mnealtx 0
jumper03 0
QuoteUS Constitution, Article I, Section 8
*** To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
Those purposes are clearly spelled out. The militia does not serve in foreign wars.
Okay fine - you don't go to iraq.
Whats the chance we will be invaded? I think the Marines can handle that. Or have an insurrection or the need for private citizens to execute the laws of the union? That's what the cops are for.
So since none of those threats are real today, then I would argue the 2nd amendment is no longer needed and all guns would need to be given up - interpreting the 2nd strictly of course.
Scars remind us that the past is real
Kennedy 0
QuoteWhats the chance we will be invaded? I think the Marines can handle that. Or have an insurrection or the need for private citizens to execute the laws of the union? That's what the cops are for.
So since none of those threats are real today, then I would argue the 2nd amendment is no longer needed and all guns would need to be given up - interpreting the 2nd strictly of course.
Does the phrase "subordinate clause" mean anything to you? They could've replaced "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," with any random group of words and the meaning of the amendment would not change. It could've read "the earth being round, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Of course, then anti-gunners would argue that the earth isn't really round, so there are no gun rights...
Do you really not see that the method you're using to read second amendment rights out of existance can be used on every other constitutional protection?'
If you really believe that because circumstances have changed an amendment doesn't apply anymore, then you just don't believe in the idea of a constitution.
bottom line:
You think it doesn't apply any more? Go ahead and repeal it with a new constitutional amendment. Until then, it stands.
witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
Kennedy 0
QuoteThe NRA does a damn good job challanging gun control laws through every legal means possible. At local and federal levels. I could go on about NRA ILA and Grassroot efforts, but you get the point.
That's their job, and I'm glad they do it well.
I was more interested in hearing you explain how
QuoteNRA lawyers are finding ways to get around the 2nd Amendment
and why you think the NRA is saying we need to
Quoteprotect the rights of gun owners rather than save the lives of its citizens
First you say Class III proceedures don't threaten liberty, then you say how it restricts freedom and liberty. First you say I'm extreme for my position because the NRA doesn't support it, then to support a bash of the NRA you use my position as an example. Do you see why it's hard to even follow, let alone refute your posts?
Quote....because TODAY, there is a difference between military and civilian firearms----unlike in the past. The 2nd can still be preserved without allowing every one SAW's
You still haven't stated legal grounds for why that difference is not in contention with constitutional law.
Bill of rights is written.
Second amendment covers military arms for populace.
Laws are written that ban military arms for populace.
This creates a line between military arms and arms legal for populace.
Laws are challenged as not obeying second amendment.
You use the fact that a line exists as reason why the laws should exist.
Do you see the circular logic there?
It seems like you are aginst changing the status quo, no matter what it means or how we got there. You know, people with that position wore white hoods once...
witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
Alias 0
First, lets put this one to rest.
I first said
You have a problem with this?. You seem to think I'm being contractive. How does it limit your freedoms by applying. It doesn't.
But once the application is approved by the ATF, and you now have the "right" to a machine gun, you are also subjecting yourself to unannounced inspections of your place of biz, or if just a collector, your place of residence if that's where you have "listed" as the address the class 3 weapon is stored. And by the way, once they are there and you have shown them what they came looking for, they then have the right to search the entire place for anything they think should NOT be there. The reason why I did not apply - certainly felt like limiting my personal freedoms.
Your main point seems to be: The second was intended to cover military arms of the "average" infantry soldier. And although it does not spell it out as such, yes, you can rely on US vs Miller as the only reference to that connection. And that case relies on the VA Act of 1785 to support it.
Most states address the right to bear arms and differences in the language employed have naturally led to somewhat variant conclusions concerning the scope of the right guaranteed.
While I'll agree that the Constitution should remain in tact- it should adapt where the courts see fit. If it didn't as you would wish, standing on verbiage alone, blacks, women or anyone unhealthy or under or over the ages provided would not be able to the right to bear arms.
What does the 2nd mean to me? It means the right to bear arms is available to me and cannot be diminished. It does not say that I should have a dual 50 to do so. And relying the on the VA Act of 1785 to support that, which it can to some degree, is still a stretch in my opinion.
BTW, being a card carrying NRA lifer doesn't mean I have to subscribe to inappropriate actions I believe to be overkill....as in, why is it appropriate for any citizen to posses a weapon equal with the current military to feel the right to bear arms is being exercised.
So, that's it for me.
Carpe Diem
I first said
QuoteI do not think that it is limiting our freedoms as gun owners to have to file for a class 3 to posses "some" military grade weapons.
You have a problem with this?. You seem to think I'm being contractive. How does it limit your freedoms by applying. It doesn't.
Quotebtw....A Class 3 is not like a driving permit....you are giving up many liberties and freedoms by having an application approved.
But once the application is approved by the ATF, and you now have the "right" to a machine gun, you are also subjecting yourself to unannounced inspections of your place of biz, or if just a collector, your place of residence if that's where you have "listed" as the address the class 3 weapon is stored. And by the way, once they are there and you have shown them what they came looking for, they then have the right to search the entire place for anything they think should NOT be there. The reason why I did not apply - certainly felt like limiting my personal freedoms.
Your main point seems to be: The second was intended to cover military arms of the "average" infantry soldier. And although it does not spell it out as such, yes, you can rely on US vs Miller as the only reference to that connection. And that case relies on the VA Act of 1785 to support it.
Most states address the right to bear arms and differences in the language employed have naturally led to somewhat variant conclusions concerning the scope of the right guaranteed.
While I'll agree that the Constitution should remain in tact- it should adapt where the courts see fit. If it didn't as you would wish, standing on verbiage alone, blacks, women or anyone unhealthy or under or over the ages provided would not be able to the right to bear arms.
What does the 2nd mean to me? It means the right to bear arms is available to me and cannot be diminished. It does not say that I should have a dual 50 to do so. And relying the on the VA Act of 1785 to support that, which it can to some degree, is still a stretch in my opinion.
BTW, being a card carrying NRA lifer doesn't mean I have to subscribe to inappropriate actions I believe to be overkill....as in, why is it appropriate for any citizen to posses a weapon equal with the current military to feel the right to bear arms is being exercised.
So, that's it for me.
Carpe Diem
JohnRich 4
QuoteQuoteWell, I'm just wondering why you seemingly want to place a requirement on one constitutional right (being physically fit enough to own a gun for defense of country),
Where in the fuck do you come up with this crap? I never implied any such thing!
Your message #54 is where I got it:
Your advocating personal not trained in military combat be called upon to serve the country because they are capable of firing a weapon? WOW! Most of the people I know that own/buy Full Auto Weapons are not in any shape to be defending our country.Maybe I misinterpreted your meaning, but that's what it sounded like to me.
Kennedy 0
Quote
What does the 2nd mean to me? It means the right to bear arms is available to me and cannot be diminished. It does not say that I should have a dual 50 to do so. And relying the on the VA Act of 1785 to support that, which it can to some degree, is still a stretch in my opinion.
OK, so now I understand where you draw the line. I'm curious as to why. When did things change? Was practical full auto the distinguishing charateristic? Is that was changed the meaning of the second amendment for you? No sacasm, I just want to know how you draw the line that full auto is too fast.
Separate question: do you support the bans on .50 caliber weapons that congress is considering?
(wondering if there is a "too big" to go with that "too fast")
Is there a "too small" in your second amendment?
(so-called "saturday night specials)
Do you believe other amendments are subject to this "new technology is too much and outside the scope" concept?
e.g. Does the first cover computers? Does the fourth cover computers and high tech surveillance?
witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
Kennedy 0
QuoteWhile I'll agree that the Constitution should remain in tact- it should adapt where the courts see fit. If it didn't as you would wish, standing on verbiage alone, blacks, women or anyone unhealthy or under or over the ages provided would not be able to the right to bear arms.
Incorrect. As has been disucssed, the militia clause is a subordinate clause. Any meaningful study of the English language leads directly to understanding that. The militia is one explenation, but not the only one.
However, even if I accept your flawed conclusion that the militia is the only reason for the second amendment, then one must come to the realization that at the very least all men 18 to 45 must have the right to weapons appropriate to a miltia: select-fire rifles and handguns.
Remember, the constitution and it's amendments are limits of government action, they are not the limits of all rights.
QuoteBTW, being a card carrying NRA lifer doesn't mean I have to subscribe to inappropriate actions I believe to be overkill....as in, why is it appropriate for any citizen to posses a weapon equal with the current military to feel the right to bear arms is being exercised.
That statement contradicts your idea that the militia is the only reason for the second amendment. If militia weapons are what it covers, then it must cover weapons such as the M16 and M4.
I'm still waiting for any significant reason why it is not appropriate to trust citizens. I can't understand why you think something must be banned just because it could be dangerous. That is the logic used by people who want to ban all guns. How is your idea truly different from theirs?
Why is prior restraint the only answer you can offer?
witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
Alias 0
QuoteHowever, even if I accept your flawed conclusion that the militia is the only reason for the second amendment
Where did you get the idea that I thought the militia was the only reason for the 2nd?
QuoteThat statement contradicts your idea that the militia is the only reason for the second amendment
maybe because I haven't conveyed that idea?
QuoteIf militia weapons are what it covers, then it must cover weapons such as the M16 and M4
Again, you based this entire argument for the need to have weapons that match the modern military on US vs Miller that dealt with a shotgun with a barrel less then 18". Not exactly an HK416 is it? Argument based on case none the less. But you draw the line at a RPG? So yeah, I draw the line at machine guns. Partly because I don't think that the founding fathers would have been as vague about the "militia" term and it's relation to a "person bearing arms" ,if they knew that the difference was single action vs an MP5 that shoots 800 rnds/m. These being the same guys who thought "militia" meant something along the lines of early defence against the British. That "militia" is history. There are two different species of military force. One is historical. The one you tie your entire argument on.
Sorry Dude, I don't want to take away your guns, or anyone else's. I'm just that law abiding citizen we all talk about. And I aint got no problem with the current provisions dealing with the subject at hand
a) The term 'firearm' means a shotgun or rifle having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length, or any other weapon, except a pistol or revolver, from which a shot is discharged by an explosive if such weapon is capable of being concealed on the person, or a machine gun, and includes a muffler or silencer for any firearm whether or not such firearm is included within the foregoing definition, [The Act of April 10, 1936, c. 169, 49 Stat. 1192 added the words] but does not include any rifle which is within the foregoing provisions solely by reason of the length of its barrel if the caliber of such rifle is .22 or smaller and if its barrel is sixteen inches or more in length.
Just go get your class 3 - your problems solved
Carpe Diem
And not allowing the LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS military-class weapons is going to make WHAT difference to the pond scum that would do what you describe?
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites