| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Ms My Rights" |
| Date: |
08 Dec 2006 01:45:16 PM |
| Object: |
The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
If this gets tested to the Supreme Court and we lose, at least we'll
know we've lost our freedom and our country for good. Then it would be
time for the states that still wanted to be free, to start pushing for
legal seccession in the courts.
_http://www.newsmax.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=http://www.ne
wsmax.co m/archives/ic/2006/12/7/211001.shtml?s=ic_
(http://www.newsmax.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=http://www.ne
wsmax.co m/archives/ic/2006/12/7/211001.shtm
l?s=ic)
Dec. 7, 2006Scope of 2nd Amendment Questioned
In a case that could shape firearms laws nationwide, attorneys for
the District of Columbia argued Thursday that the Second Amendment
right to bear arms
applies only to militias, not individuals.
The city defended as constitutional its long-standing ban on
handguns, a law that some gun opponents have advocated elsewhere.
Civil liberties groups and pro-gun organizations say the ban in
unconstitutional.
At issue in the case before a federal appeals court is whether the
Second Amendment right to "keep and bear arms" applies to all people
or only to "a well
regulated militia." The Bush administration has endorsed individual
gun-ownership rights but the Supreme Court has never settled the
issue.
If the dispute makes it to the high court, it would be the first case
in nearly 70 years to address the amendment's scope. The court
disappointed gun owner groups in 2003 when it refused to take up a
challenge to California's ban
on assault weapons.
In the Washington, D.C., case, a lower-court judge told six city
residents in 2004 that they did not have a constitutional right to
own handguns. The plaintiffs include residents of high-crime
neighborhoods who want guns for protection.
Courts have upheld bans on automatic weapons and sawed-off shotguns
but this case is unusual because it involves a prohibition on all
pistols. Voters passed a similar ban in San Francisco last year but
a judge ruled it violated state law. The Washington case is not
clouded by state law and hinges directly on the Constitution.
"We interpret the Second Amendment in military terms," said Todd Kim,
the District's solicitor general, who told the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit that the city would also have
had the authority to ban
all weapons.
"Show me anybody in the 19th century who interprets the Second
Amendment the way you do," Judge Laurence Silberman said. "It
doesn't appear until much later, the middle of the 20th century."
Of the three judges, Silberman was the most critical of Kim's
argument and noted that, despite the law, handguns were common in
the District.
Silberman and Judge Thomas B. Griffith seemed to wrestle, however,
with the meaning of the amendment's language about militias. If a
well-regulated militia is no longer needed, they asked, is the right
to bear arms still necessary?
"That's quite a task for any court to decide that a right is no
longer necessary," Alan Gura, an attorney for the plaintiffs,
replied. "If we decide that it's no longer necessary, can we erase
any part of the Constitution?"
--
Have you watched America: Freedom to Fascism yet?
Free video: http://tinyurl.com/snr7b
IF YOU'RE NOT VOTING FOR LIBERTARIANS, YOU'RE ONLY VOTING FOR YOUR
RULERS! If the government wasn't allowed to initiate force, the vote
wouldn't be that important. It's only important because they can.
.
|
|
| User: "Ms My Rights" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
08 Dec 2006 02:24:05 PM |
|
|
Now that these Traitors will be in the majority, it hasn't taken them
long to start the Global Gun Grab on our shores.
Yep, and if that DC case comes out the wrong way in the Supreme Court
eventually, we could lose the whole thing. And having a majority of
conservatives on the SC is no guarantee that they won't overthrow the
2nd Amendment. If you watch America: Freedom to Fascism, you'll see
why.
If they uphold the 2nd Amendment as an individual right, as written,
which I can't imagine them doing anything else if they parse it
correctly, it would overturn tons of gun laws in this country and the
police and governments would lose a LOT of enforcement funding, so I'd
say that even with a conservative SC they might still see it in their
interest to destroy the 2nd Amendment once and for all.
--
Have you watched America: Freedom to Fascism yet?
Free video: http://tinyurl.com/snr7b
IF YOU'RE NOT VOTING FOR LIBERTARIANS, YOU'RE ONLY VOTING FOR YOUR
RULERS! If the government wasn't allowed to initiate force, the vote
wouldn't be that important. It's only important because they can.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Midex" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
08 Jan 2007 11:07:18 PM |
|
|
Ms My Rights wrote:
If this gets tested to the Supreme Court and we lose, at least we'll
know we've lost our freedom and our country for good. Then it would be
time for the states that still wanted to be free, to start pushing for
legal seccession in the courts.
_http://www.newsmax.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=http://www.ne
wsmax.co m/archives/ic/2006/12/7/211001.shtml?s=ic_
(http://www.newsmax.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=http://www.ne
wsmax.co m/archives/ic/2006/12/7/211001.shtm
l?s=ic)
Dec. 7, 2006Scope of 2nd Amendment Questioned
In a case that could shape firearms laws nationwide, attorneys for
the District of Columbia argued Thursday that the Second Amendment
right to bear arms
applies only to militias, not individuals.
The city defended as constitutional its long-standing ban on
handguns, a law that some gun opponents have advocated elsewhere.
Civil liberties groups and pro-gun organizations say the ban in
unconstitutional.
At issue in the case before a federal appeals court is whether the
Second Amendment right to "keep and bear arms" applies to all people
or only to "a well
regulated militia." The Bush administration has endorsed individual
gun-ownership rights but the Supreme Court has never settled the
issue.
If the dispute makes it to the high court, it would be the first case
in nearly 70 years to address the amendment's scope. The court
disappointed gun owner groups in 2003 when it refused to take up a
challenge to California's ban
on assault weapons.
In the Washington, D.C., case, a lower-court judge told six city
residents in 2004 that they did not have a constitutional right to
own handguns. The plaintiffs include residents of high-crime
neighborhoods who want guns for protection.
Courts have upheld bans on automatic weapons and sawed-off shotguns
but this case is unusual because it involves a prohibition on all
pistols. Voters passed a similar ban in San Francisco last year but
a judge ruled it violated state law. The Washington case is not
clouded by state law and hinges directly on the Constitution.
"We interpret the Second Amendment in military terms," said Todd Kim,
the District's solicitor general, who told the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit that the city would also have
had the authority to ban
all weapons.
"Show me anybody in the 19th century who interprets the Second
Amendment the way you do," Judge Laurence Silberman said. "It
doesn't appear until much later, the middle of the 20th century."
Of the three judges, Silberman was the most critical of Kim's
argument and noted that, despite the law, handguns were common in
the District.
Silberman and Judge Thomas B. Griffith seemed to wrestle, however,
with the meaning of the amendment's language about militias. If a
well-regulated militia is no longer needed, they asked, is the right
to bear arms still necessary?
"That's quite a task for any court to decide that a right is no
longer necessary," Alan Gura, an attorney for the plaintiffs,
replied. "If we decide that it's no longer necessary, can we erase
any part of the Constitution?"
--
Have you watched America: Freedom to Fascism yet?
Free video: http://tinyurl.com/snr7b
Yes I've seen it. Its difficult to understand how Russo could make a
movie about fascism and not include 9/11. But maybe that was a tactical
decision - (perhaps its too painful for Americans to learn the truth
about 9/11 yet, perhaps it would have been counter-productive to the
objective) But also I found it difficult to accept the sincerity of a
film which was impossible to get on the internet because Russo had done
such an amazing job of preventing any piracy of his film. But then it
was further curious that he didn't release an immediate low-quality
copy of the film as soon as it went live. He stalled off the internet
release and yet he claimed that it was a film that all Americans must
see.
This is totally at odds with all the docos coming out in the 911 Truth
movement. Anyway, I have seen The Money Masters as well as some alex
jones on Police State and Terror Storm and this basically covered
everything in Aaron Russo's film.
But more importantly and more permeating than tax scam would be for the
Americans to realise quickly enough that 9/11 was a false-flag
operation. This is fundamental to the problems we are in.
At www.video.google.com what Americans must see are films such as
At www.video.google.com search for:
(1) 911 Press for Truth
(2) 911 Mysteries
(3) Uncovered: The Whole Truth about the Iraq War
(4) Confronting the Evidence - Iraq War One - Spanish Subtitles
(5) Iraq War - Experts Come Forward
(6) Rare 1993 News report showing FBI involvement in WTC Bombing
(7) Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometime (The fairytale of Mohammed Atta)
IF YOU'RE NOT VOTING FOR LIBERTARIANS, YOU'RE ONLY VOTING FOR YOUR
RULERS! If the government wasn't allowed to initiate force, the vote
wouldn't be that important. It's only important because they can.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Geo" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
08 Dec 2006 02:17:46 PM |
|
|
Ms My Rights wrote:
If this gets tested to the Supreme Court and we lose, at least we'll
know we've lost our freedom and our country for good. Then it would be
time for the states that still wanted to be free, to start pushing for
legal seccession in the courts.
The scary part is that the reality of this happening is very very
possible. Criminals will be loving that ruling.
_http://www.newsmax.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=http://www.ne
wsmax.co m/archives/ic/2006/12/7/211001.shtml?s=ic_
(http://www.newsmax.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=http://www.ne
wsmax.co m/archives/ic/2006/12/7/211001.shtm
l?s=ic)
Dec. 7, 2006Scope of 2nd Amendment Questioned
In a case that could shape firearms laws nationwide, attorneys for
the District of Columbia argued Thursday that the Second Amendment
right to bear arms
applies only to militias, not individuals.
The city defended as constitutional its long-standing ban on
handguns, a law that some gun opponents have advocated elsewhere.
Civil liberties groups and pro-gun organizations say the ban in
unconstitutional.
At issue in the case before a federal appeals court is whether the
Second Amendment right to "keep and bear arms" applies to all people
or only to "a well
regulated militia." The Bush administration has endorsed individual
gun-ownership rights but the Supreme Court has never settled the
issue.
If the dispute makes it to the high court, it would be the first case
in nearly 70 years to address the amendment's scope. The court
disappointed gun owner groups in 2003 when it refused to take up a
challenge to California's ban
on assault weapons.
In the Washington, D.C., case, a lower-court judge told six city
residents in 2004 that they did not have a constitutional right to
own handguns. The plaintiffs include residents of high-crime
neighborhoods who want guns for protection.
Courts have upheld bans on automatic weapons and sawed-off shotguns
but this case is unusual because it involves a prohibition on all
pistols. Voters passed a similar ban in San Francisco last year but
a judge ruled it violated state law. The Washington case is not
clouded by state law and hinges directly on the Constitution.
"We interpret the Second Amendment in military terms," said Todd Kim,
the District's solicitor general, who told the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit that the city would also have
had the authority to ban
all weapons.
"Show me anybody in the 19th century who interprets the Second
Amendment the way you do," Judge Laurence Silberman said. "It
doesn't appear until much later, the middle of the 20th century."
Of the three judges, Silberman was the most critical of Kim's
argument and noted that, despite the law, handguns were common in
the District.
Silberman and Judge Thomas B. Griffith seemed to wrestle, however,
with the meaning of the amendment's language about militias. If a
well-regulated militia is no longer needed, they asked, is the right
to bear arms still necessary?
"That's quite a task for any court to decide that a right is no
longer necessary," Alan Gura, an attorney for the plaintiffs,
replied. "If we decide that it's no longer necessary, can we erase
any part of the Constitution?"
--
Have you watched America: Freedom to Fascism yet?
Free video: http://tinyurl.com/snr7b
IF YOU'RE NOT VOTING FOR LIBERTARIANS, YOU'RE ONLY VOTING FOR YOUR
RULERS! If the government wasn't allowed to initiate force, the vote
wouldn't be that important. It's only important because they can.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob uecker" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
09 Dec 2006 03:17:10 AM |
|
|
"Geo" <taxpayer779@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1165609066.371520.98630@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com...
Ms My Rights wrote:
If this gets tested to the Supreme Court and we lose, at least we'll
know we've lost our freedom and our country for good. Then it would be
time for the states that still wanted to be free, to start pushing for
legal seccession in the courts.
The scary part is that the reality of this happening is very very
possible. Criminals will be loving that ruling.
_http://www.newsmax.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=http://www.ne
wsmax.co m/archives/ic/2006/12/7/211001.shtml?s=ic_
(http://www.newsmax.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=http://www.ne
wsmax.co m/archives/ic/2006/12/7/211001.shtm
l?s=ic)
Dec. 7, 2006Scope of 2nd Amendment Questioned
In a case that could shape firearms laws nationwide, attorneys for
the District of Columbia argued Thursday that the Second Amendment
right to bear arms
applies only to militias, not individuals.
The city defended as constitutional its long-standing ban on
handguns, a law that some gun opponents have advocated elsewhere.
Civil liberties groups and pro-gun organizations say the ban in
unconstitutional.
At issue in the case before a federal appeals court is whether the
Second Amendment right to "keep and bear arms" applies to all people
or only to "a well
regulated militia." The Bush administration has endorsed individual
gun-ownership rights but the Supreme Court has never settled the
issue.
If the dispute makes it to the high court, it would be the first case
in nearly 70 years to address the amendment's scope. The court
disappointed gun owner groups in 2003 when it refused to take up a
challenge to California's ban
on assault weapons.
In the Washington, D.C., case, a lower-court judge told six city
residents in 2004 that they did not have a constitutional right to
own handguns. The plaintiffs include residents of high-crime
neighborhoods who want guns for protection.
Courts have upheld bans on automatic weapons and sawed-off shotguns
but this case is unusual because it involves a prohibition on all
pistols. Voters passed a similar ban in San Francisco last year but
a judge ruled it violated state law. The Washington case is not
clouded by state law and hinges directly on the Constitution.
"We interpret the Second Amendment in military terms," said Todd Kim,
the District's solicitor general, who told the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit that the city would also have
had the authority to ban
all weapons.
"Show me anybody in the 19th century who interprets the Second
Amendment the way you do," Judge Laurence Silberman said. "It
doesn't appear until much later, the middle of the 20th century."
Of the three judges, Silberman was the most critical of Kim's
argument and noted that, despite the law, handguns were common in
the District.
Silberman and Judge Thomas B. Griffith seemed to wrestle, however,
with the meaning of the amendment's language about militias. If a
well-regulated militia is no longer needed, they asked, is the right
to bear arms still necessary?
"That's quite a task for any court to decide that a right is no
longer necessary," Alan Gura, an attorney for the plaintiffs,
replied. "If we decide that it's no longer necessary, can we erase
any part of the Constitution?"
--
Have you watched America: Freedom to Fascism yet?
Free video: http://tinyurl.com/snr7b
IF YOU'RE NOT VOTING FOR LIBERTARIANS, YOU'RE ONLY VOTING FOR YOUR
RULERS! If the government wasn't allowed to initiate force, the vote
wouldn't be that important. It's only important because they can.
The heading states Milita AND the Right to bear arms....pretty simple to
understand. This game if semantics is simply anti-gun fanatics desperation.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
10 Dec 2006 01:20:26 AM |
|
|
Bob uecker wrote:
"Geo" <taxpayer779@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1165609066.371520.98630@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com...
Ms My Rights wrote:
If this gets tested to the Supreme Court and we lose, at least we'll
know we've lost our freedom and our country for good. Then it would be
time for the states that still wanted to be free, to start pushing for
legal seccession in the courts.
The scary part is that the reality of this happening is very very
possible. Criminals will be loving that ruling.
Why? They already have easy access to guns.
_http://www.newsmax.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=http://www.ne
wsmax.co m/archives/ic/2006/12/7/211001.shtml?s=ic_
(http://www.newsmax.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=http://www.ne
wsmax.co m/archives/ic/2006/12/7/211001.shtm
l?s=ic)
Dec. 7, 2006Scope of 2nd Amendment Questioned
In a case that could shape firearms laws nationwide, attorneys for
the District of Columbia argued Thursday that the Second Amendment
right to bear arms
applies only to militias, not individuals.
The city defended as constitutional its long-standing ban on
handguns, a law that some gun opponents have advocated elsewhere.
Civil liberties groups and pro-gun organizations say the ban in
unconstitutional.
At issue in the case before a federal appeals court is whether the
Second Amendment right to "keep and bear arms" applies to all people
or only to "a well
regulated militia." The Bush administration has endorsed individual
gun-ownership rights but the Supreme Court has never settled the
issue.
If the dispute makes it to the high court, it would be the first case
in nearly 70 years to address the amendment's scope. The court
disappointed gun owner groups in 2003 when it refused to take up a
challenge to California's ban
on assault weapons.
In the Washington, D.C., case, a lower-court judge told six city
residents in 2004 that they did not have a constitutional right to
own handguns. The plaintiffs include residents of high-crime
neighborhoods who want guns for protection.
Courts have upheld bans on automatic weapons and sawed-off shotguns
but this case is unusual because it involves a prohibition on all
pistols. Voters passed a similar ban in San Francisco last year but
a judge ruled it violated state law. The Washington case is not
clouded by state law and hinges directly on the Constitution.
"We interpret the Second Amendment in military terms," said Todd Kim,
the District's solicitor general, who told the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit that the city would also have
had the authority to ban
all weapons.
"Show me anybody in the 19th century who interprets the Second
Amendment the way you do," Judge Laurence Silberman said. "It
doesn't appear until much later, the middle of the 20th century."
Of the three judges, Silberman was the most critical of Kim's
argument and noted that, despite the law, handguns were common in
the District.
Silberman and Judge Thomas B. Griffith seemed to wrestle, however,
with the meaning of the amendment's language about militias. If a
well-regulated militia is no longer needed, they asked, is the right
to bear arms still necessary?
"That's quite a task for any court to decide that a right is no
longer necessary," Alan Gura, an attorney for the plaintiffs,
replied. "If we decide that it's no longer necessary, can we erase
any part of the Constitution?"
The heading states Milita AND the Right to bear arms....pretty simple to
understand. This game if semantics is simply anti-gun fanatics desperation.
The right is in relation to militias. Don't really have those anymore, do
we?
And if you look at the Miller decision, there are numerous quotes about the
makeup of militias. Not one of them mention *women*.
RT
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob uecker" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
10 Dec 2006 04:43:47 AM |
|
|
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:457BB53A.663EF964@hotmMOVEail.com...
Bob uecker wrote:
"Geo" <taxpayer779@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1165609066.371520.98630@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com...
Ms My Rights wrote:
If this gets tested to the Supreme Court and we lose, at least we'll
know we've lost our freedom and our country for good. Then it would be
time for the states that still wanted to be free, to start pushing for
legal seccession in the courts.
The scary part is that the reality of this happening is very very
possible. Criminals will be loving that ruling.
Why? They already have easy access to guns.
_http://www.newsmax.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=http://www.ne
wsmax.co m/archives/ic/2006/12/7/211001.shtml?s=ic_
(http://www.newsmax.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=http://www.ne
wsmax.co m/archives/ic/2006/12/7/211001.shtm
l?s=ic)
Dec. 7, 2006Scope of 2nd Amendment Questioned
In a case that could shape firearms laws nationwide, attorneys for
the District of Columbia argued Thursday that the Second Amendment
right to bear arms
applies only to militias, not individuals.
The city defended as constitutional its long-standing ban on
handguns, a law that some gun opponents have advocated elsewhere.
Civil liberties groups and pro-gun organizations say the ban in
unconstitutional.
At issue in the case before a federal appeals court is whether the
Second Amendment right to "keep and bear arms" applies to all
people
or only to "a well
regulated militia." The Bush administration has endorsed individual
gun-ownership rights but the Supreme Court has never settled the
issue.
If the dispute makes it to the high court, it would be the first
case
in nearly 70 years to address the amendment's scope. The court
disappointed gun owner groups in 2003 when it refused to take up a
challenge to California's ban
on assault weapons.
In the Washington, D.C., case, a lower-court judge told six city
residents in 2004 that they did not have a constitutional right to
own handguns. The plaintiffs include residents of high-crime
neighborhoods who want guns for protection.
Courts have upheld bans on automatic weapons and sawed-off shotguns
but this case is unusual because it involves a prohibition on all
pistols. Voters passed a similar ban in San Francisco last year but
a judge ruled it violated state law. The Washington case is not
clouded by state law and hinges directly on the Constitution.
"We interpret the Second Amendment in military terms," said Todd
Kim,
the District's solicitor general, who told the U.S. Court of
Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit that the city would also have
had the authority to ban
all weapons.
"Show me anybody in the 19th century who interprets the Second
Amendment the way you do," Judge Laurence Silberman said. "It
doesn't appear until much later, the middle of the 20th century."
Of the three judges, Silberman was the most critical of Kim's
argument and noted that, despite the law, handguns were common in
the District.
Silberman and Judge Thomas B. Griffith seemed to wrestle, however,
with the meaning of the amendment's language about militias. If a
well-regulated militia is no longer needed, they asked, is the
right
to bear arms still necessary?
"That's quite a task for any court to decide that a right is no
longer necessary," Alan Gura, an attorney for the plaintiffs,
replied. "If we decide that it's no longer necessary, can we erase
any part of the Constitution?"
The heading states Milita AND the Right to bear arms....pretty simple to
understand. This game if semantics is simply anti-gun fanatics
desperation.
The right is in relation to militias. Don't really have those anymore, do
we?
The national Guard is the militia.
And if you look at the Miller decision, there are numerous quotes about
the
makeup of militias. Not one of them mention *women*.
"The thrust of the unanimous opinion in Miller is that the right to bear
arms, like the right to free speech, is fundamental, but not unlimited. The
First Amendment does not give someone the right to yell "fire!" in a crowded
theater. The Second Amendment doesn't give someone the right to own a
bazooka or a tank. This is a reasonable position. Gun control advocates
should stop misrepresenting it. "
http://www.post-gazette.com/forum/20001008edkelly5.asp
The that's what they meant then but doesn't apply now crowd would twist the
intent of the founders towards there political means. yet the individuals
right to bear arms and the militia are separate in the Constitution. The
blathering on the use or none use of a shotgun is irrelevant. It travels way
of the issue. A militia trained and supplied by the state..AKA the national
guard is the militia. The statement in the constitution is "AND the right to
bear arms." Clearly individuals owning there own guns was the intent beyond
the militia.
The further citing of whether the man or the state provides basic equipment
is more about the finical state of the US at the time rather then whether an
individual can or can not own a gun.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
10 Dec 2006 09:53:05 AM |
|
|
"Bob uecker" <bobU@aol.com> wrote in message
news:DxReh.19371$U81.10211@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com...
The right is in relation to militias. Don't really have those anymore,
do
we?
The national Guard is the militia.
The national guard has been federalized, it is no longer a militia, it is
part of the standing army.
And if you look at the Miller decision, there are numerous quotes about
the
makeup of militias. Not one of them mention *women*.
"The thrust of the unanimous opinion in Miller is that the right to bear
arms, like the right to free speech, is fundamental, but not unlimited.
The
First Amendment does not give someone the right to yell "fire!" in a
crowded
theater. The Second Amendment doesn't give someone the right to own a
bazooka or a tank.
Than you better reread the miller decision, not only does the miller imply
the 2nd is an individual right, but it also clearly states that the people
are to armed with like weapons that are being used in the military, so yes
it does allow individual right to have a Bazooka or even (if you could buy
one) a tank.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Lone Weasel" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
10 Dec 2006 12:42:44 PM |
|
|
"Dana" <raff242@yahoo.com> said in <news:12nob6g712klrb3
@corp.supernews.com> on Sun 10 Dec 2006 09:53:05a:
"Bob uecker" <bobU@aol.com> wrote in message
news:DxReh.19371$U81.10211@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com...
The right is in relation to militias. Don't really have those
anymore, do we?
The national Guard is the militia.
The national guard has been federalized, it is no longer a militia, it is
part of the standing army.
Only certain units of the National Guard were called into federal service -
too many for too long, I agree, but about half the well-regulated militia
is available for state duty, meaning the units not in Iraq pull double-duty
with natural disaster search & rescue & if there were a foreign invasion -
we're supposed to be at war and our borders are virtually open - they'd be
called out to help repell it.
And if you look at the Miller decision, there are numerous quotes
about the makeup of militias. Not one of them mention *women*.
"The thrust of the unanimous opinion in Miller is that the right to
bear arms, like the right to free speech, is fundamental, but not
unlimited. The First Amendment does not give someone the right to yell
"fire!" in a crowded theater. The Second Amendment doesn't give someone
the right to own a bazooka or a tank.
Than you better reread the miller decision, not only does the miller
imply the 2nd is an individual right, but it also clearly states that
the people are to armed with like weapons that are being used in the
military, so yes it does allow individual right to have a Bazooka or
even (if you could buy one) a tank.
No, Miller just cites earlier USSC & state cases that discuss the Second
Amendment as protecting the right of the people - not individual gun
fanatics. The right is to keep up a well-regulated militia as described in
Article I, Section 8 Clauses 15-16, and is reiterated in the Second
Amendment.
If you have a right to have any weapons it comes from state law, through
the power of internal police reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment.
Anyway, Parker's the last whimper from the gunlobby's decades old scam that
you siezed upon to claim a bogus right under the Second Amendment. Your
bad acts deserve no good results.
--
Yours truly,
The Lone Weasel
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
10 Dec 2006 12:57:41 PM |
|
|
"The Lone Weasel" <loneweasel@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns989581515A68Cloneweaselyhdc@204.153.244.170...
"Dana" <raff242@yahoo.com> said in <news:12nob6g712klrb3
@corp.supernews.com> on Sun 10 Dec 2006 09:53:05a:
"Bob uecker" <bobU@aol.com> wrote in message
news:DxReh.19371$U81.10211@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com...
The right is in relation to militias. Don't really have those
anymore, do we?
The national Guard is the militia.
The national guard has been federalized, it is no longer a militia, it
is
part of the standing army.
Only certain units of the National Guard were called into federal
service -
The national guard gets its paycheck from the feds.
States have to clear it with the Pentagon before using the guard within the
state.
Federal courts have ruled that state governors cannot block the state guards
from being sent overseas on orders from the pentagon.
In essence the entire guard has been federalized.
too many for too long, I agree, but about half the well-regulated militia
is available for state duty, meaning the units not in Iraq pull
double-duty
with natural disaster search & rescue & if there were a foreign invasion -
we're supposed to be at war and our borders are virtually open - they'd be
called out to help repell it.
And if you look at the Miller decision, there are numerous quotes
about the makeup of militias. Not one of them mention *women*.
"The thrust of the unanimous opinion in Miller is that the right to
bear arms, like the right to free speech, is fundamental, but not
unlimited. The First Amendment does not give someone the right to yell
"fire!" in a crowded theater. The Second Amendment doesn't give someone
the right to own a bazooka or a tank.
Than you better reread the miller decision, not only does the miller
imply the 2nd is an individual right, but it also clearly states that
the people are to armed with like weapons that are being used in the
military, so yes it does allow individual right to have a Bazooka or
even (if you could buy one) a tank.
No,
Yes. Miller clearly leaned toward the individual and not a group, and the
miller decision clearly stated that weapons covered by the 2nd, are those in
common use at the time in the military.
There is no getting around that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Lone Weasel" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
10 Dec 2006 05:29:26 PM |
|
|
"Dana" <raff242@yahoo.com> said in
<news:12nom0iobpuia75@corp.supernews.com> on Sun 10 Dec 2006 12:57:41p:
"The Lone Weasel" <loneweasel@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns989581515A68Cloneweaselyhdc@204.153.244.170...
"Dana" <raff242@yahoo.com> said in <news:12nob6g712klrb3
@corp.supernews.com> on Sun 10 Dec 2006 09:53:05a:
"Bob uecker" <bobU@aol.com> wrote in message
news:DxReh.19371$U81.10211@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com...
The right is in relation to militias. Don't really have those
anymore, do we?
The national Guard is the militia.
The national guard has been federalized, it is no longer a militia,
it
is
part of the standing army.
Only certain units of the National Guard were called into federal
service -
The national guard gets its paycheck from the feds.
Wrong. See Maryland v. US (1965):
[begin excerpt]
The principal factual dispute below was whether at the time of the
accident Captain McCoy was performing his duties with the Guard in a
military or civilian capacity. A line of cases in the courts of appeals
beginning with United States v. Holly, 192 F. 2d 221 (C. A. 10th Cir.,
1951), has held that civilian "caretakers" are employees of the United
States for purposes of suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act. [footnote
4] Another line of cases has been equally consistent in treating military
members of the Guard as employees of the States, not the Federal
Government. [footnote 5] We do not deal with the factual question, on
which the decision below turned, [footnote 6] since, in agreement with the
views of Judge Smith [footnote 7] and in disagreement with the Court of
Appeals in the Meyer case, we hold that in both capacities Captain McCoy
was an employee of the State of Maryland, and not of the United States.
Hence the United States cannot be held liable under the Tort Claims Act
for his negligence in either capacity.
_____
5. Williams v. United States, 189 F. 2d 607 (C. A. 10th Cir.); Dover v.
United States, 192 F. 2d 431 (C. A. 5th Cir.): McCranie v. United States,
199 F. 2d 581 (C. A. 5th Cir.); Storer Broadcasting Co. v. United States,
251 F. 2d 268 (C. A. 5th Cir.); Bristow v. United States, 309 F. 2d 465
(C. A. 6th Cir.); Pattno v. United States, 311 F. 2d 604 (C. A. 10th
Cir.); Blackwell v. United States, 321 F. 2d 96 (C. A. 5th Cir.).
6. A majority of the Court of Appeals held, contrary to the District
Court, that McCoy was acting in his military capacity at the time of the
accident.
Maryland v US, 381 US 41 (1965)
[end excerpt]
States have to clear it with the Pentagon before using the guard within
the state.
No they don't.
Federal courts have ruled that state governors cannot block the state
guards from being sent overseas on orders from the pentagon.
True, if you mean State National Guard units. "State Guard" in Texas
refers to our state defense force; but you're already so confused you
wouldn't know the difference.
In essence the entire guard has been federalized.
Have you ever read the US Constitution, Art I Sect 8 Cl 16? And the Second
Amendment? Same well-regulated militia in both places.
too many for too long, I agree, but about half the well-regulated
militia is available for state duty, meaning the units not in Iraq pull
double-duty
with natural disaster search & rescue & if there were a foreign
invasion - we're supposed to be at war and our borders are virtually
open - they'd be called out to help repell it.
And if you look at the Miller decision, there are numerous quotes
about the makeup of militias. Not one of them mention *women*.
"The thrust of the unanimous opinion in Miller is that the right to
bear arms, like the right to free speech, is fundamental, but not
unlimited. The First Amendment does not give someone the right to
yell "fire!" in a crowded theater. The Second Amendment doesn't give
someone the right to own a bazooka or a tank.
Than you better reread the miller decision, not only does the miller
imply the 2nd is an individual right, but it also clearly states that
the people are to armed with like weapons that are being used in the
military, so yes it does allow individual right to have a Bazooka or
even (if you could buy one) a tank.
No,
Yes.
No. And here's proof:
[begin excerpts]
Considering Sonzinsky v. United States (1937), 300 U.S. 506,
513, and what was ruled in sundry causes arising under the
Harrison Narcotic Act [footnote 2] - United States v. Jin
Fuey Moy (1916), 241 U. S. 394; United States v. Doremus
(1919), 249 U. S. 86, 94; Linder v. United States (1925),
268 U. S. 5; Alston v. United States (1927), 274 U. S. 289;
Nigro v. United States (1928), 276 U. S. 332 - the objection
that the Act usurps police power reserved to the States is
plainly untenable.
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that
possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than
eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable
relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well
regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment
guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.
Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon
is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its
use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v.
State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158.
The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the
Congress power - "To provide for calling forth the Militia
to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and
repel Invasions; 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." With
obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render
possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration
and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be
interpreted and applied with that end in view.
[...]
Most if not all of the States have adopted provisions
touching the right to keep and bear arms. Differences in
the language employed in these have naturally led to
somewhat variant conclusions concerning the scope of the
right guaranteed. But none of them seem to afford any
material support for the challenged ruling of the court
below.
In the margin some of the more important opinions and
comments by writers are cited. [Footnote 3].
We are unable to accept the conclusion of the court below
and the challenged judgment must be reversed. The cause
will be remanded for further proceedings.
_____
3. Concerning The Militia - Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S.
252; Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U. S. 275; Fife v. State, 31
Ark. 455; Jeffers v. Fair, 33 Ga. 347; Salina v. Blaksley,
72 Kan. 230; 83 P. 619; People v. Brown, 253 Mich. 537; 235
N. W. 245; Aymette v. State, 2 Humphr. (Tenn.) 154; State v.
Duke, 42 Texas 455; State v. Workman, 35 W. Va. 367; 14 S.
E. 9; Cooley's Constitutional Limitations, Vol. 1, p. 729;
Story on The Constitution, 5th Ed., Vol. 2 p. 646;
Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, Vol. X, p. 471, 474.
U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)
[end excerpts]
See the cite at the end of paragraph 2? That's the context in which you
understand that paragraph. Here's an excerpt from Aymette v.
State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154 that illustrates the points made in the
second paragraph
[begin excerpt]
In order to have a just and precise idea of the meaning of
the clause of the constitution under consideration, it will
be useful to look at the state of things in the history of
our ancestors, and thus comprehend the reason of its
introduction into our constitution.
By the act of 22 & 23 Car. II., ch. 25, sec. 3, it is
provided that no person who has not lands of the yearly
value of 100 pounds, other than the son and heir apparent of
an esquire, or other person of higher degree, etc., shall be
allowed to keep a gun, etc. By this act, persons of a
certain condition in life were allowed to keep arms, while a
large proportion of the people were entirely disarmed. But
King James II, by his own arbitrary power, and contrary to
law, disarmed the Protestant population, and quartered his
Catholic soldiers among the people. This, together with
other abuses, produced the revolution by which he was
compelled to abdicate the throne of England. William and
Mary succeeded him, and, in the first year of their reign,
Parliament passed an act recapitulating the abuses which
existed during the former reign, and declared the existence
of certain rights which they insisted upon as their
undoubted privileges. Among these abuses they say, in sec.
5, that he had kept a "standing army within the kingdom in
time of peace, without the consent of Parliament, and
quartered soldiers contrary to law." Sec. 6. "By causing
several good subjects, being Protestants, to be disarmed, at
the same time when Papists were both armed and employed
contrary to law."
In the declaration of rights that follows, sec. 7 declares
that "the subjects which are Protestant may have arms for
their defence, suitable to their condition and as allowed by
law." This declaration, although it asserts the right of the
Protestants to have arms, does not extend the privilege
beyond the terms provided in the act of Charles II, before
referred to. "They may have arms," says the Parliament,
"suitable to their condition and as allowed by law." The
law, we have seen, only allowed persons of a certain rank to
have arms, and consequently this declaration of right had
reference to such only. It was in reference to these facts,
and to this state of the English law, that the 2d section of
the amendments to the constitution of the United States was
incorporated into that instrument. It declares that, "a
well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a
free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms
shall not be infringed."
In the same view the section under consideration of our own
bill of rights was adopted.
The evil that was produced by disarming the people in the
time of James II was that the king, by means of a standing
army quartered among the people was able to overawe them,
and compel them to submit to the most arbitrary, cruel, and
illegal measures. Whereas, if the people had retained their
arms, they would have been able, by a just and proper
resistance to those oppressive measures, either to have
caused the king to respect their rights, or surrender (as he
was eventually compelled to do) the government into other
hands. No private defence, was contemplated, or would have
availed anything. If the subjects had been armed, they
could have resisted the payment of excessive lines, or the
infliction of illegal and cruel punishments. When,
therefore, Parliament says that "subjects which are
Protestants may have arms for their defence, suitable to
their condition, as allowed by law," it does not mean for
private defence, but, being armed, they may as a body rise
up to defend their just rights, and compel their rulers to
respect the laws. This declaration of right is made in
reference to the fact before complained of, that the people
had been disarmed, and soldiers had been quartered among
them contrary to law. The complaint was against the
government. The grievances to which they were thus forced
to submit were for the most part of a public character, and
could have been redressed only by the people rising up for
their common defence, to vindicate their rights.
The section under consideration, in our bill of rights, was
adopted in reference to these historical facts, and in this
point of view its language is most appropriate and
expressive. Its words are, "the free white men of this
state have a right to keep and bear arms for their common
defence." It, to be sure, asserts the right much more
broadly than the statute of William & Mary. For the right
there asserted is subject to the disabilities contained in
the act of Charles II. There, lords and esquires, and their
sons, and persons whose yearly income from land amounted to
100 pounds, were of suitable condition to keep arms. But,
with us, every free white man is of suitable condition, and,
therefore, every free white man may keep and bear arms. But
to keep and bear arms for what? If the history of the
subject had left in doubt the object for which the right is
secured, the words that are employed must completely remove
that doubt. It is declared that they may keep and bear arms
for their common defence. The word "common," here used,
means, according to Webster: 1. Belonging equally to more
than one, or to many indefinitely. 2. Belonging to the
public. 3. General. 4. Universal. 5. Public. The object,
then, for which the right of keeping, and bearing arms is
secured is the [common defence] of the public. The free
white men may keep arms to protect the public liberty, to
keep in awe those who are in power, and to maintain the
supremacy of the laws and the constitution. The words "bear
arms," too, have reference to their military use, and were
not employed to mean wearing them about the person as part
of the dress. As the object for which the right to keep and
bear arms is secured is of general and public nature, to be
exercised by the people in a body, for their common defence,
so the arms the right to keep which is secured are such as
are usually employed in civilized warfare, and that
constitute the ordinary military equipment. If the citizens
have these arms in their hands, they are prepared in the
best possible manner to repel any encroachments upon their
rights by those in authority. They need not, for such a
purpose, the use of those weapons which are usually employed
in private broils, and which are efficient only in the hands
of the robber and the assassin. These weapons would be
useless in war. They could not be employed advantageously
in the common defence of the citizens. The right to keep and
bear them is not, therefore, secured by the constitution.
itself.
[end excerpt]
That's the context of the paragraph, and why the Court cited Aymette at the
end of the paragraph.
I know you don't get it. I just like seeing the truth written so clearly
and elegantly...
POINT PROVEN JUDGE GREEN!
Laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh.
--
Yours truly,
The Lone Weasel
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
10 Dec 2006 09:31:10 PM |
|
|
"The Lone Weasel" <loneweasel@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9895B1ECC2AB6loneweaselyhdc@204.153.244.170...
"Dana" <raff242@yahoo.com> said in
<news:12nom0iobpuia75@corp.supernews.com> on Sun 10 Dec 2006 12:57:41p:
"The Lone Weasel" <loneweasel@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns989581515A68Cloneweaselyhdc@204.153.244.170...
"Dana" <raff242@yahoo.com> said in <news:12nob6g712klrb3
@corp.supernews.com> on Sun 10 Dec 2006 09:53:05a:
"Bob uecker" <bobU@aol.com> wrote in message
news:DxReh.19371$U81.10211@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com...
The right is in relation to militias. Don't really have those
anymore, do we?
The national Guard is the militia.
The national guard has been federalized, it is no longer a militia,
it
is
part of the standing army.
Only certain units of the National Guard were called into federal
service -
The national guard gets its paycheck from the feds.
Wrong.
Nope. It would be you who is wrong.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dan" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
10 Dec 2006 03:10:25 PM |
|
|
Dana wrote:
"The Lone Weasel" <loneweasel@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns989581515A68Cloneweaselyhdc@204.153.244.170...
"Dana" <raff242@yahoo.com> said in <news:12nob6g712klrb3
@corp.supernews.com> on Sun 10 Dec 2006 09:53:05a:
"Bob uecker" <bobU@aol.com> wrote in message
news:DxReh.19371$U81.10211@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com...
The right is in relation to militias. Don't really have those
anymore, do we?
The national Guard is the militia.
The national guard has been federalized, it is no longer a militia, it
is
part of the standing army.
Only certain units of the National Guard were called into federal
service -
The national guard gets its paycheck from the feds.
States have to clear it with the Pentagon before using the guard within the
state.
Federal courts have ruled that state governors cannot block the state guards
from being sent overseas on orders from the pentagon.
In essence the entire guard has been federalized.
Kind of like the Constitution says, eh?
Dan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
10 Dec 2006 04:05:46 PM |
|
|
"Dan" <dnadan56@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:EF_eh.3141$%z.1053@newsfe07.lga...
Dana wrote:
"The Lone Weasel" <loneweasel@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns989581515A68Cloneweaselyhdc@204.153.244.170...
"Dana" <raff242@yahoo.com> said in <news:12nob6g712klrb3
@corp.supernews.com> on Sun 10 Dec 2006 09:53:05a:
"Bob uecker" <bobU@aol.com> wrote in message
news:DxReh.19371$U81.10211@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com...
The right is in relation to militias. Don't really have those
anymore, do we?
The national Guard is the militia.
The national guard has been federalized, it is no longer a militia, it
is
part of the standing army.
Only certain units of the National Guard were called into federal
service -
The national guard gets its paycheck from the feds.
States have to clear it with the Pentagon before using the guard within
the
state.
Federal courts have ruled that state governors cannot block the state
guards
from being sent overseas on orders from the pentagon.
In essence the entire guard has been federalized.
Kind of like the Constitution says, eh?
Nope.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob uecker" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
10 Dec 2006 07:44:29 PM |
|
|
"Dana" <raff242@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:12np119584lsjc8@corp.supernews.com...
"Dan" <dnadan56@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:EF_eh.3141$%z.1053@newsfe07.lga...
Dana wrote:
"The Lone Weasel" <loneweasel@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns989581515A68Cloneweaselyhdc@204.153.244.170...
"Dana" <raff242@yahoo.com> said in <news:12nob6g712klrb3
@corp.supernews.com> on Sun 10 Dec 2006 09:53:05a:
"Bob uecker" <bobU@aol.com> wrote in message
news:DxReh.19371$U81.10211@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com...
The right is in relation to militias. Don't really have those
anymore, do we?
The national Guard is the militia.
The national guard has been federalized, it is no longer a militia,
it
is
part of the standing army.
Only certain units of the National Guard were called into federal
service -
The national guard gets its paycheck from the feds.
States have to clear it with the Pentagon before using the guard within
the
state.
Federal courts have ruled that state governors cannot block the state
guards
from being sent overseas on orders from the pentagon.
In essence the entire guard has been federalized.
Kind of like the Constitution says, eh?
Nope.
National Guard AKA the militia is explicity stated as to be used for
Domestic supresion of uprising and Defence of the US ONLY. IT was NEVER
supposed to be used over seas.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
10 Dec 2006 09:32:04 PM |
|
|
"Bob uecker" <bobU@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1K2fh.19477$L32.1838@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com...
"Dana" <raff242@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:12np119584lsjc8@corp.supernews.com...
"Dan" <dnadan56@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:EF_eh.3141$%z.1053@newsfe07.lga...
Dana wrote:
"The Lone Weasel" <loneweasel@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns989581515A68Cloneweaselyhdc@204.153.244.170...
"Dana" <raff242@yahoo.com> said in <news:12nob6g712klrb3
@corp.supernews.com> on Sun 10 Dec 2006 09:53:05a:
"Bob uecker" <bobU@aol.com> wrote in message
news:DxReh.19371$U81.10211@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com...
The right is in relation to militias. Don't really have those
anymore, do we?
The national Guard is the militia.
The national guard has been federalized, it is no longer a militia,
it
is
part of the standing army.
Only certain units of the National Guard were called into federal
service -
The national guard gets its paycheck from the feds.
States have to clear it with the Pentagon before using the guard
within
the
state.
Federal courts have ruled that state governors cannot block the state
guards
from being sent overseas on orders from the pentagon.
In essence the entire guard has been federalized.
Kind of like the Constitution says, eh?
Nope.
National Guard AKA the militia is explicity stated as to be used for
Domestic supresion of uprising and Defence of the US ONLY. IT was NEVER
supposed to be used over seas.
That is not how it works.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
10 Dec 2006 11:20:32 AM |
|
|
"Dana" <raff242@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:12nob6g712klrb3@corp.supernews.com:
"Bob uecker" <bobU@aol.com> wrote in message
news:DxReh.19371$U81.10211@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com...
The right is in relation to militias. Don't really have those
anymore,
do
we?
The national Guard is the militia.
The national guard has been federalized, it is no longer a militia, it
is part of the standing army.
It is part of the militia. But only a part.
And if you look at the Miller decision, there are numerous quotes
about the
makeup of militias. Not one of them mention *women*.
"The thrust of the unanimous opinion in Miller is that the right to
bear arms, like the right to free speech, is fundamental, but not
unlimited.
The
First Amendment does not give someone the right to yell "fire!" in a
crowded
theater. The Second Amendment doesn't give someone the right to own a
bazooka or a tank.
Than you better reread the miller decision, not only does the miller
imply the 2nd is an individual right,
It does imply that, yes.
...but it also clearly states that
the people are to armed with like weapons that are being used in the
military, so yes it does allow individual right to have a Bazooka or
even (if you could buy one) a tank.
Nope, it talks about weapons "....supplied by themselves and of the kind in
common use at the time." Neither bazookas nor tanks (or their earlier
counterparts) were in common use at the time.
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman
"Tis far better to burn the flag while wrapped in the Constitution than
to burn the Constitution while wrapped in the flag."
".357Mag...my personal version of Homeland Security"
"We'll fill landfills with tons and tons of garbage, but when our trash
is shaped like a human, we [somehow] feel the need to keep it around."
John P...2006
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
10 Dec 2006 11:49:00 AM |
|
|
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman@(spamlock)comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns989569377DE4DSandman@216.196.97.136...
"Dana" <raff242@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:12nob6g712klrb3@corp.supernews.com:
"Bob uecker" <bobU@aol.com> wrote in message
news:DxReh.19371$U81.10211@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com...
The right is in relation to militias. Don't really have those
anymore,
do
we?
The national Guard is the militia.
The national guard has been federalized, it is no longer a militia, it
is part of the standing army.
It is part of the militia. But only a part.
And if you look at the Miller decision, there are numerous quotes
about the
makeup of militias. Not one of them mention *women*.
"The thrust of the unanimous opinion in Miller is that the right to
bear arms, like the right to free speech, is fundamental, but not
unlimited.
The
First Amendment does not give someone the right to yell "fire!" in a
crowded
theater. The Second Amendment doesn't give someone the right to own a
bazooka or a tank.
Than you better reread the miller decision, not only does the miller
imply the 2nd is an individual right,
It does imply that, yes.
...but it also clearly states that
the people are to armed with like weapons that are being used in the
military, so yes it does allow individual right to have a Bazooka or
even (if you could buy one) a tank.
Nope, it talks about weapons "....supplied by themselves and of the kind
in
common use at the time." Neither bazookas nor tanks (or their earlier
counterparts) were in common use at the time.
And also this is where the Justices made a mistake, as the weapon at issue
in the case was a sawed off shotgun, which was in use by the military at the
time.
For some unknown reason the Justices said sawed off shot guns were not in
use by the military, when in fact they were.
But in todays age, tanks and Bazookas are in common use by the military.
So according to the miller decision those weapons are covered by the 2nd.
.
|
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
13 Dec 2006 11:19:07 AM |
|
|
"Dana" <raff242@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:12noi194j80fkc1@corp.supernews.com:
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman@(spamlock)comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns989569377DE4DSandman@216.196.97.136...
"Dana" <raff242@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:12nob6g712klrb3@corp.supernews.com:
"Bob uecker" <bobU@aol.com> wrote in message
news:DxReh.19371$U81.10211@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com...
The right is in relation to militias. Don't really have those
anymore,
do
we?
The national Guard is the militia.
The national guard has been federalized, it is no longer a militia,
it is part of the standing army.
It is part of the militia. But only a part.
And if you look at the Miller decision, there are numerous
quotes about the
makeup of militias. Not one of them mention *women*.
"The thrust of the unanimous opinion in Miller is that the right
to bear arms, like the right to free speech, is fundamental, but
not unlimited.
The
First Amendment does not give someone the right to yell "fire!" in
a
crowded
theater. The Second Amendment doesn't give someone the right to
own a bazooka or a tank.
Than you better reread the miller decision, not only does the
miller imply the 2nd is an individual right,
It does imply that, yes.
...but it also clearly states that
the people are to armed with like weapons that are being used in
the military, so yes it does allow individual right to have a
Bazooka or even (if you could buy one) a tank.
Nope, it talks about weapons "....supplied by themselves and of the
kind
in
common use at the time." Neither bazookas nor tanks (or their
earlier counterparts) were in common use at the time.
And also this is where the Justices made a mistake, as the weapon at
issue in the case was a sawed off shotgun, which was in use by the
military at the time.
For some unknown reason the Justices said sawed off shot guns were not
in use by the military, when in fact they were.
The reason was that the appellees did not appear in court...neither did
their attorney.
But in todays age, tanks and Bazookas are in common use by the
military. So according to the miller decision those weapons are
covered by the 2nd.
As are long guns (rifles and shotguns) and sidearms (handguns).
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman
"Tis far better to burn the flag while wrapped in the Constitution than
to burn the Constitution while wrapped in the flag."
".357Mag...my personal version of Homeland Security"
"We'll fill landfills with tons and tons of garbage, but when our trash
is shaped like a human, we [somehow] feel the need to keep it around."
John P...2006
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
12 Dec 2006 09:51:29 AM |
|
|
Dana wrote:
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman@(spamlock)comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns989569377DE4DSandman@216.196.97.136...
"Dana" <raff242@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:12nob6g712klrb3@corp.supernews.com:
"Bob uecker" <bobU@aol.com> wrote in message
news:DxReh.19371$U81.10211@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com...
The right is in relation to militias. Don't really have those
anymore,
do
we?
The national Guard is the militia.
The national guard has been federalized, it is no longer a militia, it
is part of the standing army.
It is part of the militia. But only a part.
And if you look at the Miller decision, there are numerous quotes
about the
makeup of militias. Not one of them mention *women*.
"The thrust of the unanimous opinion in Miller is that the right to
bear arms, like the right to free speech, is fundamental, but not
unlimited.
The
First Amendment does not give someone the right to yell "fire!" in a
crowded
theater. The Second Amendment doesn't give someone the right to own a
bazooka or a tank.
Than you better reread the miller decision, not only does the miller
imply the 2nd is an individual right,
It does imply that, yes.
...but it also clearly states that
the people are to armed with like weapons that are being used in the
military, so yes it does allow individual right to have a Bazooka or
even (if you could buy one) a tank.
Nope, it talks about weapons "....supplied by themselves and of the kind
in
common use at the time." Neither bazookas nor tanks (or their earlier
counterparts) were in common use at the time.
And also this is where the Justices made a mistake, as the weapon at issue
in the case was a sawed off shotgun, which was in use by the military at the
time.
For some unknown reason the Justices said sawed off shot guns were not in
use by the military, when in fact they were.
No.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=307&invol=174
...
Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the
ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common
defense.
...
But in todays age, tanks and Bazookas are in common use by the military.
So according to the miller decision those weapons are covered by the 2nd.
.
|
|
|
| User: "James Beck" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
12 Dec 2006 10:31:12 AM |
|
|
In article <457ED001.22B00C39@hotmMOVEail.com>,
traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com says...
And also this is where the Justices made a mistake, as the weapon at issue
in the case was a sawed off shotgun, which was in use by the military at the
time.
For some unknown reason the Justices said sawed off shot guns were not in
use by the military, when in fact they were.
No.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=307&invol=174
...
Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the
ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common
defense.
...
OK, so they were ignorant to the facts.
How would one go about and correct their mistake?
Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
12 Dec 2006 10:13:42 PM |
|
|
James Beck wrote:
In article <457ED001.22B00C39@hotmMOVEail.com>,
traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com says...
And also this is where the Justices made a mistake, as the weapon at issue
in the case was a sawed off shotgun, which was in use by the military at the
time.
For some unknown reason the Justices said sawed off shot guns were not in
use by the military, when in fact they were.
No.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=307&invol=174
...
Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the
ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common
defense.
...
OK, so they were ignorant to the facts.
How would one go about and correct their mistake?
The pertinent fact is that the shotguns were not standard issue.
RT
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
13 Dec 2006 04:07:06 AM |
|
|
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:457F7DF6.C3527B97@hotmMOVEail.com...
James Beck wrote:
In article <457ED001.22B00C39@hotmMOVEail.com>,
traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com says...
And also this is where the Justices made a mistake, as the weapon at
issue
in the case was a sawed off shotgun, which was in use by the military
at the
time.
For some unknown reason the Justices said sawed off shot guns were
not in
use by the military, when in fact they were.
No.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=307&invol=174
...
Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any
part of the
ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the
common
defense.
...
OK, so they were ignorant to the facts.
How would one go about and correct their mistake?
The pertinent fact is that the shotguns were not standard issue.
Thus Rich asserts that field modifications necessary to obtain a militarily
viable weapon isn't important and such weapons had no military value. It's a
good thing your attitude didn't extend to WWII or the allies may never have
made it out of the hedgerow country and the field modified Shermans that
permitted that military action.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
13 Dec 2006 11:50:37 PM |
|
|
Scout wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
James Beck wrote:
traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com says...
And also this is where the Justices made a mistake, as the weapon at
issue
in the case was a sawed off shotgun, which was in use by the military
at the
time.
For some unknown reason the Justices said sawed off shot guns were
not in
use by the military, when in fact they were.
No.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=307&invol=174
...
Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any
part of the
ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the
common
defense.
...
OK, so they were ignorant to the facts.
How would one go about and correct their mistake?
The pertinent fact is that the shotguns were not standard issue.
Thus Rich asserts that field modifications necessary to obtain a militarily
viable weapon isn't important and such weapons had no military value. It's a
good thing your attitude didn't extend to WWII or the allies may never have
made it out of the hedgerow country and the field modified Shermans that
permitted that military action.
Thus Scout asserts that shotguns WERE standard issue - except they weren't, and
that was the point.
RT
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
14 Dec 2006 04:55:34 AM |
|
|
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:4580E62D.42FCAE49@hotmMOVEail.com...
Scout wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
James Beck wrote:
traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com says...
And also this is where the Justices made a mistake, as the weapon
at
issue
in the case was a sawed off shotgun, which was in use by the
military
at the
time.
For some unknown reason the Justices said sawed off shot guns were
not in
use by the military, when in fact they were.
No.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=307&invol=174
...
Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any
part of the
ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the
common
defense.
...
OK, so they were ignorant to the facts.
How would one go about and correct their mistake?
The pertinent fact is that the shotguns were not standard issue.
Thus Rich asserts that field modifications necessary to obtain a
militarily
viable weapon isn't important and such weapons had no military value.
It's a
good thing your attitude didn't extend to WWII or the allies may never
have
made it out of the hedgerow country and the field modified Shermans that
permitted that military action.
Thus Scout asserts that shotguns WERE standard issue - except they
weren't, and
that was the point.
Sorry, I can't seem to find where I made such a statement.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
16 Dec 2006 12:11:17 AM |
|
|
Scout wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
Scout wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
James Beck wrote:
traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com says...
And also this is where the Justices made a mistake, as the weapon
at
issue
in the case was a sawed off shotgun, which was in use by the
military
at the
time.
For some unknown reason the Justices said sawed off shot guns were
not in
use by the military, when in fact they were.
No.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=307&invol=174
...
Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any
part of the
ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the
common
defense.
...
OK, so they were ignorant to the facts.
How would one go about and correct their mistake?
The pertinent fact is that the shotguns were not standard issue.
Thus Rich asserts that field modifications necessary to obtain a
militarily
viable weapon isn't important and such weapons had no military value.
It's a
good thing your attitude didn't extend to WWII or the allies may never
have
made it out of the hedgerow country and the field modified Shermans that
permitted that military action.
Thus Scout asserts that shotguns WERE standard issue - except they
weren't, and
that was the point.
Sorry, I can't seem to find where I made such a statement.
If you deny the claim they weren't standard issue, that's the flip side.
RT
.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
