Americans & Guns

[Livemike]

Originally posted by commonsense, "I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." (Jonathan Elliot, The Debates of the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, [NY: Burt Franklin,1888] p.425-6) Mozart, et al, are laboring under the tragic (I would argue deliberate) mis-conception by the U.S. Supreme Court, 1939, in a decision that declared the right to possess a sawed-off shotgun does not exist because such a weapon "is not normal militia-issue" (meaning not found in the National Guard's complement of equipment) Actually they didn't decide that. What they said was that "The Court can not take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia; and therefore can not say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.". Note that the weapon only has to have a "reasonable relation to the preservation or efficency of a well regulated militia". It does not have to be "normal militia-issue" or indeed abnormal issue and the National Guard don't have to know it from a hole in the ground. The decision never addressed the real issue of whether States Rights govern such a right as belonging to the individual, or that individual firearms rights are an individual right ennumerated in the second ammendment, independent of the existence of a state militia, since homogenized nationally as part of the army, However, contemporary writings abound clearly spelling out the founders intent, especially various state constitutions which are unequivocal with lines such as "Ye shall possess firearms in ye homes to prevent tyranny" (i made that up, but it is very close to the PA and VA state constitution--maybe Dave or Patrick Henry can find it) Besides, even without this abundance of writings of the time, making the founders assume the second ammendment stood without explanation, given the discourse of the ratification process, an honest judiciary, looking at history, would have to determine the second ammendment's intent unequivocally. http://www.apfn.org/apfn/2nd.htm Further, in the vernacular of the time (also easily verified) the phrase well-regulated meant "well-practiced and organized" , combined with the prevailing understanding that the "militia" was the whole of able-bodied citizens, absent government officials! Whereas those like Mozart have somehow been made comfortable with the opposite socio-political dynamic of ONLY! governmental agents possessing the power to hold guns. Again, here too, the phrase "well-regulated" has nothing to do with "registration" , at least not at the federal level, which is another thing knee-jerk liberals get confused by. Briefly, the Bush administration vowed to reopen the SC case once and for all, (of course they reneged) but with developments like the Missouri Concealed Carry Law, the people of the various states, have demanded their rights even with the curiously dormant SC dtermination. The legal status quo of this issue serves the purposes of the usurpers because a wide-open public debate would reveal the dishonesty or ineptitude of the original ruling, so the muddiness of the waters here serves both sides, except the patriots, who seem to have gained a few victories...that reminds me, I need to check the Missouri topic to see if any MO'ans can describe their state's progress in keeping tyranny at bay. Not a member (yet) but a cool site to check out: http://www.trtnational.com/

[bugsbunny04]

Originally posted by Livemike,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Livemike,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-commonsense, "I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." (Jonathan Elliot, The Debates of the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, [NY: Burt Franklin,1888] p.425-6) Mozart, et al, are laboring under the tragic (I would argue deliberate) mis-conception by the U.S. Supreme Court, 1939, in a decision that declared the right to possess a sawed-off shotgun does not exist because such a weapon "is not normal militia-issue" (meaning not found in the National Guard's complement of equipment)   Actually they didn't decide that.  What they said was that "The Court can not take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia; and therefore can not say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.".  Note that the weapon only has to have a "reasonable relation to the preservation or efficency of a well regulated militia".  It does not have to be "normal militia-issue" or indeed abnormal issue and the National Guard don't have to know it from a hole in the ground. The decision never addressed the real issue of whether States Rights govern such a right as belonging to the individual, or that individual firearms rights are an individual right ennumerated in the second ammendment, independent of the existence of a state militia, since homogenized nationally as part of the army, However, contemporary writings abound clearly spelling out the founders intent, especially various state constitutions which are unequivocal with lines such as "Ye shall possess firearms in ye homes to prevent tyranny" (i made that up, but it is very close to the PA and VA state constitution--maybe Dave or Patrick Henry can find it) Besides, even without this abundance of writings of the time, making the founders assume the second ammendment stood without explanation, given the discourse of the ratification process, an honest judiciary, looking at history, would have to determine the second ammendment's intent unequivocally. http://www.apfn.org/apfn/2nd.htm Further, in the vernacular of the time (also easily verified) the phrase well-regulated meant "well-practiced and organized" , combined with the prevailing understanding that the "militia" was the whole of able-bodied citizens, absent government officials!  Whereas those like Mozart have somehow been made comfortable with the opposite socio-political dynamic of ONLY! governmental agents possessing the power to hold guns. Again, here too, the phrase "well-regulated" has nothing to do with "registration" ,  at least not at the federal level, which is another thing knee-jerk liberals get confused by. Briefly, the Bush administration vowed to reopen the SC case once and for all, (of course they reneged) but with developments like the Missouri Concealed Carry Law, the people of the various states, have demanded their rights even with the curiously dormant SC dtermination. The legal status quo of this issue serves the purposes of the usurpers because a wide-open public debate would reveal the dishonesty or ineptitude of the original ruling, so the muddiness of the waters here serves both sides, except the patriots, who seem to have gained a few victories...that reminds me, I need to check the Missouri topic to see if any MO'ans can describe their state's progress in keeping tyranny at bay. Not a member (yet) but a cool site to check out: http://www.trtnational.com/

[/b][/quote]

Supposing you just wanted to point all that out again huh? Well, goodie, I get to respond to the post you quoted blank, Here goes:

Yup, exactly.

What is unclear about “shall not be infringed”?

Back a ways in the string it was said something about restricting a freed convict’s right to protect himself (own a gun). I think on constitutional grounds that such restriction would be “cruel and unusual punishment”. It would be cruel to release a prisoner from prison without the tools to defend himself.
Allan

[dotcoma]

Wait a minute? Hitler was anti gun? Wasn't Hitler "right" according to your previous posts?

You have incorrect information, the jewish controlled administration before Hitler was anti-gun, not Hitler. Hitler actually eased gun control legislation.
Allan

[dotcoma]

Who the hell are you kidding?

[dotcoma]

Allen, you full of it....

"History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing."

-Adolf Hitler, April 11, 1942

[samsara15]

I live in a major city. I don't own a gun, nor do I intend to, and see no reason why anyone around here needs a gun. If I had a gun, it wouldn't stop the government from steamrolling me. Nor would it protect me very well from muggers, and so forth. The only effect of people owning guns is to make everyone fear everyone else.

[dotcoma]

The only effect of people owning guns is to make everyone fear everyone else.

Is this a joke? I would say the main effect of having a gun is being able to protect yourself and family instead of the cops showing up after everything is over. Turn off Bowling for Columbine and get real...

A well armed populace has the effect of making CRIMINALS fear perpetrating crimes against the citizenry.

[dotcoma]

Not according to Micheal Moore. We should just ignore history and listen to him. I mean, he's written books and made movies and stuff...You know?

[Pooeypants]

According to history? Well I for one am glad civilians aren't allowed to bare arms, too many psychos around here.

Hey Pooey. I've got some bad news for you. Many of those psychos ARE carrying guns. Don't think a little thing like the law is going to stop them. Drugs are also illegal, has that stopped anyone interested inusing from doing so? The best defense is a good offense. Those armed psychos will be much less inclined to pull a gun if they know people around them are also packing. If they do draw a gun, wouldn't it be better if a decent law abiding citizen is there and able to shoot the perp before he/she hurts an innocent bystander?
In other words, if you're standing in the check out line at the local 7-11, and some nut pulls a gun and demands everyone's money, wouldn't you rather have me there pulling my gun and shooting this guy before he shoots you and/or takes your cash?

Almost forgot. Michael Moore/Jabba the Hut, is certifiable. Sure he's funny, but his work shows an utter contempt for facts.

[dotcoma]

The best defense is a good offense

Shoot, I would say the best defense in this case is being ABLE TO DEFEND...call me crazy....

[dotcoma]

Originally posted by Pooeypants, According to history? Well I for one am glad civilians aren't allowed to bare arms, too many psychos around here.

Right, according to history.

"History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing."

-Adolf Hitler, April 11, 1942

[Pooeypants]

Originally posted by dave654, Hey Pooey. I've got some bad news for you. Many of those psychos ARE carrying guns. Don't think a little thing like the law is going to stop them. Drugs are also illegal, has that stopped anyone interested inusing from doing so? The best defense is a good offense. Those armed psychos will be much less inclined to pull a gun if they know people around them are also packing. If they do draw a gun, wouldn't it be better if a decent law abiding citizen is there and able to shoot the perp before he/she hurts an innocent bystander? In other words, if you're standing in the check out line at the local 7-11, and some nut pulls a gun and demands everyone's money, wouldn't you rather have me there pulling my gun and shooting this guy before he shoots you and/or takes your cash? Almost forgot. Michael Moore/Jabba the Hut, is certifiable. Sure he's funny, but his work shows an utter contempt for facts.

It's rare in the UK for such an occurence, not saying it doesn't happen but armed robberies usually happen in Banks or locations with large value items in stock. Fact is, our society isn't responsible enough, and I'd rather we all didn't have such ease to maim and kill each at close/medium range.

Oh and if more guns for citizens = less crime, is that actually reflected in say the USA?

[Impenitent]

yes it actually is

[dotcoma]

It's rare in the UK for such an occurence

I used to live over there. It's FAR from rare. In fact, the UK is having more problems with guns than us now. But you're right. Keep the guns in the hands of criminals and take them away from us cockroaches. Tell Benito I said hello. And Hey! When the guy that can get guns legal or not and use them to rape and kill your wife, just dial 9-11, that'll solve everything. You really live in a dream world.

[Pooeypants]

Originally posted by roxdog, I used to live over there. It's FAR from rare. In fact, the UK is having more problems with guns than us now. But you're right. Keep the guns in the hands of criminals and take them away from us cockroaches. Tell Benito I said hello. And Hey! When the guy that can get guns legal or not and use them to rape and kill your wife, just dial 9-11, that'll solve everything. You really live in a dream world.

You're living in a dream world if you think arming every person in the society is going to solve our crime problem. Fight fire with fire huh?

And remember, if you ever come back to UK, dial 999 for the emergency services, expect British police response time to be...oh after the tea break. :rolleyes:

[Samildanach]

Britain having more problems with guns than the USA? Wahahahah....hahahahaha
hahahahaha,.....hahahahaha. Good one....now back in the real world.