a new car. As it was, I never got the chance; I didn't hear a thing -slept right through it. So did all three of my dogs. Might be time to get some new dogs. :)

Next, if you're going to own a gun, GET TRAINED IN HOW TO USE IT! Here's a real simple starting point that my dad taught me when I was six, and it's stayed with me for life:

In your entire life, no one is ever going to hand you an unloaded gun. Until you yourself remove the magazine, cycle the action and visually verify that it's unloaded for yourself, and then check it again, EVERY GUN IS LOADED AND LETHAL.

How many times have we seen it in the news? "Man shoots self while cleaning his gun." Often times, these are long-time gun owners who just didn't check and re-check.

Rule number two: never point a gun at someone unless you're willing to shoot them and watch them die. Don't fuck around; these are not toys. If someone points a handgun at me, one of two things is going to happen: (a) He's going to shoot me, or (b) I'm going to step into him, grab the gun and twist it toward his thumb, HARD, and disarm him or cause him to shoot himself in the gut. Me backing away isn't an option, because now he's still got a gun and I'm too far away to make a useful counterattack.

DC would do well to stop trying to criminalize every law-abiding gun owner and start trying to open up the ranges and get these people properly trained, and even to license them to carry concealed handguns. Simply trying to sweep it all under the rug hasn't worked at all. And if a criminal isn't sure that you're NOT armed and prepared to defend yourself, it makes him less likely to target you. If there's a good chance that you ARE armed, it makes it less likely still. But if he can be assured that you are unarmed, you are an inviting target indeed.

This isn't the "wi

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, June 26, 2008 10:52 PM

All it means is that the benchwarmers at the supreme court are perhaps a bit more semi-literate than your average politician and can read the abundantly clear text of the second amendment without drooling and gibbering, which sets them about a half-step above the politicians that seem to think unarmed-victim zones actually reduce crime in spite of the hard cold fact that every single one has become a hellzone, and tends to spawn mass shootings by folks who prefer unarmed targets.

All it means is that for fucking once, those pissants up on the hill admitted we have the right to defend ourselves and just watch the DC cops go berserk now, since, one a person does begin to defend themself, they start asking QUESTIONS... like... what, exactly, do we need those bully-parasite scum in blue lording over us FOR anyway ?

The police unions are likely shitting bricks right now, cause more guns = less crime, and less crime means less NEED for their nasty little mafia, and I'll not shed a bitter tear when the budget axe comes down and seperates a few of em from the feeding trough of our tax dollar, that's for sure.

And as for those wild west claims of the cowardly chicken littles who have their own agenda and reasons for wanting everyone ELSE disarmed (since so MANY of them have been caught carrying illegally, yes ?) that's right on schedule, but you know....

Kennesaw Georgia (look it up) doesn't have that problem, and in fact, doesn't have a CRIME problem any fekkin more neither, do the math with the sister city that DID forment a gun ban (resulting in a near instantaneous crime increase of over 15%..) and certain realities become abundantly clear.

Michigan was also predicted to become a wild west bloodbath when WE went right-to-carry, but again, no such thing occured and crime dropped like a ROCK, I was living right next to Flint, MI at the time and it was a damned horrific place, and within a couple months the whole atmosphere the place changed, apparently the criminal element sought greener pastures, many of em over in Wisconsin where it's still a free feeding zone of easy victims.

All that aside however....

A gun is like a spare tire, a fire extinguisher, the idea is to never NEED it, but should you need it, you need it NOW, not five miles away in the holster of some colors-wearing badge-bearing goon parked at the local coffeehouse trying to get up under the skirt of the night waitress.

And like any powerful tool, it can be dangerous to YOU if you don't know how to use and maintain it properly, it's not a magic wand like on TV.

I don't favor the idea of Gov involvement in licensing and training because it's a historically proven fact that we cannot trust them to not abuse it, the model I have proposed is that the manufacturers, in exchange for immunity from this ridiculous flood of lawsuits, simply require a standardised training and safety course to be passed as a condition of sale, and possibly a discount for a more advanced and intensive course over a basic one as it further reduces liability and safety/legal issues.

Speaking of....

You DO realize that popping a cap on someone, even in the most clear cut case of self-defense generally tends to make the cops and local courts go berserk on you, resulting in a minimum of $30,000.00 USD worth of legal fees on average and likely a civil suit by the perps next of kin on top of that, right ?

Worse and worse, something no one ever seems to think about is who has to clean up the mess (and that'll be YOU, or your family), which entails not only a substantial degree of pyschological trauma, but also certain biohazard risks in addition - I've cleaned up after a shooting (not mine) before and it's pretty damned awful.

And lets not even go there about having to rip out panelling and drywall to replace an electrical conduit struck by a stray round....

You do NOT wanna have to shoot someone if you can help it, but if it's them or you...

Make sure it's YOU - stay alive till help arrives, don't expect a prompt response to that 911 call, that's mispla

KWICKO

Thursday, June 26, 2008 11:40 PM

Quote:

You DO realize that popping a cap on someone, even in the most clear cut case of self-defense generally tends to make the cops and local courts go berserk on you, resulting in a minimum of $30,000.00 USD worth of legal fees on average and likely a civil suit by the perps next of kin on top of that, right ?

Which brings to mind a point brought up today on Sirius' Left-Wing talk radio station: One statistic you'll NEVER hear about is the number of crimes prevented simply because the victim was armed and pulled his or her gun, causing the perp to simply run away to find someone a little more vulnerable.

And for those of you who don't know exactly what the 2nd Amendment says, I'll post it here, in its entirety:

Quote:
Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

That's it. That's the entire Second Amendment. A lot of people point to the "well-regulated militia" part of it as meaning those serving in the armed forces, the reserves, or other "militia" units that are organized and have gatherings and specific training, but historically (based on the state constitutions of the time of the framing of the Constitution), "militia" was meant to encompass every able-bodied citizen who COULD serve in time of dire need, not those who actually DID serve, or were members of any organized military or para-military unit. As such, the "militia" of the Founding Fathers was, simply, the entire citizenry of the nation. That's you and me. This was written SPECIFICALLY to ensure that no outside invader (like the British of the time) NOR any oppressive government WITHIN our borders could gain a foothold, because we the people are the final guardians of our own liberty.

Mike

KWICKO

Thursday, June 26, 2008 11:48 PM

Quote:

The police unions are likely shitting bricks right now, cause more guns = less crime, and less crime means less NEED for their nasty little mafia, and I'll not shed a bitter tear when the budget axe comes down and seperates a few of em from the feeding trough of our tax dollar, that's for sure.

Sadly, I don't think that's how it will go - but that's the way it SHOULD be. If violent crime goes down, the cops will be only too happy to start writing more traffic tickets (even though red-light cameras and photo-radar SHOULD mean those same cops are even less necessary for even that duty). Cops ALWAYS want more cops on the streets. Hell, now they'll ask for more officers just to make sure the people they stop and search for guns actually have the legal right to have those guns. And of course, those guns you legally have the right to have will naturally be confiscated. Oh, you'll be able to get them back, after you shell out money, jump through the legal hoops, and PROVE beyond a doubt that you've done nothing illegal. Fates forbid the cops should ever have to prove that you DON'T have the right to own a gun before they confiscate it.

Of course, I could be a little jaded on the issue of the police. From where I sit, they're pretty much only there to get in a person's way...

JONGSSTRAW

Friday, June 27, 2008 11:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by fivver:
Yeah Jong, not the most intelligent of quotes. The second amendment is not about shooting Bambi or the guy climbing in through your window. Those are just icing on the cake. It's about the people being able to protect themselves from an overbearing government. Here's what Framer James Madison had to say about the right to bear arms in Federalist Paper 46.

Quote:
Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.

It was Madison, as you quoted, but also mainly Thomas Jefferson who was the architect of the Bill of Rights. He wanted less Federal Govt. and more individual and state's rights...the exact opposite of today's modern Democrats who want the Govt to control every aspect of your life, including a nanny-state that re-distributes hard-working & entrepeneurial wealth to the idle & un-deserving under-acheivers of our society. The writings of the other Framers & Founding Fathers such as Adams, Washington, Franklin, Paine, Henry, et al clearly demonstrate in mountains of documents and letters that their intention was for an individual's rights to gun ownership...and this has been widely interpreted by Constitutional scholars for 200 years....only until the 4 libtards on the Supreme Court yesterday stood fast with their un-constitutional "feelings" and voted against our Constitutional rights...shame on them! I would like to applaud Justice Kennedy...loudly! As the only moderate on the court, I think he's gotten it right twice this week...first by casting the deciding vote against the death penalty for child rapists, and then his vote to uphold the 2nd Amendment. **Note on the child rapist thing....yeah, no death penalty, but yes to manadatory prison sentences of 20 to life at hard labor.

DEEPGIRL187

Friday, June 27, 2008 1:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Michigan was also predicted to become a wild west bloodbath when WE went right-to-carry, but again, no such thing occured and crime dropped like a ROCK, I was living right next to Flint, MI at the time and it was a damned horrific place, and within a couple months the whole atmosphere the place changed, apparently the criminal element sought greener pastures, many of em over in Wisconsin where it's still a free feeding zone of easy victims.

Around what time were you living in Flint, Frem? That drive-by I mentioned happened about eight years ago, and a few years after that (2003 or 2004), the amount of crime started to spike again. Haven't heard anything recently, but I live on the other side of the now.

**************************************************

"This is my timey-wimey detector. It goes ding when there's stuff. Also, it can boil an egg at 30 paces, whether you want it to or not, actually, so I've learned to stay away from hens. It's not pretty when they blow."

CITIZEN

Friday, June 27, 2008 2:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

That's it. That's the entire Second Amendment. A lot of people point to the "well-regulated militia" part of it as meaning those serving in the armed forces, the reserves, or other "militia" units that are organized and have gatherings and specific training, but historically (based on the state constitutions of the time of the framing of the Constitution), "militia" was meant to encompass every able-bodied citizen who COULD serve in time of dire need, not those who actually DID serve, or were members of any organized military or para-military unit. As such, the "militia" of the Founding Fathers was, simply, the entire citizenry of the nation. That's you and me. This was written SPECIFICALLY to ensure that no outside invader (like the British of the time) NOR any oppressive government WITHIN our borders could gain a foothold, because we the people are the final guardians of our own liberty.

Actually the term militia was far more interchangeable with military than it is now. Also, the term 'to bear arms', was often used to refer to ones service in the military. Looking at the language as it is, in the context of it's time, the interpretation that it allows states to operate their own militia (that is citizen army, but not private weapon ownership by citizens in the modern theme) that is not under the control of the Federal government, is equally supported.

Truth is you can't be sure, the founding fathers may have been for more stringent weapon protection in the modern context, they may not. That's the problem, the constitution was written for the 1700's, not the 21st century.

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.

WULFENSTAR

Friday, June 27, 2008 3:26 PM

Yes Citizen, the Bill of Rights and the Constitution were written in the 1700's. However, whether its the 1700's or the 2000's or the 3000's, basic human rights do not change.

I refer here, specifically of course, to the right to defend oneself. To procure and maintain the tools necessary to keep one safe and, if need be, to fight back against tyranny both foreign AND domestic.

PIRATECAT

Friday, June 27, 2008 3:41 PM

Kwicko, can you say thread hog. Boy, its not always about you. Its about the 2nd amendment. A guaranteed right. Its not about your ghetto life. You live there because the hookers are cheap. Get off the fat crack. Now DC can join the rest of the Union. You have a right to protect yourself, family, and property. Idiots always say that the armed citizen is dangerous. But cops are your saviors. Criminals are better with arms than veterans. Cops are the criminals. Shooten engine blocks what a fag.

"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".

FREMDFIRMA

Friday, June 27, 2008 4:55 PM

(Yes, it's a bit ranty and wandering, tired from mowing the lawn and bombed on allergy meds...pollen allergies suuuuuuuuuuuck!)

MI originally adopted Right-to-Carry in 2001, but it wasn't till about two-three years later that certain little shell games were finally ended by the state legislature and you could actually GET a CCW permit, the police installed a revolving door setup of catch-22 crap to drive folk off.

FYI, you CAN legally open-carry in MI, but that pissant Cox actively discourages it with the excuse that you might cause a panic - are people such cowards that the mere SIGHT of a freakin TOOL sends them screaming?

God forbid I walk across my own yard with a hammer or a rake then....
(insert about four minutes of profanity here)

Between 2004-2005 I was driving a cab in that area, and literally watched as crime fell off like a rock, you really get to know an area and it's people quite intimately from behind the wheel of a cab, and since I do associate and make friends in the "lower elements" of society* and many of them headed for greener pastures, specifically wisconsin, as a better and "safer" (how ironic, eh?) place to practice their 'trades'.

In fact the exodus really affected the area, for a while there it was actually starting to look like a ghost town, and I would have to say overall the folks who moved into that vaccum were at least marginally better folk, although given the continual poverty and resultant desperation of the average resident, not by all that bloody much, alas.

One substantially contributing factor to recent upswings in crime were the lack of any kind of trust and communication between the police and communities, especially in detroit, compounded in recent years with a truly significant amount of criminal activity on behalf of the DPD themself - remember, we STILL have that cursed federal task force sitting on top of them, and as a result they've been sitting around and bitching that they "can't do their job" if they're held to even the simplest standards of basic human decency, so they've prettymuch been sitting it out and waiting for the feddies to give up while the rest of us get left swinging in the breeze, one reason WHY I severely reccommend you protect yourself anywhere in Detroit and the local burbs, cause help will be long in coming, if at all.

As I recall, without being specific in either case, you live quite a bit further west of detroit than I do, and in any area that is comparatively safe, to a degree that actually weirds me the hell out being originally a native of Baltimore... I'd never SEEN an urban environ without the 'atmosphere' of fear, dread and violence before, I was like, what the hell, did they spike the local water supply with valium or what ?! none of these people look dangerous or frightened, it's... unnatural!

But I got used to it, especially after moving to a podunk little town about a mile wide in which three vandalisms in a month is considered a "crime wave"
*eyeroll*

But old habits and reflexes do die hard, and these days even most of the criminal element in detroit itself are just pathetic and incompetent amateurs in comparison to what I am used to, truthfully I feel MORE threatened by the DPD given their conduct over the past three years.

All the more reason to protect self (mostly by avoiding trouble in the first place) and not get them involved if at all possible - imagine being robbed, calling the cops and THEN getting shaken down, extorted, and then arrested by them... it's common enough that folks on the east side simply WILL not call em unless there's bodies to be picked up, if even then.

We're seeing an upswing now only because of the truly grevious economic situation, and most of that is what I call crimes of desperation more than intentional lifestyle conduct, it's no less dangerous for all that, but the really dangerous ones, that consider it a lifestyle and a living, they've long since flown the coop to somewhere they can be SURE their victims are unarmed and defenseless, and good fekkin riddance to em.

-Fr

CITIZEN

Friday, June 27, 2008 5:04 PM

Actually, Human rights do change, for all the assumption that such things are immutable, they change a great deal. Not only what Human rights are, but who they apply too as well. When the US Constitution and Bill of Rights were written, freedom and representation applied only to Rich, Landowning White Men. If you were Black and a slave, you were property, you had no rights. Your right to defend yourself was to let your master beat you if he wanted, because if you were to raise your hands to white folk, even in self defence, you were some dead property, ya' hear? There's a whole fleet of 'basic Human Rights' that didn't exist before the 20th century. To modern eyes the America of the Founding Fathers would likely have been quite a hideous tyranny, unless, of course, you were one of those Rich, landowning White guys.

But my main point was that language changes. The wording of the Second Amendment may mean one thing today, but that doesn't mean that's what it meant when it was written, nor what the founding fathers actually meant. Words change, sometimes drastically, and interestingly these changes can reflect on the changes of the wider society. Just consider the word 'franchise', it used to mean to go and vote; one would exercise one's franchise to vote. Now it means corporate monopoly of a marketable name or product. Militia in the 1700's was a non-professional army, that was called up in time of War, in the modern day the closest allegories would be the US Reservists or the British Territorial Army; civilian soldiers in the sense that they make a living outside of the military, yes, but hardly the idea of every civilian in the country being an armed militiaman. Similarly, the phrase 'to bear arms' didn't mean to own weapons, it meant to serve in the military. There are numerous contemporary documents where the phrase 'to bear arms' or similar connotations are used in reference to a serving member of the military, as we'd say 'soldiering' or similar today, though none I know of that indicate it too mean private weapon ownership. A well regulated militia (well regulated being a fairly important fragment there) would have more in common with the US Reserves than an ad hoc grouping of gun-ho survivalists, and the term 'to bear arms' meant to be an armed member of the military. Thus using the language and it's meaning of the day, to interpret a statement made at the time, I would say the Second Amendment could equally be interpreted to mean defending the right of individual states to maintain an independent militia, a part time army, and that no one's right to join their states army, nor the states right to maintain or raise that army, should be infringed.

Even so, if the right to bear arms means the right to own private weapons, why is it just small arms? The Second Amendment doesn't say “The Right to Bear Small Arms”, it says “Arms”, which is a just, in military parlance, Armaments. That includes everything from a knife to heavy artillery, munitions and Nuclear weapons. Here's an example of the tools changing. When the Founding Fathers wrote that rather open ended statement, no one had split the atom, nobody knew the atom really existed, beyond a vague philosophical sense. Arms were Cannon, Arms were single shot musket. Arms were not Fighter Jets, machine guns and tanks. So yes, I do wonder that if the Founding Fathers could have seen the modern context within which private weapon ownership falls, they would have been as free with it as the NRA suggests. No one (well no one fully sane) thinks any individual should have access to the supreme destructive power of a modern Thermonuclear weapon, but if the Second Amendment really says exactly that which you suggest, then Thermonuclear Weapons certainly fall under the heading 'arms', whose ownership should not be infringed. Or we can accept that they lived in a different time, a different context with different pressures, different language, and in fact a different set of 'basic human rights', what those rights were, and who they applied to.

More insane rambl

FREMDFIRMA

Friday, June 27, 2008 5:13 PM

Quote:
Truth is you can't be sure, the founding fathers may have been for more stringent weapon protection in the modern context, they may not.

In point of fact, they were VERY VERY explicit about it to a painstaking degree.

Just read the Federalist Papers and Anti-Federalist Papers to comprehend their reasons, intentions and effective decisions on the matter in explicitly clear detail.

NOT a standing army of ANY kind (the National Guard qualifies as such to the founders standards, and is thus anethma to their purpose)

NOT a state-run enterprise whatsoever save for the selection of officers, as often as not simply appointed to the position by the men they would be under.

Essentially the "militia" is the whole body of the people, and by well regulated they mean well ARMED and well TRAINED, with MILITARY WEAPONS.

It was the explicit intent (as mentioned in the Federalist Papers) that the "militia" should OUTGUN any raised conventional military force for the express purpose of a check and balance against that bastion of tyranny, the Standing Federal Army, which by their intent, should not exist nor have ever existed in this country, Madison in particular was SO convinced they had set up conditions that would ever prevent it, that no further explicit provision was required.

The intent and purpose of the second amendment was to make damn sure that at ANY point in time, due to superior force and quality of arms and training, we the people could kick the crap out of the Gov AND any military, police, or security forces they raised should they get out of line.

That means MILITARY WEAPONS, without restriction, up to, inlcuding, and beyond anything the US Army is or can be equipped with - period.

Read the documents yourselves if you doubt any word of mine on the matter.

And if you don't believe such a militia can kick ass when need be, just have a look at what happened on kings mountain.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kings_Mountain

All papers by timeline.
http://www.constitution.org/afp/afpchron.htm

Federalist Papers by number.
http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fedi.htm

AntiFederalist Papers by number.
http://www.wepin.com/articles/afp/index.htm

Those who put that Amendment there left no doubt whatsoever of its intent nor its meaning, it's only by completely distorting it that ANY restriction of that right exists at all.

-Frem

As this government will not enjoy the confidence of the people, but be executed by force, it will be a very expensive and burdensome government. The standing army must be numerous, and as a further support, it wilt be the policy of this government to multiply officers in every department; judges, collectors, tax-gatherers, excisemen and the whole host of revenue officers, will swarm over the land, devouring the hard earnings of the industrious like the locusts of old, impoverishing and desolating all before them. . . .
AntiFederalist #29

CITIZEN

Friday, June 27, 2008 5:24 PM

Have you got anything that specifically deals with the idea that they weren't talking about a regulated state militia, because the word militia and the phrase "to bear arms" didn't mean what you suggest, and I'm not in the mood to dig through a hundred odd links to support your case for you.

Essentially, 'militia' is NOT the whole body of the people, it's a militia, not the populous, hence them being different names for different things.

The meaning of the word militia is a non-professional army, part time and called up in crisis. It doesn't necessarily mean the whole body of the populous, that is not the meaning of the word now, and it is not the meaning of the word then.

Besides that, nothing you posted deals with what you quoted.

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.

FREMDFIRMA

Friday, June 27, 2008 5:36 PM

Ah, here ya go, Madison, from Federalist Paper #46...

"The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism.

Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.

Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it. The argument under the present head may be put into a very concise form, which appears altogeth

FREMDFIRMA

Friday, June 27, 2008 5:38 PM

If yer unwilling to do the research to support your opinion, offer it as opinion, not fact, then!

-F

FREMDFIRMA

Friday, June 27, 2008 5:46 PM

And Patrick Henry's very eloquent and correct counter argument, copy/pasted directly from here.
http://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_va_12.htm#henry-07

Mr. HENRY. Mr. Chairman, in my judgment the friends of the opposition have to act cautiously. We must make a firm stand before we decide. I was heard to say, a few days ago, that the sword and purse were the two great instruments of government; and I professed great repugnance at parting with the purse, without any control, to the proposed system of government. And now, when we proceed in this formidable compact, and come to the national defence, the sword, I am persuaded we ought to be still more cautious and circumspect; for I feel still more reluctance to surrender this most valuable of rights.

The honorable member who has risen to explain several parts of the system was pleased to say, that the best way of avoiding the danger of a standing army, was, to have the militia in such a way as to render it unnecessary; and that, as the new government would have power over the militia, we should have no standing army — it being unnecessary. This argument destroys itself. It demands a power, and denies the probability of its exercise. There are suspicions of power on one hand, and absolute and unlimited confidence {385} on the other. I hope to be one of those who have a large share of suspicion. I leave it to this house, if there be not too small a portion on the other side, by giving up too much to that government. You can easily see which is the worst of two extremes. Too much suspicion may be corrected. If you give too little power to-day, you may give more to-morrow. But the reverse of the proposition will not hold. If you give too much power to-day, you cannot retake it to-morrow: for to-morrow will never come for that purpose. If you have the fate of other nations, you will never see it. It is easier to supply deficiencies of power than to take back excess of power. This no man can deny.

But, says the honorable member, Congress will keep the militia armed; or, in other words, they will do their duty. Pardon me if I am too jealous and suspicious to confide in this remote possibility. My honorable friend went on a supposition that the American rulers, like all others, will depart from their duty without bars and checks. No government can be safe without checks. Then he told us they had no temptation to violate their duty, and that it would be their interest to perform it. Does he think you are to trust men who cannot have separate interests from the people? It is a novelty in the political world (as great a novelty as the system itself) to find rulers without private interests, and views of personal emoluments, and ambition. His supposition, that they will not depart from their duty, as having no interest to do so, is no satisfactory answer to my mind. This is no check. The government may be most intolerable and destructive, if this be our only security.

My honorable friend attacked the honorable gentleman with universal principles — that, in all nations and ages, rulers have been actuated by motives of individual interest and private emoluments, and that in America it would be so also. I hope, before we part with this great bulwark, this noble palladium of safety, we shall have such checks interposed as will render us secure. The militia, sir, is our ultimate safety. We can have no security without it. But then, he says that the power of arming and organizing the militia is concurrent, and to be equally exercised by the general and state governments. I am sure, and I trust in the candor of that gentleman, that he will recede from that {386} opinion, When his recollection will be called to the particular clause which relates to it.

As my worthy friend said, there is a positive partition of power between the two governments. To Congress is given the power of "arming, organizing, and disciplining the militia, and governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States." To the state legislatures is given the power of appointing the

KWICKO

Friday, June 27, 2008 5:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by PirateCat:
Kwicko, can you say thread hog. Boy, its not always about you. Its about the 2nd amendment. A guaranteed right. Its not about your ghetto life. You live there because the hookers are cheap. Get off the fat crack. Now DC can join the rest of the Union. You have a right to protect yourself, family, and property. Idiots always say that the armed citizen is dangerous. But cops are your saviors. Criminals are better with arms than veterans. Cops are the criminals. Shooten engine blocks what a fag.

"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".

PirateCat, how do you spell "retard"? Oh, that's right - you can't.

I'll have to defer to your superior knowledge of cheap hookers, but you really shouldn't call your mom "cheap". After all, she was decent enough not to swallow you, or let you run down the crack of her ass to become a stain on the sheets after her brother had his fun...

As for the rest of your post, I'll only repeat what Samuel L. Jackson asked in "Pulp Fiction" :

"ENGLISH, MOTHERFUCKER! DO YOU SPEAK IT?!"

Keep "worken" on it - someday maybe you'll be reading at the third-grade level. That would make you the most well-educated person in your family tree.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

The Myrmidons were an ancient nation of very brave and skilled warriors as described in Homer's Iliad, and were commanded by Achilles. - Wikipedia

WULFENSTAR

Friday, June 27, 2008 5:56 PM

Citizen,

You made 2 good arguments. (I commend you for them) I will attempt to answer both of them.

1. The Bill of Rights only applied to white, land owing men...as such anyone else had NO rights. Yes, you are correctin that, at the time, it applied only to them. However it left a back door open, so that things could change.

This point, however, does not apply. The young U.S.A., at the time, had just begun. It is my belief that the founding fathers did not want to immediatly start a civil war by granting freedoms to slaves and to women.

They left it open to be done, but the establishment of the country was primary.

The founding fathers left it to later generations to decided. And we did, with the Civil War, (just as they had predicted).

This does not mean that they wanted to hold the door closed to slaves or to women. Just that it could not be decided and still keep the country intact at the time. But they knew that it would be decided one day, which is why they made it so that it COULD BE DECIDED.

2. Why doesnt it apply to nukes?

Well, why doesnt it? No, they didnt have nukes back then, and technology has far outpaced what anyone could have thought of.

However, one of the major points of the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, is that NO ONE MAN CAN CONTROL THE COUNTRY. With a nuke, you could threaten and terrorize the country into doing whatever you wanted.

Or at least a large chunk of it. This is UnConstituional. Our founding fathers set up this country to protect itself from despots who would try and take complete power. However, it left the door open again, so that if a despot did rise, the people would ahve the means and the ability to strike them down.

The right of a human being, to protect themselves and their families, from threats both foreign and domestic should never even be questioned.

CITIZEN

Friday, June 27, 2008 6:03 PM

@Frem:

Yeah, for a Coup de grâce that's rather ambiguous at best. 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.

In contrast in a number of places it suggests the militia is very much what I said it is, a state organised and regulated non-professional citizen army, called up in time of crises. For instance:
But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia indicates the militia is under the command of the state government, and thus implies that the well regulated militia is more of a formal territorial army, than a ad hoc pairing of gun owners. That interpretation is also more in keeping with the meaning of the word 'militia'.

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.

JONGSSTRAW

Friday, June 27, 2008 6:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by PirateCat:
Kwicko, can you say thread hog. Boy, its not always about you. Its about the 2nd amendment. A guaranteed right. Its not about your ghetto life. You live there because the hookers are cheap. Get off the fat crack. Now DC can join the rest of the Union. You have a right to protect yourself, family, and property. Idiots always say that the armed citizen is dangerous. But cops are your saviors. Criminals are better with arms than veterans. Cops are the criminals. Shooten engine blocks what a fag.

"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".

PirateCat, how do you spell "retard"? Oh, that's right - you can't.

I'll have to defer to your superior knowledge of cheap hookers, but you really shouldn't call your mom "cheap". After all, she was decent enough not to swallow you, or let you run down the crack of her ass to become a stain on the sheets after her brother had his fun...

As for the rest of your post, I'll only repeat what Samuel L. Jackson asked in "Pulp Fiction" :

"ENGLISH, MOTHERFUCKER! DO YOU SPEAK IT?!"

Keep "worken" on it - someday maybe you'll be reading at the third-grade level. That would make you the most well-educated person in your family tree.

Mike

This is by far the sickest, nastiest, most vile and disgusting post I've ever seen at FFF. I hope and expect you to be reported and banned, or at least tagged as offensive.

WULFENSTAR

Friday, June 27, 2008 6:40 PM

Freedom of speech.....even if we dont agree with what or how it is said. Everyone has the right to voice their opinion.

JONGSSTRAW

Friday, June 27, 2008 6:52 PM

Yes, freedom of speech, but FFF's asks you to be civil. You cannot spew out the kind of vile filth that this "person" wrote to Piratecat...or is that how you want this board to be? He's likely already been reported, and I expect to see him tagged or banned soon.

ERIC

Friday, June 27, 2008 6:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

"The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism.

Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made.

Wow, seems like he's saying "okay, here's some crazy shit that could NEVER happen," and describing the present state of affairs exactly.

WULFENSTAR

Friday, June 27, 2008 7:00 PM

Again, freedom of speech. We all have the right to say whatever the f*** we feel like.

Buit I agree, we should keep things civil.

Everyone should get to have fun on the playground....

RUE

Friday, June 27, 2008 7:17 PM

"You cannot spew out the kind of vile filth that this "person" wrote to Piratecat ..."
Or the filth that PirateCat spewed, like this: "Its not about your ghetto life. You live there because the hookers are cheap. Get off the fat crack. ... Shooten engine blocks what a fag."

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

KWICKO

Friday, June 27, 2008 7:26 PM

Quote:

This is by far the sickest, nastiest, most vile and disgusting post I've ever seen at FFF. I hope and expect you to be reported and banned, or at least tagged as offensive.

Jongs: I *have* kept a civil tongue - until it was time NOT to. Read the posts, in order. Note where I'm referred to as "what a fag" because I stated that I would rather disable someone's car than kill them, even if I were within my rights to do so.

Quote:
PirateCat wrote:

Its not about your ghetto life. You live there because the hookers are cheap. Get off the fat crack. Now DC can join the rest of the Union. You have a right to protect yourself, family, and property. Idiots always say that the armed citizen is dangerous. But cops are your saviors. Criminals are better with arms than veterans. Cops are the criminals. Shooten engine blocks what a fag.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: If you want to use vile, sick, twisted things to attack me, prepare for me to do the same to you. You want to engage me in a war of words or a battle of wits? Bring it. I'll speak to you in exactly the same kind of language you use towards me. If you're civil, I'll be civil; if you're not, don't expect me to play nice.

As for the "thread hog" accusation, fine. I posted several times in this thread because it's something I have strong feelings about. If PirateCat is unable to keep up because his lips get tired from all the reading, that's his problem, not mine. If he's not ready to swim in the deep end of the pool, he'd better not go off the high dive...

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

The Myrmidons were an ancient nation of very brave and skilled warriors as described in Homer's Iliad, and were commanded by Achilles. - Wikipedia

JONGSSTRAW

Friday, June 27, 2008 7:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"You cannot spew out the kind of vile filth that this "person" wrote to Piratecat ..."
Or the filth that PirateCat spewed, like this: "Its not about your ghetto life. You live there because the hookers are cheap. Get off the fat crack. ... Shooten engine blocks what a fag."

I can always count on Rue to defend the indefensible. But I do give you props for always keeping things civil, and generally never going beyond calling someone stupid or boring or irrelevent.

KWICKO

Friday, June 27, 2008 7:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Again, freedom of speech. We all have the right to say whatever the f*** we feel like.

Buit I agree, we should keep things civil.

Everyone should get to have fun on the playground....

Agreed, and thanks for the support. I try my damnedest to NOT use "uncivil" language until it is used against me. But I'll be damned if I'm going to stand by and be insulted and have nothing to say about it.

Read PirateCat's post again. Notice that there is hardly a single thing in it that's not a personal attack against ME. So if I respond, now I'M the bad guy? Fuck that.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

The Myrmidons were an ancient nation of very brave and skilled warriors as described in Homer's Iliad, and were commanded by Achilles. - Wikipedia

WULFENSTAR

Friday, June 27, 2008 7:48 PM

We are getting off topic....

Or maybe not....hmmm. Is it possible that the right to carry concealed brings with it the neccesity of speaking and acting civily?

RUE

Friday, June 27, 2008 7:54 PM

Better to have people shooting each other in the street 'cause they thought someone dissed 'em. Yeah, that's a step up. And real polite, like, too.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

KWICKO

Friday, June 27, 2008 8:13 PM

Quote:
We are getting off topic....

Or maybe not....hmmm. Is it possible that the right to carry concealed brings with it the neccesity of speaking and acting civilly?

Could be. As Heinlein said, 'An armed society is a polite society."

Back to topic.

M

WULFENSTAR

Friday, June 27, 2008 8:35 PM

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?

FREMDFIRMA

Friday, June 27, 2008 9:02 PM

You want specifics ?
Easy enough.

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms."
-- Richard Henry Lee: From (Additional letters from the Federal Farmer, at 169, 1788)

"... who are the militia, if they be not the people of this country...? I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
-- George Mason: From Elliot, Debates at 425-426:

"The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
-- Patrick Henry: From 3 Elliot, Debates at 386.

"No free government was ever founded or ever preserved its liberty, without uniting the characters of the citizen and soldier in those destined for the defense of the state.... Such are a well regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen."
-- From State Gazette (Charleston), September 8, 1788

"The militia, who are in fact the effective part of the people at large, will render many troops quite unnecessary. They will form a powerful check upon the regular troops, and will generally be sufficient to over-awe them"
-- Tench Coxe, An American Citizen IV, October 21, 1787

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.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

FREMDFIRMA

Friday, June 27, 2008 9:16 PM

Quote:
Wow, seems like he's saying "okay, here's some crazy shit that could NEVER happen," and describing the present state of affairs exactly.

That's why I posted it - to show how dead-bang correct the AntiFederalist were on almost every single point.

Go back and read through both sets of papers and keep firmly in your mind that all of this was written 200 and some years BEFORE the current state of affairs, when it wasn't so bloody painful obvious that things WOULD come to this...

Except that some folk DID see it coming, tried to point it out to folk, and got nothing but mockery and scorn for the doing - I will point out to you also that even as recently as I was in high school, we were taught about the Federalist Papers, but didja know, somehow VERY conspiciously missing altogether was ANY mention what-so-ever of the Anti-Federalist papers, not in any of my textbooks, classes or other materials were they so much as even mentioned, and I was taught that the Federalist Papers were a simple explaination of the Government our "wise" Founders were laying out for us...

Completely missing was even the question of any opposition to the idea, and noteably absent was any mention of Anti-Federalists, which, when I turned to encyclopedia brittanica and learned of it, caused the initial explosion in my history class between me and the teacher which lead to my interest in actual history versus the distorted propaganda taught in public schools under the guise of historical education.

One of my flakier hobbies is collecting old history textbooks and comparing them to each other and reality to watch not only how our history is distorted in the teaching, but how even the level and type of distortion changes based on the political climate of the times.

Care to lay odds on whether or not current middle and high school history classes admit that we killed Mossedeigh, propped up the Shah, trained Osama and supplied weapons to Saddam ?

Learning history is best done entirely as a DIY matter, don't take nobody's word for it, not even mine, cause, yanno... people lie.

See my signature line for why I feel that is so important.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

KWICKO

Friday, June 27, 2008 9:25 PM

Thanks, Frem, for the wonderful and illuminating quotes.

It's not a well-known fact, and it's hard for many to believe, but IT IS NOT ILLEGAL to own a silencer, a sawed-off shotgun, or a fully-automatic machinegun in this country. It's perfectly legal, IF you jump through the proper hoops and fill out the necessary paperwork. And pay the proper bribes - er, I mean FEES. Those legal hassles are enough to make me uninterested in pursuing such weaponry, but your average gang-banger or meth-dealer has no such problems - he gets the weapons, and if he gets busted, he was already a major criminal to begin with, so it's really no skin off his ass to have one more weapons charge against him.

Anyhoo, I'm glad the Court reaffirmed The Second, but it scares me that it was a 5-4 vote.

Now,

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

The Myrmidons were an ancient nation of very brave and skilled warriors as described in Homer's Iliad, and were commanded by Achilles. - Wikipedia

KWICKO

Friday, June 27, 2008 9:32 PM

DeepGirl:

Sorry for the ugly turn the thread took. We're making efforts to get it back on track!

Also,

Quote:
Haven't heard anything recently, but I live on the other side of the now.

While I think this might be a simple typo, I'm also struck by how surreally, poetically beautiful it is. I find myself wishing I lived on the other side of the now.

Peace,

Mike

NVGHOSTRIDER

Friday, June 27, 2008 9:36 PM

Had to poke my head into the RWED for this. I'm not sure you could call post European America Utopia. It might have been better suited term for the Americas before European settlements. The "Old West" was a dirty place many people weren't suited for. Imagine how many people simply disappeared. And the answer to the question "How did it fail" should be fairly simple.

Population and lots of it. Dividing the land with boundries and fences. Claiming ownership on something that belonged to all people and animals on the Earth.

And you have to remember that any armorment was uaually utilitarian and not ornamental status symbols for all of society to see. There are still open carry laws within the state that allow me to carry anywhere but State, County, Municipal, and Federally owned buildings. Private owners need to ask me to remove my sidearm and may deny me service if I don't comply. As long as the weapon is in plain sight and I am not under the influence of drugs or alcohol and not endangering the wellbeing of myself or others it is perfectly legal for me to carry in the open in most parts of my state.

Why don't I carry you may ask? Because I believe in the relative peace and comfort of my home and feel no need to display whatever "power" I may posess by owning and carrying a firearm. If I choose to carry than I will take the required courses and classes for a Concealed Carry Permit. Despite the fact I really could give two shits about all the sensative people moving here from the Libtard state to the west, I feel confident in my right to walk down the street with my 1911 riding on my hip. I choose to not carry a weapon for the simple fact that I am safe and secure in my home area. The right to do so when things do turn out bad means much more to me than using a firearm as a phallic reprsentation as it has been so given in modern society.

As for militia, Citizen is right in his wording. But the implication of citizen armies relied much on the personal weapons of the men of the day. Despite technological advances many of the weapons used during the war at the documents inception were personal weapons of the citizen soldier. I completely agree with licensing and taxing of destructive devices, class II and III weapons and devices (silencers and the like), and background checks at weapons purchases. Many weapons are kept out of the hands of illegal immigrants, sex offenders, perpetrators of domestic violence, mentally instable and defective individuals, people with restraining orders; and are accessible to law abiding citizens of this great land.

In all I believe that firearms in the hands of law abiding American citizens is a great thing. More people should be capable of effectively protecting themselves, their homes, and to a lesser extent their property. But also implied is a government that works for and fears its citizens discontent.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Being an artist means not having to avert one's eyes.
-Akira Kurosawa

DEEPGIRL187

Friday, June 27, 2008 11:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
DeepGirl:

Sorry for the ugly turn the thread took. We're making efforts to get it back on track!

Also,

Quote:
Haven't heard anything recently, but I live on the other side of the now.

While I think this might be a simple typo, I'm also struck by how surreally, poetically beautiful it is. I find myself wishing I lived on the other side of the now.

Peace,

Mike

No worries, Kwicko. Posting on the RWE is always a toss of the dice in terms of arguments and such. And I meant to say other side of the state, but somehow it seems much cooler that way.

**************************************************

"This is my timey-wimey detector. It goes ding when there's stuff. Also, it can boil an egg at 30 paces, whether you want it to or not, actually, so I've learned to stay away from hens. It's not pretty when they blow."

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

CITIZEN

Saturday, June 28, 2008 4:54 PM

Sorry Geezer, but your opinion isn't better than mine, no matter how much you wish it so. I also don't care one iota about what the US supreme court says or doesn't say. To me, my opinion on the US constitution is as effective to me as the ruling of some illiterate judges in another country, eh .

It's also highly irrelevant to what I was saying. They interpret the constitution, but their interpretation is no stronger than mine when discussing what the Founding Fathers meant, only in how it's interpreted by people and law now.

Besides, to say that it is completely unlinked with the idea of militia, they have to ignore the first part of the amendment. I don't care how much they toady around the issue, how much they 'reason', how many times they say "we didn't ignore it, really we didn't". The sentence flows like this: "To promote Y, X must be protected". To turn around and say X has nothing to do with Y just shows they don't have a clue about how the English language works. Y and X are intractable, they appear in the same sentence, and are irrevocably linked by the clear intent of the sentence.

Though, if they're truly not, I should be able to get away with this:
The judges of the Supreme court, what illiterate morons.

By their standards, I didn't just call them illiterate morons, because those two halves of sentence aren't linked.

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.

KWICKO

Saturday, June 28, 2008 4:59 PM

Quote:

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

Bingo. I may not agree with their decisions, but their decisions are final, barring a Constitutional Amendment to override them.

So, Cit, since I don't agree with the Supreme Court's decision to stop the Florida recount in 2000, then I don't have to officially recognize that Bush is the President of the United States? Can I now stop paying my taxes and abiding by the laws of the United States, because I don't agree that he's the President?

You should really read the entire ruling, and the opinions offered by both sides on the case. There's some enlightening stuff in there. For instance, it challenges directly the ever-increasing practice of requiring a license for a weapon, but then refusing to issue such licenses, or issuing them capriciously and on a whim. It challenges such "may-issue" statutes and compels them to change to "must-issue" stances. If you apply and if you meet the requirements, the authorities can not REFUSE to issue you such a license.

It doesn't, however, challenge the idea of having licensing requirements. It's NOT the "Wild West", where anyone and everyone can have a gun. It's a reaffirmation that law-abiding citizens needn't be criminalized en masse for doing what their Constitution guarantees them the right to do.

Let me ask you this, Cit: Would you support licensing laws and requirements, or membership in a well-regulated group, in order to exercise your right to peaceably assemble? Or do you believe that THAT right is universal, but other Constitutional rights somewhat less so?

Mike

CITIZEN

Saturday, June 28, 2008 5:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
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.

That's great, but we're not talking about about the state constitutions, so they're completely irrelevant.

The Second Amendment is formed of a sentence of two linked parts, the Supreme Court said one of those parts isn't linked to the other, so they obviously don't understand how the English language works.

Quote:
So, by any rational definition of the word, I *AM* part of the militia, since I am eligible by law and am able to be called.

One thing seems pretty clear - in order to be in ANY kind of militia, first you have to have the ability as an individual to keep and bear arms.

So how do you explain the formal entity described earlier, under the control and direction of the State government, and officers appointed by the state government. If all the Militia amounts too is everyone, essentially just screaming "go git 'em boys!", where does the well regulated entity described come into it?

CITIZEN

Saturday, June 28, 2008 5:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Bingo. I may not agree with their decisions, but their decisions are final, barring a Constitutional Amendment to override them.

So, Cit, since I don't agree with the Supreme Court's decision to stop the Florida recount in 2000, then I don't have to officially recognize that Bush is the President of the United States? Can I now stop paying my taxes and abiding by the laws of the United States, because I don't agree that he's the President?

I was talking about the original intent. Whether the original intent is enshrined in law is irrelevant, what the supreme court has to say is irrelevant, in fact, to the point I was trying to make. At the end of the day, my opinion of what the Founding Fathers meant is just as good as the Supreme Courts, it's just my opinion doesn't make current and lawful state backed modern interpretation. But it being the modern interpretation doesn't change what the original interpretation was.

I wasn't talking or discussing law in any sense, I've not even discussed whether I think people should be prevented from owning private weaponry. I was merely talking about how I think the Second Amendment was meant, how it's interpreted now in law is really irrelevant to what I was saying, as is telling me my opinion isn't law.

Quote:
It doesn't, however, challenge the idea of having licensing requirements. It's NOT the "Wild West", where anyone and everyone can have a gun. It's a reaffirmation that law-abiding citizens needn't be criminalized en masse for doing what their Constitution guarantees them the right to do.

Again, completely irrelevant to what I was saying.

Quote:
Let me ask you this, Cit: Would you support licensing laws and requirements, or membership in a well-regulated group, in order to exercise your right to peaceably assemble? Or do you believe that THAT right is universal, but other Constitutional rights somewhat less so?

No, but then peaceable assembly isn't a dangerous weapon that requires a person to be trained and responsible to use it without injuring or killing someone. Also, in the constitution it clearly states that the right to keep and bear arms is integral to the up keep of the well regulated Militia, there's no such clause in relation to freedom of assembly. A question would be, why do you think you can drop inconvenient parts of the Constitution, such as the clause "Well regulated Militia"? Is the phrase "Well Regulated Militia" not as important as the phrase "Right to keep and bear arms"?

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 6:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Sorry Geezer, but your opinion isn't better than mine, no matter how much you wish it so. I also don't care one iota about what the US supreme court says or doesn't say.

That may be true, but the Supreme Court's opinion has the power of law behind it, and your's has nothing.

Edit to add: Sorry, your opinion does have your massive ego and supercilious worldview behind it. Or maybe that is nothing, after all.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

CITIZEN

Saturday, June 28, 2008 6:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Edit to add: Sorry, your opinion does have your massive ego and supercilious worldview behind it. Or maybe that is nothing, after all.

In contrast your opinion is backed by the fact that you're an ignorant prick and a troll, so at least mine is more substantial than yours, eh. Your lack of a reproductive organ isn't my concern, you unbelievably stupid piece of worthless shit.

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.

FREMDFIRMA

Saturday, June 28, 2008 6:17 PM

Funny...

Does it not seem that, simply by making such rulings the Supreme Court has the effective power to subvert or distort the Constitution however they please, without regard to checks and balances, and with no appropriate means of remedy even should they do so blatantly and with malice aforethought ?

And if yer thinkin "Yeah, that don't seem right", you are not alone, this issue was addressed by Brutus in Antifederalist Papers 11,12 and 15.

The most relevant portion, from #15, here.

I have said that the judges under this system will be independent in the strict sense of the word: To prove this I will shew — That there is no power above them that can controul their decisions, or correct their errors. There is no authority that can remove them from office for any errors or want of capacity, or lower their salaries, and in many cases their power is superior to that of the legislature.

1st. There is no power above them that can correct their errors or controul their decisions — The adjudications of this court are final and irreversible, for there is no court above them to which appeals can lie, either in error or on the merits. — In this respect it differs from the courts in England, for there the house of lords is the highest court, to whom appeals, in error, are carried from the highest of the courts of law.

2d. They cannot be removed from office or suffer a dimunition of their salaries, for any error in judgement or want of capacity.

It is expressly declared by the constitution, — "That they shall at stated times receive a compensation for their services which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office."

The only clause in the constitution which provides for the removal of the judges from office, is that which declares, that "the president, vice-president, and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office, on impeachment for, and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." By this paragraph, civil officers, in which the judges are included, are removable only for crimes. Treason and bribery are named, and the rest are included under the general terms of high crimes and misdemeanors. — Errors in judgement, or want of capacity to discharge the duties of the office, can never be supposed to be included in these words, high crimes and misdemeanors. A man may mistake a case in giving judgment, or manifest that he is incompetent to the discharge of the duties of a judge, and yet give no evidence of corruption or want of integrity. To support the charge, it will be necessary to give in evidence some facts that will shew, that the judges commited the error from wicked and corrupt motives.

3d. The power of this court is in many cases superior to that of the legislature. I have shewed, in a former paper, that this court will be authorised to decide upon the meaning of the constitution, and that, not only according to the natural and ob[vious] meaning of the words, but also according to the spirit and intention of it. In the exercise of this power they will not be subordinate to, but above the legislature. For all the departments of this government will receive their powers, so far as they are expressed in the constitution, from the people immediately, who are the source of power. The legislature can only exercise such powers as are given them by the constitution, they cannot assume any of the rights annexed to the judicial, for this plain reason, that the same authority which vested the legislature with their powers, vested the judicial with theirs — both are derived from the same source, both therefore are equally valid, and the judicial hold their powers independently of the legislature, as the legislature do of the judicial. — The supreme court then have a right, independent of the legislature, to give a construction to the constitution and every part of it, and there is no power provided in this system to correct their construction or do it away. If, therefore, the legislature pass any laws, inconsistent with the sense the ju

KWICKO

Saturday, June 28, 2008 6:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

At the end of the day, my opinion of what the Founding Fathers meant is just as good as the Supreme Courts.

Only it's not "just as good" - unless you happen to be appointed to the Supreme Court. Your opinion is just your opinion - their opinion is essentially the law.

Quote:
I was merely talking about how I think the Second Amendment was meant...

And you've provided zero evidence that reinforces your opinion.

Quote:
Also, in the constitution it clearly states that the right to keep and bear arms is integral to the up keep of the well regulated Militia...

Quote:
2. Prefatory Clause.
The prefatory clause reads: “A well regulated Militia,
being necessary to the security of a free State . . . .”
a. “Well-Regulated Militia.” In United States v.
Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 179 (1939), we explained that “the
Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in
concert for the common defense.” That definition comports
with founding-era sources. The Feder-
alist No. 46, pp. 329, 334 (B. Wright ed. 1961) (J. Madison)
(“near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands”);
Letter to Destutt de Tracy (Jan. 26, 1811), in The Portable
Thomas Jefferson 520, 524 (M. Peterson ed. 1975) (“[T]he
militia of the State, that is to say, of every man in it able
to bear arms”).

Opinion of the Court
Although we agree with petitioners’ interpretive assump-
tion that “militia” means the same thing in Article I and
the Second Amendment, we believe that petitioners iden-
tify the wrong thing, namely, the organized militia.
Unlike armies and navies, which Congress is given the
power to create (“to raise . . . Armies”; “to provide . . . a
Navy,” Art. I, §8, cls. 12–13), the militia is assumed by
Article I already to be in existence. Congress is given the
power to “provide for calling forth the militia,” §8, cl. 15;
and the power not to create, but to “organiz[e]” it—and not
to organize “a” militia, which is what one would expect if
the militia were to be a federal creation, but to organize
“the” militia, connoting a body already in existence, ibid.,
cl. 16. This is fully consistent with the ordinary definition
of the militia as all able-bodied men. To be sure, Congress need not conscript every able-bodied man into the militia, because nothing in Article I suggests that in exercising its power to organize, discipline, and arm the militia, Congress must focus upon the entire body. Although the militia consists of all able- bodied men, the federally organized militia may consist of
a subset of them.
Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing
more than the imposition of proper discipline and training.
See Johnson 1619 (“Regulate”: “To adjust by rule or
method”); Rawle 121–122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights
§13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to “a well-
regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained in the use of firearms.

Okay, I have signed up to be "called forth" as part of the militia. When I turned 18, I had to sign up for Selective Service - commonly known as the draft, but also useful in calling up the militia should Congress deem it necessary. And I've been trained in the use and care of firearms, and have no legal reasons why I can't own or possess said firearms. So I *am* in the militia, and I *am* well-regulated (disciplined and trained in the use of firearms).

If it's your contention that owning firearms be concurrent with signing up for a civilian militia and being trained and disciplined in the use of those firearms, I'm right there with ya.

Quote:

b. “Security of a Free State.” The phrase “security of
a free state” meant “security of a free polity,” not security
of each of the several States as the dissent below argued,
see 478 F. 3d, at 405, and n. 10. Joseph Story wrote in his
treatise on the Constitution that “the word ‘state’ is used
in various senses [and in] its most enlarged sense, it

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

KWICKO

Saturday, June 28, 2008 6:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Edit to add: Sorry, your opinion does have your massive ego and supercilious worldview behind it. Or maybe that is nothing, after all.
In contrast your opinion is backed by the fact that you're an ignorant prick and a troll, so at least mine is more substantial than yours, eh. Your lack of a reproductive organ isn't my concern, you unbelievably stupid piece of worthless shit.

And here we go down the "civility" road again...

Hey - and this time I wasn't involved!!

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

The Myrmidons were an ancient nation of very brave and skilled warriors as described in Homer's Iliad, and were commanded by Achilles. - Wikipedia

KWICKO

Saturday, June 28, 2008 6:38 PM

And Frem, regarding your post:

Now THAT is a question that's good for debate!

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

The Myrmidons were an ancient nation of very brave and skilled warriors as described in Homer's Iliad, and were commanded by Achilles. - Wikipedia

CITIZEN

Saturday, June 28, 2008 8:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
And here we go down the "civility" road again...

Hey - and this time I wasn't involved!!

Much as you, I will respond to people in the way they address me.

Anyway:

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Only it's not "just as good" - unless you happen to be appointed to the Supreme Court. Your opinion is just your opinion - their opinion is essentially the law.

No, their opinion has more consequences, but it doesn't necessarily make it better sourced or supported. Unless you fall easily for appeals to authority, it doesn't mean their opinion is 'better', perhaps more 'important', but not 'better'.

Quote:
And you've provided zero evidence that reinforces your opinion.

No, but as I said I was willing to give back up for my interpretation if someone asked. No one did.

Quote:
Okay, I have signed up to be "called forth" as part of the militia. When I turned 18, I had to sign up for Selective Service - commonly known as the draft, but also useful in calling up the militia should Congress deem it necessary. And I've been trained in the use and care of firearms, and have no legal reasons why I can't own or possess said firearms. So I *am* in the militia, and I *am* well-regulated (disciplined and trained in the use of firearms).

I'll fall back on something Frem provided earlier, which indicates that what they meant by 'Militia' was a regulated body, with officers and under the command of the state government. Do you want me to re-post it? The words in Frems post indicate that the Militia the writer intended wasn't just a bunch of guys with guns, it was the formal entity I was talking about, doesn't it?

Quote:
YOU say "they ignored half the Amendment" - but clearly, they didn't ignore it; they argued it quite vociferously.

They say it wasn't linked, when clearly it was. CLEARLY, since it's in the same sentence, and the right to keep and bear arms was integral to the up keep of the militia.

Quote:
So far, you've come up with no better argument against it than, "But that's not the way I feel, so that settles it. Anything else is irrelevant."

No, what I said was that the supreme court and it's decision was irrelevant to what I was saying, I'm sorry if you didn't like your appeal to authority being challenged. You seem to have pigeon-holed me and what I'm saying in a convenient box, which is obviously why you think so much of this is relevant to what I'm saying, but it really isn't. My only point was that in the 1700's the phrases "well regulated militia" and "to bear arms" had meanings different to what everyone has been saying, or to how they're now interpreted. You're now demanding I back up assertions I never made, and throwing a contemporary interpretation at me. Yeah, I think that's irrelevant, I'm not talking about the law or interpretation now, I'm talking then. I'm making no statement about how things should be now, nor how it should be codified in law now.

So I have two cases to make, one the meaning of the term well regulated militia, and the other is the meaning of the phrase "to bear arms".

To bear arms is easy, going off the congress records (I can't seem to get direct links to work, so I'll have to beg indulgence to run a search on the site until I can find a better solution - http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/browse/):

Excerpt from Letters of Delegates to Congress: Volume 4 May 16, 1776 - August 15, 1776
Joseph Hewes to James Iredell

Quote:
Our whole army are retreated to the Isle a Noix a little on this side St. Johns, 1500 of them have the Small Pox, out of three Regiments not more than fifty able to bear Arms, we hope to keep possession of the Lakes.

Using the term "bear arms" to indicate only fifty men from three regiments are fit for military service.

Excerpt from the Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States, 1804-1807
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 1806.

Quote:
Whereas the commanders of British armed vessels have impressed many American

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

FREMDFIRMA

Saturday, June 28, 2008 10:30 PM

Indeed, that it is, Mike...

One OTHER point that most folk never seem to comprehend is that there was the "Standing Army" present in our current society, the very thing the Founders most feared as the primary danger to Liberty is NOT in fact, the Armed Forces of the United States, although that case can certainly be made...

It's another "Standing Army" that you would recognize as....
The Police.

From AntiFederalist #29.
As this government will not enjoy the confidence of the people, but be executed by force, it will be a very expensive and burdensome government. The standing army must be numerous, and as a further support, it wilt be the policy of this government to multiply officers in every department; judges, collectors, tax-gatherers, excisemen and the whole host of revenue officers, will swarm over the land, devouring the hard earnings of the industrious like the locusts of old, impoverishing and desolating all before them. . . .

See, back then there really wasn't so much an organized full-time law enforcement beyond the occasional Sheriff who would deputise members of the community at need - and there were good reasons for that, imagine such a Sheriff trying to convince the neighbors of the local priest to kick in his door for a no-knock raid at 3am based on info obtained from a vagrant caught stealing who's only hoping to catch a break by fingering someone at random and hoping the raid comes up with something ?

In the context of the argument, the Police as a whole, and all those assholes of the BATFE, DEA, and suchlike ARE the very "Standing Army" the Founders were convinced would be the end of us, because it is by THEIR power that the whims of our runaway Government is thrust upon us by force of arms rather than the consent of the governed.

And consider the argument previously posted that the general population should completely outgun any "Standing Army" as a bulwark against tyranny in light of the legal blockade of bullshit hoops one has to jump through to possess a weapon at all, and the eagerness with which the Police confiscate them - contrasted by the Police having assault rifles, APC's and grenade launchers.

And now their damn checkpoint charlie routine for bullshit fishing expeditions under the guise of excuse of the week, seatbelts, safety checks, what have you, but mostly just bullshit to give them an excuse to piss on the Fourth Amendment and lord over us like some kind of social upper class - not to mention the fact that they behave just like any other street gang once you strip the excuses and bullshit off.

I submit to you that THEY are the "Standing Army" that we're supposed to be armed better than, and here we are on the other end, at the very fucking pass AntiFederalist #29 describes.

For more information you might wanna read this abstract, presented by -
Roger Isaac Roots, J.D., M.C.J
ARE COPS CONSTITUTIONAL?
http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm

To which my answer is not just no, but HELL no.

I used to be less vociferous about that, but watching them gleefully flock to New Orleans from as far away as Washington State to forcibly disarm people of the means to protect themselves not only against rioters and looters, but also against THEM, and in many cases forcibly evict folk from their own homes in lieu of any actual danger once they were disarmed, that did it for me.

It's those goons in blue the Founders were afraid of, not the ones in camo.

And most folk have never for a minute even pondered this, believe it.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

GEEZER

Saturday, June 28, 2008 10:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
In contrast your opinion is backed by the fact that you're an ignorant prick and a troll, so at least mine is more substantial than yours, eh. Your lack of a reproductive organ isn't my concern, you unbelievably stupid piece of worthless shit.

But I never said my opinion matters. Just the Supreme Court's. Feel perfectly free to come over here and violate one of their rulings any time, and maybe you'll find out who's opinions have the most force.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Saturday, June 28, 2008 11:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
And here we go down the "civility" road again...

Hey - and this time I wasn't involved!!

Aww. You know when Cit gets on his high horse it's fun to poke him a little bit and see him devolve into a bratty schoolboy.

Besides, most of what he's doing is either quoting or paraphrasing Justice Stevens' dissenting opinion.
"Keep the Shiny side up"

CITIZEN

Saturday, June 28, 2008 11:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
But I never said my opinion matters. Just the Supreme Court's. Feel perfectly free to come over here and violate one of their rulings any time, and maybe you'll find out who's opinions have the most force.

Neither did I. I just said my opinion is as good as anyone else's.

In that case though, why do you continue to post here? Your opinion doesn't matter, why waste our time by voicing it? Why not just post the link to the supreme court's website with every reply? Take your meaningless opinion and put it in the orifice you conduct discourse through perhaps?

As for the supreme court, they can come over here and try to force their rulings on me any time they like, to see how much their opinion matters to me

.

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Aww. You know when Cit gets on his high horse it's fun to poke him a little bit and see him devolve into a bratty schoolboy.

Funny, coming from the guy who never gets off his high horse, and never says anything that isn't bratty and schoolboy-ish. ahh, Geezer, the hypocritical troll, will you ever change?

But anyway, thank you for admitting that you act like a troll

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

Sunday, June 29, 2008 12:26 AM

Kwicko, your a dirty mouth 15 year old who still has plastic on his bed. 1st amendment doesn't apply to insulting people. Which you seem to attack my mother who is dead everytime you disagree. I've been waiting to slam you. You showed your insecurity again with the mother attacks. So appologize because I will stay on you. Stop trying to be smart cause your not. Learn something thats not what someone told you.

"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

Sunday, June 29, 2008 2:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I just said my opinion is as good as anyone else's.

Better than people who've spent their entire career studying the law and its interpretation? Looks like I was right about the ego part.

Quote:
Take your meaningless opinion and put it in the orifice you conduct discourse through perhaps?

...and the supercilious part, with a bit of the bratty schoolboy thrown in.

Sad little king of a sad little hill.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

KWICKO

Sunday, June 29, 2008 4:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by PirateCat:
Kwicko, your a dirty mouth 15 year old who still has plastic on his bed.

Nice try. Care to guess again? "Your" wrong on all counts.

Quote:
I've been waiting to slam you. So appologize because I will stay on you.

And I'm still waiting for you to try. You want an apology because you attacked me personally? That's something that's just never going to happen. You're going to stay on me, huh? Wow. I'm shaking.

Quote:
Stop trying to be smart cause your not.

I'd give you a "D-minus" on that one.

Quote:
Learn something thats not what someone told you.

How about you learn English first?

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

The Myrmidons were an ancient nation of very brave and skilled warriors as described in Homer's Iliad, and were commanded by Achilles. - Wikipedia

MSB

Sunday, June 29, 2008 4:29 AM

Posted as MSB again, Yeah, I'm a tool.
____________________________________________

Love doesn't make the world go 'round; love is what makes the ride worthwhile.

NVGHOSTRIDER

Sunday, June 29, 2008 4:36 AM

It's cool Cit, I was using it from a post over at the 76th site. I did think it to be a correct statement to point out that many more officers (constables?) were being trained to effectively deploy small arms such as the MP5. I am actually glad that they are. We have too many people in the world trying to make the world a worse place than it already is. I only hope for the sake of the great people of the UK they will not have to rely on an armed constabulary to keep the peace. It is a travesty for the children of the world to not feel safe enough to walk down the street without armed protection. I can do nothing but commend the UK for making an incredible effort to keep that hope alive.

So ends my short visit to RWED. Good hearin' from y'all.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Being an artist means not having to avert one's eyes.
-Akira Kurosawa

CITIZEN

Sunday, June 29, 2008 10:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Better than people who've spent their entire career studying the law and its interpretation? Looks like I was right about the ego part.

They've obviously not been studying English or History though. But hey, throwing a tempertantrum because I'm not swayed by you fallacious appeal to authority? Guess I was right about the moron part.

Quote:
...and the supercilious part, with a bit of the bratty schoolboy thrown in.

Sad little king of a sad little hill.

Well, it's you that said your opinion was worthless (you also said mine was), so the supercilious there is actually yours, buttercup

. Ah, and the trollish part. Hows that discussion of a topic, any topic going for you geezer? It's not, now there's a surprise...

Sad little troll, under a sad little bridge.

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

Sunday, June 29, 2008 11:53 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
But hey, throwing a tempertantrum...

You mean like:

"In contrast your opinion is backed by the fact that you're an ignorant prick and a troll, so at least mine is more substantial than yours, eh. Your lack of a reproductive organ isn't my concern, you unbelievably stupid piece of worthless shit."

Or

"Take your meaningless opinion and put it in the orifice you conduct discourse through perhaps"

Quote:
Well, it's you that said your opinion was worthless (you also said mine was)...

Wrong and wrong.

"But I never said my opinion matters. Just the Supreme Court's." So no opinion from me on if my opinion matters, just an assertion that the Supreme Court's does.

I never said your opinion is worthless either, just implied that it's worth less than the Supreme Court's, absent any proof of expertise in law on your part. I then suggested a practical test of the application of your opinion versus theirs.

This lack of ability to correctly parse a couple of simple sentences doesn't do much to support your claim as someone who's able to correctly parse constitutional law.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

CITIZEN

Sunday, June 29, 2008 12:14 PM

Ah, is signym not giving you enough trolling material at the moment? It's sweet you thought of me. You just can't help but prove me right that you're a troll can you. You can't come up with an argument of you're own, so you start attacking me with personal insults, then get all indignant when they're thrown back. Well, hypocrisy and childishness, now there's the Geezer we all know and ignore.

I get it geezer, you think because the 'authorities' have ruled, the topic is no longer open for discussion, unless it's to say how right the boss man is. That's fine for you, but we're not all of an authoritarian mindset, and if continued discussion after your authorities have ruled upsets you as it so evidently does, no one is making you stay here. You've obviously got nothing useful to add, you've posted you're link to the Supreme Court, and unless you just want to start flame wars and act like a troll, you might as well slime away under the rock you came from, because adults are talking and you're getting in the way. You don't want to start flame wars and just act like a troll, do you Geezer?

Remember, don't feed the GeezerTroll.

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.

ANTHONYT

Sunday, June 29, 2008 2:18 PM

Ugh.

I haven't visited you lot in a bit, because I've been fairly irritated by the debate tactics here. The dishonesty of them.

I don't agree with Citizen's view on guns, but I try not to use flawed arguments to cut him down.

If the Supreme Court had ruled against individual gun ownership, I suspect we would all be railing against the decision of those learned men of law.

Instead, they ruled in favor of it, and now we are telling Citizen it is foolish of him to second-guess that supreme body of judges.

Second-Guessing authority is about the most American of pasttimes, and Citizen is welcome to do it, as are we all. The mere act almost makes him an honorary Yank. ;-)

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

CHRISISALL

Sunday, June 29, 2008 2:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I just said my opinion is as good as anyone else's.

Better than people who've spent their entire career studying the law and its interpretation? Looks like I was right about the ego part.

Geezer, there are many areas where your opinion and mine intersect, this, unfortunately, is not one of them. Studying something for an entire career does not make one great, it makes one experienced. This is meaningless if one is a government tool, or just a plain schmuck. Mob bosses study criminality all their careers- should they be placed on a pedestal for their abilities?
You're so out of touch with reality on this one, man.

Reality-checking Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Sunday, June 29, 2008 2:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

Second-Guessing authority is about the most American of passtimes, and Citizen is welcome to do it, as are we all. The mere act almost makes him an honorary Yank. ;-)

Hear hear, Tony!!!

Yankedisall

GEEZER

Monday, June 30, 2008 1:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Mob bosses study criminality all their careers- should they be placed on a pedestal for their abilities?

No. But they're probably more effective at properly running a mob than you and I are. That's how they got to be the bosses.

Simalarly, Supreme Court Justices have worked their way up through the Judicial Branch of the government by being effective in their rulings; usually through administrations led by both parties. This gives them pretty good cred, especially considering that they have to be approved by a Congress that, in recent years, has been pretty evenly split between the parties.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Monday, June 30, 2008 1:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
you think because the 'authorities' have ruled, the topic is no longer open for discussion,

No. You can discuss it all you want. I just pointed out that your discussion, and your opinion, are moot, since the Supreme Court's decision is law, and your opinion is just... opinion.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

CHRISISALL

Monday, June 30, 2008 1:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Mob bosses study criminality all their careers- should they be placed on a pedestal for their abilities?

No. But they're probably more effective at properly running a mob than you and I are. That's how they got to be the bosses.

And that would make their opinion on something more credible....how?

As a car mechanic could fix you vehicle more competently than maybe you could, but still look down upon you for owning what they considered to be a 'piece of crap', so too are judges merely human beings, subject to all the vagaries of the human existence, and no better at looking at the big picture than you or I are. Wisdom does not come FROM experience or knowledge, it is a quality that comes from the continual striving to make one's self better. Can you tell me that Supreme Court Justices are all like that? Or is it possible that they think they are as brilliant as you would make it seem from your comments here?

Hmmphisall

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Monday, June 30, 2008 2:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
... so too are judges merely human beings, subject to all the vagaries of the human existence, and no better at looking at the big picture than you or I are. Wisdom does not come FROM experience or knowledge, it is a quality that comes from the continual striving to make one's self better. Can you tell me that Supreme Court Justices are all like that? Or is it possible that they think they are as brilliant as you would make it seem from your comments here?

And if they upheld the gun ban in D.C. would you be so quick to point out their perceived failings? Or would their judgement and expertise be sitting more comfortably with you then?

WULFENSTAR

Monday, June 30, 2008 2:36 PM

Again, while I agree with the Supremem Courts decision...we are assuming that they have legality.

As far as I remember, the Supreme Court was not mentioned in the Constitution.

It has something to do with a there being a governing body that has "authority" over states rights. And the Founding Fathers not wanting that.

CHRISISALL

Monday, June 30, 2008 2:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:

And if they upheld the gun ban in D.C. would you be so quick to point out their perceived failings? Or would their judgement and expertise be sitting more comfortably with you then?

As it happens, I agree with their decision. It just don't sit right with me when folks elevate regular humans to an elite status based on experience almost anyone could get if the opportunity presented itself.

Regular Chrisisall

GEEZER

Monday, June 30, 2008 3:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
And that would make their opinion on something more credible....how?

It would make their opinion on how to run a mob more credible, since they had actually, successfully run a mob. Maybe their opinion on how to run a day-care center would be less credible, but that's not what they're chosen to do.

Quote:
...so too are judges merely human beings, subject to all the vagaries of the human existence, and no better at looking at the big picture than you or I are.

But they're not required to look at the big picture. Their focus is very limited, to the Constitutionality of laws and rulings which come before them. Fortunately, they have studied their field of expertise for years, and have had further years of experience in applying it.

Quote:
Wisdom does not come FROM experience or knowledge, it is a quality that comes from the continual striving to make one's self better.

Maybe so, but would you want to be operated on by a wise brain surgeon who had never obtained any experience in or knowledge of brain surgery?

Quote:
Or is it possible that they think they are as brilliant as you would make it seem from your comments here?

I just figure that, due to their education and experience, they have a better chance of correctly interpreting Constitutional questions than the rest of us. This is based on the general observation that anyone who has training and experience in a particular skill, and who has risen through their efforts to the highest position in that particular skill, probably knows more about it than someone who hasn't.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

CHRISISALL

Monday, June 30, 2008 3:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

I just figure that, due to their education and experience, they have a better chance of correctly interpreting Constitutional questions than the rest of us. This is based on the general observation that anyone who has training and experience in a particular skill, and who has risen through their efforts to the highest position in that particular skill, probably knows more about it than someone who hasn't.

Okay then, just don't go makin' them sound like their poo don't smell is all.
Politics can have a strong influence on the weak-minded.

Judge Chrisisall

KWICKO

Monday, June 30, 2008 4:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Again, while I agree with the Supremem Courts decision...we are assuming that they have legality.

As far as I remember, the Supreme Court was not mentioned in the Constitution.

It has something to do with a there being a governing body that has "authority" over states rights. And the Founding Fathers not wanting that.

Time to brush up on the Constitution (and really, it would be a good thing for ALL OF US to do at least once every year or so...)

Here's the part about the Supreme Court:

Quote:

From the Constitution of the United States of America:

Article 3.

Section 1
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court,
and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and
establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold
their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for
their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their
Continuance in Office.

Section 2
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under
this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which
shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other
public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime
Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to
Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of
another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the
same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a
State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and
those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original
Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall
have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and
under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and
such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been
committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such
Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

The Myrmidons were an ancient nation of very brave and skilled warriors as described in Homer's Iliad, and were commanded by Achilles. - Wikipedia

CITIZEN

Monday, June 30, 2008 4:31 PM

The supreme court is also more likely to be bribed by the NRA. But that's not an argument I'd make, because that sort of Ad Hominem nonsense is the De Jure of other posters around here .

I don't even have a problem with them ruling against the DC ban (that sound? it's another ad Hominem crumbling), I have a problem with them jumping backwards through giant flaming hoops of illogic in order to remove the blatant military service term of "bear arms" and "well regulated Militia" from the whole thing. I don't have a problem with them up holding the "keep arms" part, I have a problem with them ruling that the Amendment actually says:
"The right of the people to keep Arms, shall not be infringed."

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.

CHRISISALL

Monday, June 30, 2008 4:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I have a problem with them ruling that the Amendment actually says:
"The right of the people to keep Arms, shall not be infringed."

You got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well do ya, punk?

Harryisall

KWICKO

Monday, June 30, 2008 5:01 PM

Quote:

And if they upheld the gun ban in D.C. would you be so quick to point out their perceived failings? Or would their judgement and expertise be sitting more comfortably with you then?

Bingo - there ya go. I wasn't happy when the Supremes stopped the 2000 election recount and settled the election, but while I might not agree with their decision, I realize I'm powerless to change it.

Some of their decisions I agree with, some I don't. If they had settled this one the other way, I'd probably be stashing guns right now. :)

As for the whole "wild west" and drunks, psychos, and felons running around with guns now that the ban has been struck down... I just don't see it. The ban was never going to stop those kinds of people from getting guns, because they don't really care about one more law standing in their way. What it DID do was disarm people who had broken no laws whatsoever, who only wanted the right to protect themselves in the most violent city in America, and one of the most violent in the world.

There are already plenty of laws on the books to keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them. Stop trying to throw up a bunch of new laws, and start effectively enforcing the ones we've already got! Same goes with crap like the Patriot Act and wiretapping bills; they're wholly superfluous IF YOU WOULD JUST ENFORCE THE EXISTING LAWS ALREADY ON THE BOOKS!! Stiffen the penalties for gun crimes (and I mean crimes actually committed while armed, not BS charges trumped up because you found out the guy who was speeding also owns a gun that wasn't within 10 miles of him at the time of the incident), make gun safety classes mandatory, stick with the background checks, and start working on closing the gunshow loopholes. (For those who don't know what that means, it means that I can go to a gun show, plunk down my cash, and walk away with a semi-auto AK47 or something similar, with a thousand rounds of ammo, for $500-$750, and no one will even ask my name or look at my ID. Cash-n-carry all the way. I've done it, and even I think it's a bit nuts.)

Also, START teaching more gun safety in schools, in public service announcements, in public programs and the like. Instead of demonizing guns, teach people about them. Which scares you more? A trained gun enthusiast with 15 guns, or an untrained kid with ONE gun and no idea what he's doing? I can always tell whether someone has had any training when they pick up one of my guns and start waving it around, pointing it at anything and everything, never checking to see whether it's loaded or not, and not really caring. THOSE are the people who are dangerous around guns, because those are the people who get other people killed because they were just playing around and didn't know any better.

[rant over]

By the way, we're told that 30,000 people were killed in gun crimes last year, and about that many every year, and that's the reason we should ban guns outright. But did you know that 40,000 people are killed in auto accidents every year in the US? That's ten thousand MORE people than are killed by guns. When do we outlaw the automobile? Surely no one truly NEEDS a car any more - we have buses, planes, boats, trains, cabs - there's ALWAYS some way to get around that doesn't require you to own your own vehicle - but you wouldn't want to give that up, would you? And that doesn't even take into account the environmental damage that cars do!

I'm just sayin', is all...

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

The Myrmidons were an ancient nation of very brave and skilled warriors as described in Homer's Iliad, and were commanded by Achilles. - Wikipedia

KWICKO

Monday, June 30, 2008 5:05 PM

Quote:

I think that the Founding Fathers probably intended that each state would operate a militia, a non-standing army that nonetheless is trained in military tactics and manoeuvres. I think that for a State to not operate a Militia, as many don't, is just as unconstitutional as a hand gun ban in DC is. I think the implication is that people who wish to own weapons, should be compulsorily trained in their use. So yeah, I think "owning firearms [should] be concurrent with signing up for a civilian militia and being trained and disciplined in the use of those firearms".

Cit, I think we may have finally found some common ground on this issue!

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

The Myrmidons were an ancient nation of very brave and skilled warriors as described in Homer's Iliad, and were commanded by Achilles. - Wikipedia

CHRISISALL

Monday, June 30, 2008 5:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
When do we outlaw the automobile? Surely no one truly NEEDS a car any more - we have buses, planes, boats, trains, cabs - there's ALWAYS some way to get around that doesn't require you to own your own vehicle - but you wouldn't want to give that up, would you? And that doesn't even take into account the environmental damage that cars do!

You're just a mouthpiece for the greenie-weenies. Get a horse, you petulant pie hole.
I fart methane in your general direction.

But seriously, are the majority of peeps killed with guns killed with unregistered weapons?

Curious Chrisisall

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE