U.S. justices could decide constitutionality of gun ownership

[Milton Bradley]

I would like to know how you can justify defining a "Federalized", National Guard as a "States Militia"?


Unless you're going to tell me the Governors are over in Iraq commanding their troops.


That seems like quite a stretch of the imagination, and well beyond the definition implied by the original intent.

[Osborn F Enready]

Sonart said: Have you or have you not advocated armed rebellion against the U.S. government?

No. I have said we as a nation are ready, I have not said "come on people, follow me".

I have stated that I see the transgressions against the Constitution as worthy of revolt, especially compared to what cause our revolt from England, and looking at the causes of the civil war.

I have stated that 157 years is long enough for a monopoly on U.S. political power by two parties that started as one party, and are still one party, bent on authoritarian rulership of this nation in the end.

I am not however assembling a plan, nor am I preparing to march, nor am I leading a movement to start a revolution.

Sonart said: Do you honestly envision that as anything other than a bloodbath?

What we have now is a bloodbath,, except the bulk of the blood is being spilled in foreign lands and U.S. prisons against non-violent offenders.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Milton Bradley I would like to know how you can justify defining a "Federalized", National Guard as a "States Militia"?

I don't define them as the Militia, and I would like to know when I've personally commented on the National Guard one way or another, beyond referencing others references to the National Guard? Is this a new debate tactic for you, Milton...assign a statement to someone that they never made, then attack them on it? How's it working for you so far?

As to your question... as I'm sure everyone here knows, the militias were folded into the U.S. Army in 1900 as the Army National Guard, so their only connection to state Militias is tradition, and the fact that they can be called to service in emergencies by the Governors of the states in which each militia resides.

The closest we have to the original State Militias are the State Defense Forces, of which only 22 of our 50 states recognize.

All the more reason the 2nd Amendment is moot.

Quote by: Milton Bradley Unless you're going to tell me the Governors are over in Iraq commanding their troops.

See above...

Otherwise, the Constitution explains the chain of command quite well, whether you view the National Guard as the evolution of the militias or not....

Article I, Section 8: Clause 15 -- "(Congress shall have the power...) To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;"

(Apparently Dear Leader sees invading Iraq as "repelling invasions" pre-emptorily )

Article I, Section 8: Clause 16 -- "(Congress shall have the power...) To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

Article I, Section 10: Clause 3 -- "No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay."

Article II, Section 2: -- "The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States;"

Quote by: Osborn F. Enready No. I have said we as a nation are ready, I have not said "come on people, follow me". I have stated that I see the transgressions against the Constitution as worthy of revolt, especially compared to what cause our revolt from England, and looking at the causes of the civil war. I have stated that 157 years is long enough for a monopoly on U.S. political power by two parties that started as one party, and are still one party, bent on authoritarian rulership of this nation in the end. I am not however assembling a plan, nor am I preparing to march, nor am I leading a movement to start a revolution.

ad-vo-cate verb -- 1. to speak or write in favor of; support or urge by argument; recommend publicly:

I asked if you'd "advocated" armed rebellion. Obviously you have, even if now you're splitting hairs about whether you're "leading it" or not. Ben Franklin didn't grab a musket and yell, "Follow me!" either. That doesn't mean he wasn't complicate in an armed rebellion taking place.

Ironic, isn't it, that Osborn would be guilty of that which he condemns... old men drumming up wars and then sending young men off to fight them.

Quote by: Osborn F. Enready What we have now is a bloodbath,, except the bulk of the blood is being spilled in foreign lands and U.S. prisons against non-violent offenders.

Nice try, but there's a pretty clear distinction between foreign military adventures and domestic. But perhaps you should keep the images of blood being spilled on foreign lands firmly in mind, next time you feel that "We as a nation are ready..." for an armed rebellion.

.

[Osborn F Enready]

Sonart said: ad-vo-cate verb -- 1. to speak or write in favor of; support or urge by argument; recommend publicly: I asked if you'd "advocated" armed rebellion.

NOTICE WHO SAID ARMED. YOU DID, NOT I.

NOTICE WHO SAID VIOLENT, YOU DID, NOT I.

Sonart said: Obviously you have, even if now you're splitting hairs about whether you're "leading it" or not. Ben Franklin didn't grab a musket and yell, "Follow me!" either. That doesn't mean he wasn't complicate in an armed rebellion taking place.

You have comprehension problems.

I am advocating Ron Paul as change.
I am advocating peaceful rebellion.
I am advocating people recognize their rights, and advocating they invoke them.

How you spin this into advocating armed rebellion is beyond me.

Sonart said: Ironic, isn't it, that Osborn would be guilty of that which he condemns... old men drumming up wars and then sending young men off to fight them.

Ironic isn't it, that you can't grasp reading and comprehension at the high school level.....

Sonart said: Nice try, but there's a pretty clear distinction between foreign military adventures and domestic. But perhaps you should keep the images of blood being spilled on foreign lands firmly in mind, next time you feel that "We as a nation are ready..." for an armed rebellion.

Hey, paint your pictures from your imagination if thats what comforts you, I understand. However, you are so far off base, you don't have a clue of where I stand.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Sonart I don't define them as the Militia, and I would like to know when I've personally commented on the National Guard one way or another, beyond referencing others references to the National Guard?

Sorry, I thought this question was presented enough times that you would have taken it up by now, since taking it up on special request.

Quote by: Sonart Is this a new debate tactic for you, Milton...assign a statement to someone that they never made, then attack them on it?

It is not.

Quote by: Sonart;461320As to your question... as I'm sure everyone here knows, the militias were folded into the U.S. Army in 1900 as the Army National Guard, so their only connection to state Militias is tradition, and the fact that they can be called to service in emergencies by the Governors of the states in which each militia resides. The closest we have to the original State Militias are the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Defense_Forces" State Defense Forces[/url], of which only 22 of our 50 states recognize. All the more reason the 2nd Amendment is moot. See above... Otherwise, the Constitution explains the chain of command quite well, whether you view the National Guard as the evolution of the militias or not....

I think the evidence you provide makes my point, not yours.

[LOGAN]

The second amendment was intended as a "protection" for "We the People", a right to have protection from "all" enemies, both foreign and domestic, even the federal government. For in reality the Federal Government is not some self sustaining entity, it is "WE THE PEOPLE". No one has to make a pretense of gun ownership being limited to "sporting" qualifiers...etc. We have the constitutionally mandated right to "self" protect our, LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS, as long as this right does not infringe upon another's right to the SAME. Simply owning a gun, is not a violation of these constitutional rights, what is a violation is the "Federal" government trying to place limits upon our right to self preservation, period. The right of the People, shall not be infringed. Clear, Simple, and Profound. The people are Us, common, ordinary people, and a Militia is made of People, therefore they are one and the same. Any one that reads anything else into this is doing so in a semantical fashion with the purpose being subversion of the peoples rights.

The whole purpose of the Bill of Rights was to limit the Power of a Strong central government and stop it from becoming to controlling. These 10 amendments were not intended to take power away from the people but protect the Feds from doing so.

The only purpose of the Federal Government is one of keeping and maintaining a strong Military and providing infrastructure transportation and trade between the States to allow a sense of unity, it is not the duty of the Feds to wet nurse the people that live within each individual state, it is the responsibility of each state to take care of its people. Thus each has its own constitution and has the right to make their own laws, that may contain anything that the people wish them to, as long as it does not come into conflict with the rights provided in the constitution. That is what the 10th amendment used to say, before the "communist" began "interpreting" with words that are "omitted" from the writings of the constitution. A judge does not have the constitutional right to circumvent the words of the constitution when these words change the meaning of intent of the constitution. The only way to change the constitution is via constitutional amendment, not by the supposed power of "JUDICIAL REVIEW". That concept is one of social communism, just like the concept of building a wall to separate the Church and State. If you want to see a constitution where these words actually exist and say these exact words, just look in the USSR constitution, not ours. Logan

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready NOTICE WHO SAID ARMED. YOU DID, NOT I.

Didn't you? Did you or did you not say that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to enable American citizens to stand up and resist tyrants, and that YOU BELIEVE the time for such resistance is now?

"What country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that [the] people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms...The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

Sound familiar? And since the 2nd Amendment deals with baring arms, I'm guessing your idea of overthrowing the government did not involve torches and pitchforks. Reasonable guess??

Quote by: Osborn F Enready NOTICE WHO SAID VIOLENT, YOU DID, NOT I.

See, that's what I've been trying to say about guns... firearms are, by their very nature, violent. They were invented and created to be violent. Therefore, overthrowing the government by use of the firearms you say we have the constitutionally guaranteed right to use, for exactly that purpose, will naturally be violent, based on the nature of the means YOU ADVOCATE.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I am advocating Ron Paul as change. I am advocating peaceful rebellion. I am advocating people recognize their rights, and advocating they invoke them.

Oh sure.... NOW!

Quote by: Osborn F Enready - Mar. 7, 07 Boy, they really want to provoke a rebellion using violence, don't they?

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Assault weapons are essential to protection of rights against militarized forces. YES, we really need assault weapons, and that should be common sense if you understand the role of firearms in society in the United States, and the second amendment.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready How you spin this into advocating armed rebellion is beyond me.

Because you've said so, Osborn. Given your years on this board, how do posts where you support Ron Paul cancel out other posts where you declare we need to be armed and prepared to overthrow what you view as a tyranical government?

Or was that all just the bluff talk that you can back peddle on when called to back it up?

Quote by: Milton Bradley I think the evidence you provide makes my point, not yours.

Umm... and your point being what....??? {read on}

Quote by: Milton Bradley,11/20 Perhaps then, you would care to explain the language where they allude to the citizens having the right to remove, or throw off tyrants in their own government? How were to go about that with a "militia" you cay consists of the National Guard?

Well, there's yet another reference to armed rebellion, but once again, I'd said absolutely nothing about the National Guard, and your enigmatic statement isn't clarifying the issue. {read on}

You also conveniently miss that other question about how one would go about removing tyrannical leaders with a tyrant controlled National Guard. When the National Guard was Federalized, it lost all resemblance to the "militia" defined in the constitution because it came under control of the Federal government, thus, not a "State Militia".

Ahhh, a glimmer of a point... with the militia gone Federal, how do we rise up in armed opposition? That your point?

First off, as I just stated, I agree with your assessment of the National Guard. Therefore "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," is meaningless, isn't it! Therefore, so too is the 2nd Amendment itself.

And we go about removing tyrannical leaders the same way we have for over 200 years... we petition our government for redress of grievances, we sic the press on them and then vote them out of office. I'm sorry if that doesn't satisfy YOU, but I suspect most Americans much prefer it to civil war.

Or, thanks to our lovely gun culture, we assassinate them, like they do in 2-bit banana republics.

.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: LOGAN The second amendment was intended as a "protection" for "We the People", a right to have protection from "all" enemies, both foreign and domestic, even the federal government.

Does it now.

I daresay with the United States Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force, our protection against foreign and domestic enemies is well in hand. Unless by domestic enemies you mean our government. In which case, that same Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force will probably make short work of whichever "We the People" choses to engage in armed rebellion against them.

Quote by: LOGAN The right of the People, shall not be infringed. Clear, Simple, and Profound.

Sorry, but it also says, quite clearly... "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,...", and the Supreme Court of the United States, the institution defined by the Constitution as the arbitor of what is and isn't legally constitutional, says the meaning of those words defines those that follow them.

.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Sonart And we go about removing tyrannical leaders the same way we have for over 200 years... we petition our government for redress of grievances, we sic the press on them and then vote them out of office. I'm sorry if that doesn't satisfy YOU, but I suspect most Americans much prefer it to civil war.

I guess you're not getting the news that they pretty much refuse to hear any case that threatens their hold on power. One could even charaterize them as Redress Nazis. No Redress for You!

Quote by: Sonart Or, thanks to our lovely gun culture, we assassinate them, like they do in 2-bit banana republics.

Hmmm, I guess this would be a bad time to inform you the the trigger men usually end up being US agents, or seditious locals under the control of US agents working abroad.


How many books have I alone linked you to that illustrate this point in the books thread?

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Milton Bradley I guess you're not getting the news that they pretty much refuse to hear any case that threatens their hold on power. One could even characterize them as Redress Nazis. No Redress for You!

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." - Godwin's Law

Dang, that sounds pretty bad, Milton. Guess that leaves you no choice but to leave the country and start again somewhere more to your liking. I hear Somalia is a current favorite among Libertarians. Free to do whatever you choose.... if you survive.

Quote by: Milton Bradley Hmmm, I guess this would be a bad time to inform you the the trigger men usually end up being US agents, or seditious locals under the control of US agents working abroad.

LOLOL!!! Yeah, yeah, sure, Milton. Whatever you say.


.

[Osborn F Enready]

Sonart said: Because you've said so, Osborn.

No, I haven't.

You proved it by not quoting me, as I know you must have been looking to try to find the dirt you thought you had.

Sonart said: Given your years on this board, how do posts where you support Ron Paul cancel out other posts where you declare we need to be armed and prepared to overthrow what you view as a tyranical government?

Since when does being armed and prepared in case of revolt, translate into ADVOCATING REVOLT?!?

Try READING AND COMPREHENSION CLASSES.

Sonart said: Or was that all just the bluff talk that you can back peddle on when called to back it up?

The reason there is a 2nd amendment is so the people have the right to defense, whether it be enemies FOREIGN or DOMESTIC.

Admitting that fact, and admitting thats why I own arms, is not the SAME as advocating violent revolt, you fool.

Talking to you on here has become like addressing an 8 year old who is mid-temper tantrum. Whats worse, is time and time again you prove that 8 yr old mentality when you claim recongnition of the fact why the 2nd amendment exists is an admission of advocation of violent revolt.

Shameful on your part Sonart, shameful.

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: Sonart See, that's what I've been trying to say about guns... firearms are, by their very nature, violent. They were invented and created to be violent. Therefore, overthrowing the government by use of the firearms you say we have the constitutionally guaranteed right to use, for exactly that purpose, will naturally be violent, based on the nature of the means YOU ADVOCATE.

I have many times said that "all laws are enforced at gunpoint" and that "all taxes are collected with the threat of violence". I make this point to say that, since the government derives their power from my rights, I will only advocate laws for which I would use my own guns to enforce and taxes for which I would be willing to use violence, myself, to collect.

Every time I make such a statement I am met with strong opposition saying that police wouldn't shoot someone for jaywalking, that taxes are collected without a threat of violence. But, you're saying that advocating governmental change while advocating the ownership of firearms is advocating violent revolution.

Am I the only one that sees the contradictions here?

And, if you don't see a contradiction, then you can't have it both ways. If you believe in human rights, and the right to be free from violence, you can't advocate malum prohibitum laws or tax collection through violence and prohibit violent revolution and opposition to such human rights violations.

Keith

[Osborn F Enready]

Keith said: And, if you don't see a contradiction, then you can't have it both ways. If you believe in human rights, and the right to be free from violence, you can't advocate malum prohibitum laws or tax collection through violence and prohibit violent revolution and opposition to such human rights violations.

Your expecting logic on his end.... so don't hold your breath.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Osborn No, I haven't. You proved it by not quoting me, as I know you must have been looking to try to find the dirt you thought you had.

"No. I have said we as a nation are ready, I have not said "come on people, follow me".

I have stated that I see the transgressions against the Constitution as worthy of revolt, especially compared to what cause our revolt from England, and looking at the causes of the civil war.

I have stated that 157 years is long enough for a monopoly on U.S. political power by two parties that started as one party, and are still one party, bent on authoritarian rulership of this nation in the end.

I am not however assembling a plan, nor am I preparing to march, nor am I leading a movement to start a revolution."

And that's just recently. I tried a search of your posts, but do you know how often you post? Sheeesh!!! But I know we've had these conversations before, and I know what you've said.

Face it, Osborn, you WANT an armed revolution to take place, if just a little, clean one. You seem to have this fantasy that a few armed and motivated Americans can easily overcome the vast firepower of the U.S. military...

"Nonsense. Tanks and armor vehicles need refueled, serviced and there are times when people get out of the tanks, just like there are times when corrupt officials leave their offices..... that is the time to strike." -- Gun and Gun Control, Dec. 4, 07

Quote by: Osborn Admitting that fact, and admitting thats why I own arms, is not the SAME as advocating violent revolt, you fool.

It is when you say "we're ready for one". To advocate, to speak or write in favor of; support or urge by argument.

Or do you enjoy playing the politician, parsing your own words carefully enough to plausibly deny them later? Sure, you haven't actually said, "Follow me!". Just, "Hey, the system is so bad it's way overdue and we're ready."

All that means is that you enjoy the sound of advocating violent revolution when it suits your rhetoric about liberty and the right to bear arms, but promptly deny it when presented with the realities of such actions. How Libertarian: unlimited freedom looks so wonderful on paper, yet proves so messy in the modern real world.

Quote by: Osborn Shameful on your part Sonart, shameful.

I'm not the one who thinks the U.S. is ready for a civil war

.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Keith Hamburger I make this point to say that, since the government derives their power from my rights, I will only advocate laws for which I would use my own guns to enforce and taxes for which I would be willing to use violence, myself, to collect.

Then it's a good thing we don't live in the United States of Keith Hamburger, but in a Constitutional Democratic Republic.

Quote by: Keith Hamburger Every time I make such a statement I am met with strong opposition saying that police wouldn't shoot someone for jaywalking, that taxes are collected without a threat of violence

Not from me. I agree with you... the government has that power. We, the People, gave it them in order to maintain an organized, civil society rather than lawless anarchy. I just finished looking at a thread from a few years ago in which some old man shot a kid dead for walking across his lawn. According to Osborn, it was just a case of defending one's property with the THREAT of gunfire, but... OOOPS ...the gun went off. Unfortunately, that gun did exactly what it was intended and built to do; kill that kid from a distance. That's why Americans have authorized government to enforce our laws, by force if necessary, and not each other.

Quote by: Keith Hamburger But, you're saying that advocating governmental change while advocating the ownership of firearms is advocating violent revolution.

No I'm not. I'm saying that when someone says the 2nd Amendment exists - even in part - to make it possible for armed citizens to overthrow tyranny, and then says that the current U.S. government is a tyranny, and therefore "we are ready" for an armed overthrow of the government, then THAT is advocating violent revolution.

What's not to understand here, Keith?

Quote by: Osborn Your expecting logic on his end.... so don't hold your breath.

LOL Heck, logic is my middle name. Just look at my avatar.

.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Sonart We, the People, gave it them in order to maintain an organized, civil society rather than lawless anarchy.

Well, since they're doing such a poor job with the responsibilities, and the power we entrusted to them, what's wrong with suggesting we take it back, and empower people who are more responsible, and responsive to the people they allegedly represent?


This is one of the major issues I have with establishment cheerlearders like yourself. What on Earth is it you are defending? Since the trust is gone, and the reputation compromised, you guys are only defending the established ways of fraud, racketeering, and coercion.


I know, I know, you will tell us to "vote them out of office", but then you will go on to advoate Hillary for President, and intentionally overlook the fact that she is part of that same group of lying establishment schmucks that we can't seem to vote out of office. :rollseyes:

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: Sonart Then it's a good thing we don't live in the United States of Keith Hamburger, but in a Constitutional Democratic Republic.

This is a useless, personal, snide comment that adds nothing to the discussion.

One of the documents stating the founding principles of this country is the Declaration of Independence. Granted, it doesn't have the power of law, but it does lay out the guiding principles.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

In the philosophy used by the writer and signatories to this document, this means that governments power derives from the rights of the citizens, delegated to the government by those citizens. The government only has the power to defend the rights of the citizens that the citizens themselves have. A group of people don't have a greater level of rights or powers than any individual within that group has. I have the right to property, and from that right derives the power to use the tools and take the actions necessary to protect my property. I can delegate that power to another person or organization, including but not limited to the government, but I cannot delegate any power which I do not posess.

If you are advocating that you can ask the government to do something that you aren't empowered to do, or not willing to do, you are going in clear and direct opposition to the principles on which this country was founded.

Now, after that little bit of education, perhaps you could address the actual topic and post.

Perhaps you can discuss where you have the power to take firearms from a fellow, peaceful citizen. And, if you don't have that power, how you can delegate that power to the government. (And, note, pragmatism has no bearing here. We're talking rights.)

Keith

[LOGAN]

You see what I mean? A communist socialist liberal semantically interpreting the constitution by words that are found no where in the constitution by claiming such power by the power invested by "judicial review" coming from the mouth of someone that is not "elected" but placed by the "political" powers that be in place at any certain time, not only non-elected, but carrying a lifetime appointment, with no fear of opining new laws from the bench to suit HIS/HER political ideology.....it is no wonder there are so many right wing nuts that would like to see the communist in this country hung by the neck until dead. The 1st amendment just protects one form the government taking action against free speech, even if it is communist in nature, but it does not "prevent" a "private" citizen from taking offense with the BS that flows from the mouth of some....and as such we have the happenstances of OK city, and the like. It is easy to pick out some that have been "indoctrinated" by our current system of education that slants so far left that they have to stand on their right side to "relieve" themselves. When in the end, all that it leads to is going "belly up" like Russia, Cuba, and all the rest that placed their livelihood in the hands of social liberalism/communism. There are a few that can see the truth. As the crime rate in this nation has increased by some 300% over the last half century....about the same time that the AMERICAN COMMUNIST LAWYER UNION started defending our civil liberty so feverishly. As they protect PORN, CHILD PORN, AND THE LEGAL SYSTEM THAT ALLOWS THE CRIMINALS TO GO FREE BEFORE THE INK IS DRY ON THE ARREST WARRANTS. Yes indeed, LIBERALISM, has done a lot for this nation. In their attempt to morph our democratic republic into that of a socialist republic. I for one do not like the direction in which this country is heading, as I stand in the middle and look out to either side, the space between the polar ends is becoming harder and harder to bridge. What we need is a few more communists funding the DNC, like George Sorras and company in his attempt for us to mirror the Euro-trash from where he sprang, and have us at the beck and call of the ONE WORLD ORDER. America....as just observed from the retorts of this post is dying form within, as the communist are like a cancer, eating away at it. We are not long for the world if the current trend continues and real Americans do not open their eyes and stop letting a few idiots on the fringe dictate our policy that involves all the rest of the 90%. Logan

[mark3748]

Logan, I have two things... What was this in response to? and please use the "ENTER" key every once in a while to make some paragraphs, the previous post was very difficult to read.