Welcome To The Wild West???
POSTED BY: deepgirl187
UPDATED: Monday, April 7, 2025 06:19
VIEWED: 7905
PAGE 11 of 13
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
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
Glad to see you've maintained your sense of humor. Seriously, if you can't laugh at this world, you'll go mad from the screaming...
A horse? Nah... not enough horsepower. I'll never make it as a Greenie; I *try* to lessen my impact on the environment, but I like steak and bacon, and I still like racing my cars. Racing tires that get tossed every few races will never win friends on the green side of the fence.
As for the registered-vs-unregistered gun crimes, I honestly have no idea. I do know that Texas doesn't require me to register my guns, and I haven't - but I also haven't committed any crimes with them, either! I'm not sure if statistics have even been compiled on whether or not registered or unregistered guns were used - or whether that's even the salient point; it might be handier to know whether legally-obtained or illegally-obtained guns were used in the majority of those gun crimes, and precisely what kind of "gun crimes" we're even looking at.
I question some of the basic premise of the gun-crimes statistics, too, but that's only because I've seen people too often skew statistics to support their own agendas - on all sides of the issues. For instance, if you have one glass of wine with dinner, and then go out and get hit by a car, that counts as an "alcohol-related" accident in the statistics. I wonder how many of those "gun crimes" in the stats are actually crimes committed with guns, but I don't have the statistics on hand right now to say one way or another.
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
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Obviously Cit-head either hasn't read, or has failed to comprehend the massive amount of already-posted background info which shows that both historically and traditionally the american "militia" is the whole body of the people with their own weapons of military nature and quality.
Look at it historically.
The Minute Men
The Green Mountain Boys
The Over The Mountain Men
These were just a few, who simply responded to the call of a threat with their own equipment and weapons, it's a common theme throughout the entire founding period that prettymuch EVERYBODY in this country was armed comparitively to professional soldiers, it's part of the founding bedrock of this country, that our primary intended bulwark against any form of tyranny was that we the people should outgun any forces under the control of this Government, and thus ONLY be ruled by consent of the governed, not force of arms.
Also, The Battle of Kings Mountain forever put paid to the concept that Militia was not an effective fighting force when properly motivated, and brought into sharp focus to the simple reality that as long as americans were personally armed on parity with foreign militaries we would NEVER need fear them - this point was not at all lost on our Founders as they were present during the time it happened, and certain of them pointed out that if so well armed, our citizens need never fear the Government either, because as long as they outgunned it, it could never force them to become it's servants, Madison in particular was very explicit on the subject as already posted above.
That's the wonderful thing about having recorded those debates and speeches for posterity, there is no NEED to guess, there is no ambiguity, the Founders were quite explicit about what the hell they meant in very painstaking detail.
They fully intended the average citizen to outgun any standing army, and the idea of ANY limit on possession or ownership of weapons outside of that right being forfeit by conviction of a crime under due process of law - would have made them nauseated to even think of it.
As for "who is the militia", since folks seem to be ignoring the words of our founders, how bout the revelant freakin law code then ?
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000311---
-000-.html
TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311Prev | Next § 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
I don't see where it could possibly be clearer than that, military service or enrollment is NOT a condition of the "Militia" of the United States, and by the letter of the law includes all non-excepted males of 17-45.
Add to that, the fact that historically, the Militia is supposed to provide their own weapons, gear and ammunition, it's a damned tricky thing to do when possession of such has been outlawed, innit ?
I attribute no great wisdom to the body of the Supreme Court, for the very reason that they're quite willing to distort the meaning of the Constitution for political gain whenever they please - and in this case, no wisdom was required to make the decision, simply sufficient literacy to read the explainations of the very people who wrote the document in the first place, something anyone with even the most basic of educations can also do.
If anything at all, and grudgingly so, I would attribute to them a modicum of sense, and a small, strange portion of moral courage to admit something that bench ha
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Sure they can- if the money's right.
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Ponder it - States cannot revoke or alter a Constitutional Right
DeadPresidentsisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oops, missed a bit on that last post.
The STATE Constitutions and what they say regarding the matter.
http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statedat.htm
====================================
1776 North Carolina: That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
1776 Pennsylvania: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power.
1777 Vermont: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State -- and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.
1780 Massachusetts: The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.
1790 Pennsylvania: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.
1792 Kentucky: That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.
1796 Tennessee: That the freemen of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence.
1799 Kentucky: That the rights of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.
1802 Ohio: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State; and as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be kept up, and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to the civil power.
1816 Indiana: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State, and that the military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power.
1817 Mississippi: Every citizen has a right to bear arms, in defence of himself and the State.
1818 Connecticut: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.
1819 Maine: Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms for the common defence; and this right shall never be questioned.
1819 Alabama: That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defence of himself and the state.
1820 Missouri: That the people have the right peaceably to assemble for their common good, and to apply to those vested with the powers of government for redress of grievances by petition or remonstrance; and that their right to bear arms in defence of themselves and of the State cannot be questioned.
1832 Mississippi: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defence of himself and of the State.
1834 Tennessee: That the free white men of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence.
1835 Michigan: Every person has a right to bear arms for the defence of himself and the State.
1836 Texas: Every citizen shall have the right to bear arms in defence of himself and the republic. The military shall at all times and in all cases be subordinate to the civil power.
1836 Arkansas: That the free white men of this State shall have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence.
1838 Florida: That the free white men of this State shall have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence.
1842 Rhode Island: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
1845 Texas: Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear a
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:That last part needs changin' anyway...in the days of the Founding Fathers, 45 was pretty gorram old- life expectancy weren't much more than that, now we got peeps like Rambo still blowin' s**t up at 60+.
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age
Just sayinisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Okay then, just don't go makin' them sound like their poo don't smell is all.
Wouldn't think of it. However, in the area of Constitutional Law I figure that their poo smells just a bit less than mine or your's.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Obviously Frem-infirma hasn't read his own cites
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Obviously Cit-head either hasn't read, or has failed to comprehend the massive amount of already-posted background info which shows that both historically and traditionally the american "militia" is the whole body of the people with their own weapons of military nature and quality.
. Nor what I've written, but nothing new there, he's the first to do it, and the first to bitch about it...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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:This country has gone so blatantly overboard with the limiting and regulation of self-defense...it's like a psuedo-utopian nightmare IMO.
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Gee, notice any recurring THEME here ?
Yanno, like that pesky oh-so-hated SELF DEFENSE thing ?
Turns the other cheekisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Then how do you explain the closeness of the vote- if ever there was a clear black and white, the unconstitutionality of the DC gun ban was it. Clearly, some on the Supreme Court don't seem to understand the Constitution as well as you may believe. Or they do, but want to play fast & loose with it.
Originally posted by Geezer:
[ in the area of Constitutional Law I figure that their poo smells just a bit less than mine or your's.
Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Cit, I rather think that the plain and simple fact that I can find the revelant bits of discussion in what amounts to well over a hundred and some pages worth of discussions and speeches would likely be an indicator that I am somewhat familiar with the source material, perhaps ?
Seriously, try reading some of it yourself, they really were very clear about it, in depth and detail - the right to possess and carry weapons was so generally assumed that initially they felt no specific need to codify it into law since Madison and others felt that no one would dare stoop so low as to defy it, something that earned him quite a verbal stripping at the hands of the AntiFederalists, who were only somewhat mollified by the addition of the Bill of Rights, since they firmly believed that over time those enumerated rights were the ONLY ones that would wind up protected and the Ninth Amendment would wind up completely ignored, and history has once again proven them entirely correct.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Cons
titution
Ninth Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Regardless, BOTH sides of the debate felt it extremely important to codify that right due to the very principles our nation was founded on, the consent of the governed, resting on the bedrock of the fact that the citizens outgunned the forces of Government, and should that ever change, the people would wind up it's slaves and servants instead of it's masters.
Madisons primary argument was that it was so universally understood and assumed that it did not NEED to be pointed out, and once you understand where he was going with that, which is easy enough since both sides were not arguing over whether or not the right existed, they were only arguing over the level of protection it needed, you might begin to understand how basic that thing was to them at the time - almost beneath the level of mention was the assumption that everyone had the right to possess weapons, as much as they had the right to possess pants.
They'd be appalled that it was ever even called into question, much less debated.
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME