U.S. justices could decide constitutionality of gun ownership

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Sonart . Yeah, and...? Indeed, the army WAS intended to be temporary, hence the original significance of the 2nd Amendment and the importance of maintaining a well-regulated militia. But then the United States and the world changed.

But the Constitution remains the same unless it is amended and THAT part of the Constitution has not been amended.

So if Congress votes every year or every two years to fund the army with the means to be a de facto full time, permanent force, then that's Congress' choice, isn't it, and there's nothing unconstitutional about it. It simply has to be within a two year budget.

No, they don't have the option of creating a de facto full-time permanent army.

As to the executive branch, the President remains the CinC, with the power to command the military. Funding, as you can see in the days headlines, remains up to Congress, who obviously continue to fund it at levels necessary for a permanent force.

The President's power is limited. We must look at what the founding fathers intended, since their intent is the only correct interpretation of the Constitution. The language of the Constitution makes it clear that a standing army was not what they intended. If they had intended a standing army, there would be no need for militias.

[brien]

Then what are you whining about.

Whining??? That's your opinion, but if true, then no more so than yourself.

No, it shows you have the privilege. Break the law, and see how fast that privilege can be revoked. I own a firearm myself. I simply see it as a privilege that I earned, just as like a drivers license, not some gawd given right

Driving is a privilege, owning firearms is a right as enumerated in the 2nd Amendment. I didn't write "the right to keep and bear arms.." Madison did in the amendment. But we can go round and round, as we have done before.

No bother, hopefully SCOTUS will sort it out once and for all. Then, we won't need armchair constitutional experts arguing over the meanings of rights and privileges in the Constitution's 2nd amendment.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: brien Driving is a privilege, owning firearms is a right as enumerated in the 2nd Amendment.

No, brien, it's not, and I've already proven that. Covering your ears and yelling 'bleah-bleah-bleah' doesn't change it. Only having Miller over-turned in the Supreme Court will.

Quote by: brien No bother, hopefully SCOTUS will sort it out once and for all.

By george, I think he's got it.

And if the Court upholds Miller or does not rule???? I've already stated that I will accept whatever they rule... if they rule. Will you accept their ruling as the law of the land, or retreat back into denial?

Quote by: Chancellor But the Constitution remains the same unless it is amended and THAT part of the Constitution has not been amended.

Again, what's your point? If the U.S. Army exists on an endless series of two year budgets, which it apparently does, then there's nothing unconstitutional about it, is there, and nothing needs to be amended.

Quote by: Chancellor No, they don't have the option of creating a de facto full-time permanent army.

Says who? You? Certainly not the Constitution. It simply says, "...no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;"

It says nothing whatsoever about the existance of the Army.

Quote by: Chancellor The President's power is limited. We must look at what the founding fathers intended, since their intent is the only correct interpretation of the Constitution.

Oooh, so now we're INTERPRETING what the Constitution says based on what you BELIEVE the founders INTENDED. Whatever happened to strict constructionism.

And more importantly, why are the intentions of a few men running a small, agricultural, 18th century frontier nation of 30 million people significant to our vast, industrial, crowded urban/suburban nation of 300 million?

Quote by: Chancellor The language of the Constitution makes it clear that a standing army was not what they intended. If they had intended a standing army, there would be no need for militias.

BINGO!!!!!

And today the exact opposite is true, isn't it? Our modern, massive standing army is not only intended but a source of great pride to America, having proven that the fears of the founders regarding a standing army were unfounded. It's the militia that's trying to define it's existence and a role for itself.

Therefore, by today's reality, the language of the Constitution, for whatever reason it was intended, is moot. Meaningless. It's reason for being no longer exists.

.

[brien]

Will you accept their ruling as the law of the land, or retreat back into denial?

I generally accept SCOTUS as the final arbiter of the law of the land. However, since I see my right to keep and bear arms as an unalienable right endowed to me by my creator, I would never allow the government to attempt to take that right away from me by forcing me to surrender my firearms.

TJ outlined certain "unalienable rights" in the DOI. Then the word "right" surfaces in the Constitution, so I have to relate the two b/c when TJ used the word "right" in the DOI, and then later Madison used the same exact word in the Constitution, this is evidence enough for me that the framers meant that the "right" to keep and bear arms was an unalienable right.

Did the Volstead Act prevent people from consuming alcoholic beverages? Hardly, and that wasn't even a matter of an "unalienable right" as endowed by the creator, listed in the Constitution.

So, sometimes the government can make mistakes which creates a whole new wave of citizens in violation of the law. The reality is there are millions of guns and gunowners in the US, and to make the same mistake we made with the Volstead Act and the imposition of the 18th Amendment, I believe would only repeat history with even worse consequences.

That said, I think the composition of the current court would probably rule in the affirmation of the individual's guarantee for their right to keep and bear arms, independently of the militia clause, as already has been affirmed in so many lower courts.

We supporters of the 2nd Amendment are hardly in denial. I showed you several cases that applied to the individual's right to keep and bear arms. If I am in denial, then so too, are you Sonart, b/c you merely think you are right and think me wrong. If the situation were this cut and dried, we would have nothing to argue and neither would the court. So let the games begin.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: brien We supporters of the 2nd Amendment are hardly in denial.

To the contrary, you're completely in denial. I'm not arguing the constitutionality of the 2nd Amendment for giggles. (although it's hilarious to watch gun loons, who've bullying debaters on this for years, sputter and choke when presented a simple and quite irrefutable argument that I can't believe no one's presented before) I want Americans to get over their sick gun lust and the Dirty Harry mentality that it breeds, and the first step is getting over the idea that Gawd came down from heaven and granted you the right to carry around a deadly weapon. The right to feed your family? No. The right to medical care? No. The right to travel as you choose? No. But the right to carry the means to kill from a distance? Hey, absolutely. That's simply nuts... a perversion of the concept of individual freedom, and the fact we're the most violent, belligerent civilized nation on earth simply bares that out.

Gun Death Rate: 36 Richest Countries


Are you proud of the fact we're a nation of violent road ragers longing to fulfull our violence fantasies? It's because we've been immersed in it and trained to it from our earliest childhood by a culture than glories in gunfire. It's insanity. Jeez, just listen to Osborn and friends who can't wait for a civil war to start, as if it's going to be some made for TV movie they can watch... and maybe -- teehee, giggle -- they may actually get to shoot some anonymous "enemy". Weeeee! V for Victory!!

Quote by: brien If the situation were this cut and dried, we would have nothing to argue and neither would the court.

Brien, every year the USSC rules on constitutional questions... is it a violation of your 1st amendment right to censure what students can advertise in a college newspaper? Is it a violation of your 1st amendment right to stop you from confronting people entering an abortion clinic? etc. etc. etc.

So if the situation isn't exactly as cut and dried as I've described, can you explain why, in nearly 70 years, not one of the thousands of gun control laws that the gun lobby has fought againts tooth and claw has been challenged before the supreme court as a violation of your gawd given 2nd Amendment right to bear arms? I've presented a half dozen lower court rulings from the last 10 years. Why hasn't the gun lobby defended your gawd given rights by appealing those rulings to the USSC?

Because they knew the situation was exactly as cut and dried as I've described, and it was far easier to keep lying to Americans than to actually back up their belief.

.

[Jack]

I see my right to keep and bear arms as an unalienable right endowed to me by my creator, I would never allow the government to attempt to take that right away from me by forcing me to surrender my firearms.

Jesus wants you to be able to kill? The right to own a firearm was granted by your government, not your god.

For over 15 years I had jobs that required me to be armed, a couple that required me to be armed at all times. Now I don't own a gun. Do I feel more vulnerable, more likely to be assaulted? No more than any other person.

Too many people who posses guns don't know how to use them or secure them when not in use. Many of the weapons in the hands of criminals were stolen from people who failed to properly secure their guns. I've seen first-hand the results of untrained, frightened people with guns. For those reasons and the ones put forth by Sonart I'm not a big fan of private gun ownership. That's not to say I'm endorsing a prohibition of ownership. But I see nothing wrong with licensing and training being firm requirements, and no one needs to own anything more powerful than a hunting rifle.

[Zeebadee]

I find it ironic that those who clamor the most about "constitutional rights" are also the most vocal about defying that document when it goes against them.

[Osborn F Enready]

Sonart said: To the contrary, you're completely in denial. I'm not arguing the constitutionality of the 2nd Amendment for giggles.

It appears you are, since the material is rather comedic.

Sonart said: (although it's hilarious to watch gun loons, who've bullying debaters on this for years, sputter and choke when presented a simple and quite irrefutable argument that I can't believe no one's presented before)

Which argument is that Sonart?

Sonart said: I want Americans to get over their sick gun lust and the Dirty Harry mentality that it breeds, and the first step is getting over the idea that Gawd came down from heaven and granted you the right to carry around a deadly weapon.

I don't believe in "god" or any other nonsense, I simply recognize my creator as was described in the documents, natures god, or nature itself, and natures law is the law of force. The law of force was put on hold when all reasonable men were recognized as equal, which means eqaul right to justice, equal right to defense, equal rights to keep and bear arms.

Stop putting this on religion, when religion has nothing to do with it.

Sonart said: The right to feed your family? No.

Yes, a right to feed my self and my family with the use of arms, if necessary.

Sonart said: The right to medical care? No.

No such thing. You have a right to ACCESS medical care, as you can afford by your means, but the government is under no obligation to be your nanny, your momma or your nursemaid.

Sonart said: The right to travel as you choose? No.

The right to travel without obstruction.

Sonart said: But the right to carry the means to kill from a distance?

The right to keep and bear arms, and arms is the terminology used to "identify" weapons. Arms can be a pike, a sword, a firearm or a bow and arrow. Arms are "tools" used for defense by an individual.

Sonart said: Hey, absolutely. That's simply nuts... a perversion of the concept of individual freedom, and the fact we're the most violent, belligerent civilized nation on earth simply bares that out.

Anything else Mr. Kant?

Sonart said: Are you proud of the fact we're a nation of violent road ragers longing to fulfull our violence fantasies?

Try speaking for yourself, firstly. Secondly, why not address what brings about the stress and pressure on people in our society before blaming the pencil for all things written badly?

Its not the pencil, its the individual who misuses the pencil.
Its not access to the pencil, its lack of penalty for the crime of misuse of the pencil that is the problem.
Its not free speech thats the problem, its the abuse of it.

But no, instead you want to blame the pencil, blame the typewriter, blame the culture, anything but blame those who foster and facillitate the actual crime......

Sonart said: It's because we've been immersed in it and trained to it from our earliest childhood by a culture than glories in gunfire.

Yet you still fail to notice its the guns, and the men and women holing them that keep peace in every portion of the world that has any peace. You still fail to notice that those who come to YOUR aid, at any time you call, bear arms. You still fail to notice the REALITY of the world we live in, because your imaginary world which the arms you berate have allowed you the freedom to sit and gaze upon thy navel, contemplating.

Denial of reality only makes you appear more the fool Sonart.

Sonart said: It's insanity. Jeez, just listen to Osborn and friends who can't wait for a civil war to start, as if it's going to be some made for TV movie they can watch... and maybe -- teehee, giggle -- they may actually get to shoot some anonymous "enemy". Weeeee! V for Victory!!

I have no desire to shoot anyone, period, ever. I have no desire to kill, to maim, to use force against anyone, in any measure, AT ALL!

I only seek the right to live my life as I see fit, and its people like you who insist on standing in the way of that. Since that is the case, those who impede other peoples way of lives, have a burden to bear come the day of rectification, whenever that may be, if ever, however.

I make no threats, I glorify no desire or bloodlust, I simply state reality as it is.... I will protect my right to keep and bear arms, as all my other INALIENABLE rights, regardless of the cost.

Some day, maybe you will start accepting your own responsibility, for yourself and your government. If you don't want to, simply get out of the way.

If you want a life without guns, with constant care to your needs, with 3 meals a day and a bed thats always ready for you.... break a law, go to prison, and socialist life is at your fingertips. Those of us who prefer freedom and responsibility, will continue on our own, thanks.

[Osborn F Enready]

Isherwood said: Sonart I'm not a big fan of private gun ownership. That's not to say I'm endorsing a prohibition of ownership. But I see nothing wrong with licensing and training being firm requirements, and no one needs to own anything more powerful than a hunting rifle.

I couldn't disagree more.

It absolutely denies the reason for keeping and bearing arms, which is defense. The idea behind defense is being capable to meet the common threats you are likely to face, and hunting rifles are no match for assault rifles, combat rifles, or the hordes who carry them in the name of all nations, all states, etc.

Defense must be competent, or its not defense.

Zeebadee said: I find it ironic that those who clamor the most about "constitutional rights" are also the most vocal about defying that document when it goes against them.

Where has the Constitution gone against my rights?

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Where has the Constitution gone against my rights?

It evidently hasn't yet. But you've made it perfectly clear that you intend to defy it if and when it does.

[shawmutt]

It absolutely denies the reason for keeping and bearing arms, which is defense. The idea behind defense is being capable to meet the common threats you are likely to face, and hunting rifles are no match for assault rifles, combat rifles, or the hordes who carry them in the name of all nations, all states, etc. Defense must be competent, or its not defense.

If defense against government is you idea, our current weapons are sorely lacking. What we need is a good RPG and hand grenades in our gun shops.

As far as the founding father's ideas:

Family Guy Right to Bear Arms - NothingToxic.com

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Zeebedee I find it ironic that those who clamor the most about "constitutional rights" are also the most vocal about defying that document when it goes against them.

You noticed that too,eh?

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Which argument is that Sonart?

You don't have an individual right to keep and bare arms because the standing precedents of the USSC and the majority of the Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal say you don't, which, according to the Constitution, means that's the law of the land.

Try to keep up, Osborn. Taking your fingers out of your ears would probably help.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Stop putting this on religion, when religion has nothing to do with it.

I didn't. Brien did. "I see my right to keep and bear arms as an unalienable right endowed to me by my creator,"

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Yes, a right to feed my self and my family with the use of arms, if necessary.

Really? Where does it say that in the Constitution?

(but apparently not the right to cross a border, illegally if necessary, to feed your family.)

Quote by: Osborn F Enready The right to travel without obstruction.

Again, where's it say that in the Constitution? And, to drive myself, I'm required to qualify for the privilege of driving by getting a license, registering an automobile and insuring that automobile.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready The right to keep and bear arms, and arms is the terminology used to "identify" weapons. Arms can be a pike, a sword, a firearm or a bow and arrow. Arms are "tools" used for defense by an individual.

Thanks for the semantics lesson. I'll keep it in mind, but I think even you would agree that the discussion of 2nd Amendment rights refers specifically to the possession of firearms.

You're arguing here for the sake of arguing.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Try speaking for yourself, firstly. Secondly, why not address what brings about the stress and pressure on people in our society before blaming the pencil for all things written badly?

Because a pencil is innocuous, a tool. Tools are invented and designed to perform innocuous functions. Weapons, on the other hand, are not tools. They are invented and designed for one thing only, to harm or kill, and firearms specifically to kill from a distance. It's the only reason they exist.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Yet you still fail to notice its the guns, and the men and women holding them that keep peace in every portion of the world that has any peace.

And because it's so inherently dangerous, it's men and women who we specifically train and authorize, via the local, state or federal governments, with the duty of keeping that peace. We don't simply hand that job over to anyone that wants to strut around with a gun... at least not in civilized countries.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Denial of reality only makes you appear more the fool Sonart.

Look at the chart I posted, Osborn.

Deny that!

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I have no desire to shoot anyone, period, ever. I have no desire to kill, to maim, to use force against anyone, in any measure, AT ALL!

And yet you want Americans to rise up and overthrow the government by force of the arms you claim they have a right to possess, for the very purpose you claim they have that right. So how does that work, exactly? You expect people to kill, to maim, to use force at your behest, but your hands remain clean????

--"I personally think its long overdue, the revolution or "dividing of the union" that is.--

--"If peaceful revolution is possible, violent revolution is not necessary. That is why we have a means of petition of redress, before the courts and Congress stopped "addressing them".

A government of the people, must be kept in check by the people, and the means of doing this are relevant to the means being used to subvert the system in which the people have a right to shrug off, or remove.

As force is used more and more to subvert the Constitution and rule of law, the people will use force relevant to achieve their goals, and hopefully all that is necessary, not more or less."--

--"Not at all. Honor killings, or duels used to be fairly common-place, but then again, much higher regard was placed on integrity, honor and respect."--

.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: shawmutt If defense against government is you idea, our current weapons are sorely lacking. What we need is a good RPG and hand grenades in our gun shops.

Not to mention some armored divisions. And artillery. Some air support would be nice. And a navy, of course....

.

[Osborn F Enready]

shawmutt said: If defense against government is you idea, our current weapons are sorely lacking. What we need is a good RPG and hand grenades in our gun shops.

Not true at all. Training is all that makes the difference. The latest gear is available to individuals, from ballistic protection to high-tech defense aids such as night vision, laser scopes, range finders, enrypted communications, mobile radios, vehicles, specialized ammunition, high capacity magazines and a variety of weapons in calibers and barrell lengths for any application.

Training is the big decider, and there are more training choices than ever before, available today to anyone who seeks intrest.

Tanks, Helicopters, and large battlefield operations and supply lines become a liability in a revolution, or against a well trained group of guerilla fighters.

[Osborn F Enready]

Sonart said: You don't have an individual right to keep and bare arms because the standing precedents of the USSC and the majority of the Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal say you don't, which, according to the Constitution, means that's the law of the land.

Their "say-so" doesn't revoke something that is unalienable. That is why the word UNALIENABLE is in there.

Sonart said: Try to keep up, Osborn. Taking your fingers out of your ears would probably help.

Try to realize many individuals understand the difference between UNALIENABLE rights and "entitlements" that may be revoked at any time. Also try to understand that the forefathers have published works, as is much of their discussion and debate on why rights are unalienable. This means people can understand the truth, without having a court "spoon feed them" what the establishment wants them to believe.

Sonart said: I didn't. Brien did. "I see my right to keep and bear arms as an unalienable right endowed to me by my creator,"

My point was you chose to single out GOD instead of nature as the basis of your rebuttal, when both are clearly in the document, written as NATURES GOD.

This isn't about subjectivity, or one god, or one religion.... It is about the recognition of mans natural rights by a government, and the recorded limitations of that government to infringe those NATURAL rights.

Sonart said: Really? Where does it say that in the Constitution?

You don't have an explicitly stated constitutional right to travel within the country, but since you are not restricted from interstate travel, the 10th amendment says you have the right anyway. It could be reasonably argued that Article 4, Section 2, Clause 1, presumes the right to travel between states when it says that a citizen of one state shall have all the rights of a citizen of another state.

Sonart said: (but apparently not the right to cross a border, illegally if necessary, to feed your family.)

You don't have a right to violate national or individual sovereignty, and no law can be created and passed in one nation to be enforced against people in another sovereign nation.

Now, pay attention....

Amendment XIV: Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Anything there you don't understand?

Sonart said: Again, where's it say that in the Constitution? And, to drive myself, I'm required to qualify for the privilege of driving by getting a license, registering an automobile and insuring that automobile.

You have a right to travel between states, as well as within your state without obstruction. Travelling and DRIVING are not interchangeable words.

Sonart said: I'll keep it in mind, but I think even you would agree that the discussion of 2nd Amendment rights refers specifically to the possession of firearms.

Obviously it refers specifically to firearms possession by INDIVIDUALS.

Funny (or sad) how you can comprehend one portion, but not the other.

Sonart said: Because a pencil is innocuous, a tool. Tools are invented and designed to perform innocuous functions. Weapons, on the other hand, are not tools. They are invented and designed for one thing only, to harm or kill, and firearms specifically to kill from a distance. It's the only reason they exist.

Exactly, which is WHY WE RETAINED SPECIFICLY the UNALIENABLE right to that tool(the firearm), as opposed to the pencil. That tool has an equal ability to provide life as well as death, protect life as well as take it.... it is simply a tool that is required in a world that operates under nature.

Yes, you note the fine qualities of a firearm, which make it far greater than any pencil. A pencil can't provide food, protect your family and yourself, or overthrow a tyrannical government in the properly trained hands, while a firearm can. Reason can be reasoned with, force cannot, which is why ALL REASONABLE MEN RESERVE THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS, for when reasonable men are not in charge and refuse to step down.

Sonart said: And because it's so inherently dangerous, it's men and women who we specifically train and authorize, via the local, state or federal governments, with the duty of keeping that peace.

Almost correct.... they AID us in keeping that peace, but are not liable for failing when they do.

Can you sue the police for not protecting you? That should be more than enough to shred your entire argument.

Sonart said: Look at the chart I posted, Osborn. Deny that!

What is to deny? What is to acknowledge? Where is proven cause and effect?

POINT?

Sonart said: We don't simply hand that job over to anyone that wants to strut around with a gun... at least not in civilized countries.

In civillized countries, reasonable men are the norm, and law is respected. As our law grows less and less respectable due to its history of constitutional violations, rights abridgements, and failure to allow the people to control its system, our society becomes more and more unreasonable, and less and less civilized.

The first step to being "civillized" is being self-responsible. The first step to being responsible is understanding it is you who are responsible for the choices you make, your own well being, and your own SAFETY.

Sonart said: And yet you want Americans to rise up and overthrow the government by force of the arms you claim they have a right to possess, for the very purpose you claim they have that right. So how does that work, exactly? You expect people to kill, to maim, to use force at your behest, but your hands remain clean????

When the time comes, if the time comes, I will be at the forefront my friend. Until that time, I have always, and will always advocate peaceful revolution while the option exists. That option, or window of opprotunity for peaceful resistance is closing, and only the people who will suffer (all of us who are citizens) are to blame.

The only time I have ever used force, and will ever use force is to protect my life, my liberty and my property. Color it any way you want Sonart, I have every right to do so, and regardless on what court recognizes that right, I will not surrender that right while these lungs take air.

Sonart said: (list of quotes I have made) "I personally think its long overdue, the revolution or "dividing of the union" that is.-- --"If peaceful revolution is possible, violent revolution is not necessary. That is why we have a means of petition of redress, before the courts and Congress stopped "addressing them". A government of the people, must be kept in check by the people, and the means of doing this are relevant to the means being used to subvert the system in which the people have a right to shrug off, or remove. As force is used more and more to subvert the Constitution and rule of law, the people will use force relevant to achieve their goals, and hopefully all that is necessary, not more or less."-- --"Not at all. Honor killings, or duels used to be fairly common-place, but then again, much higher regard was placed on integrity, honor and respect."--

Yes, I made every one of those quotes, and stand behind each one today as the day I posted them. POINT?

[Osborn F Enready]

Zeebadee said: It evidently hasn't yet. But you've made it perfectly clear that you intend to defy it if and when it does.

How can a document measured by objective law, contradict itself?

It can't, if it expects respect from the society bound by it.

If the Constitution were to contradict itself, you may have a case, but it does not, nor do you have a case.

The men who have been recognized to interpret CASES under the law, have been faulted, as all humans are to some degree, and it is they who are to blame for contradiction. Contradiction can be rectified, injustice cannot, and denying people individual rights is injustice no matter where the "enforcement" or "decision" eminates from.

I will put this quote up again....

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it. -- 16 Am. Jur. Sec. 177 late 2d, Sec 256

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Osborn Their "say-so" doesn't revoke something that is unalienable. That is why the word UNALIENABLE is in there.

Where in the Constitution does it say UNALIENABLE?

Quote by: Osborn Also try to understand that the forefathers have published works, as is much of their discussion and debate on why rights are unalienable.

Indeed. The Court refered to a great number of them in arriving at their decision in Miller. You can read them yourself.

**That doesn't change one bit the fact that the Constitution made the Supreme Court the arbiter of what is or isn't constitutional in U.S. law, and the Supreme Court has declared that the 2nd Amendment does NOT guarantee you an individual right to bare arms.

Quote: