Welcome To The Wild West???
POSTED BY: deepgirl187
UPDATED: Monday, April 7, 2025 06:19
VIEWED: 7905
PAGE 7 of 13
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:That's great, but we're not talking about about the state constitutions, so they're completely irrelevant.
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.
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 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?
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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.
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 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:Again, completely irrelevant to what I was saying.
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.
Quote: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"?
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?
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:
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"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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.
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.
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
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
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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, itNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:Quote: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.
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.
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
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME