The gun community is not responsive to our loss of civil rights

[Kolesar]

(I hope you realize that I am not delighted about this)

American citizens such as Jose Padilla have been denied the right to legal counsel (habeas corpus).

The pro-gun lobby message is that the 2nd Amendment/guns will ensure our freedoms. Well, I don't see it happening. I would suggest that they are still hung up on the "gotta kill the Arabs message". The NRA are obviously an organization who is manipulated by the right wing rulers. Note that there are other organizations on the right who are fighting Bush's abridgement of our civil rights, but this gun organization is conveniently ignoring it.

If anybody has read Wayne Lapierre's book, "Guns, freedom, and terrorism", please tell me otherwise. See what my search turned up:

How many times does "habeas corpus" appear on the NRA website?

The NRA Civil Defense fund is exclusively concerned about gun rights. They don't care about the FBI spying on civilians (antiwar groups) for political ends (protecting Bush's fraudulent presidency).

http://www.mynra.org/frame.cfm?url=http://www.nradefensefund.org

[DonP]

1. Not an NRA member

But I know a few and the NRA is very consistently a single issue organization, in spite of the hysterical weeping and wailing from some folks hereabouts.

They give money to both major parties, much more to the Republicans because they usually find a more sympathetic ear there to their POV on guns. But pro-gun Demcorats can count on them for support too. (Read some of the posts here and you'll understand why.)

I honestly don't know that they have a POV on other civil liberty issues, unless it impacts on gun ownership or use.

Just like NARAL probably doesn't have a POV of the Assault Weapons Ban as a major point in their platform or tenets.

[liberalhistorian]

2. They probably should

consider, though, becoming more aware of the growing erosion and stripping of civil rights and the Patriot Act, etc., because the loss of said rights is, in fact, a slippery slope. In other words, if they don't pay attention to how rights in other areas are being lost, and if they don't fight the loss of those rights as well as what they perceive as maintaining gun rights, they're going to find that not only will there be few people left to care about gun rights, but gun rights may, in fact, become an eventual target of those who are now destroying most other civil rights.

[hansberrym]

6. Agreed, And hopefully more people/organizations will wake up

Note that the NRA and the ACLU were recently on the same side of the effort to get portions of the Campaign Finance Law overturned.

The comments made in the Supreme Court majority opinion regarding the so called "institutional press" (a US version of Pravda?) ought to give everyone concerned with civil liberties real concern about where the country is being taken by the Neocons on the far right (with the help in this case by Big Government types of the far left)



(Excerpted from McConnel v. US)
. FECA §304(f)(3)(B)(i) excludes from the definition of electioneering communications any "communication appearing in a news story, commentary, or editorial distributed through the facilities of any broadcasting station, unless such facilities are owned or controlled by any political party, political committee, or candidate." 2 U. S. C. A. §434(f)(3)(B)(i) (Supp. 2003). Plaintiffs argue this provision gives free rein to media companies to engage in speech without resort to PAC money. Section 304(f)(3)(B)(i)'s effect, however, is much narrower than plaintiffs suggest. The provision excepts news items and commentary only; it does not afford carte blanche to media companies generally to ignore FECA's provisions. The statute's narrow exception is wholly consistent with First Amendment principles. "A valid distinction ... exists between corporations that are part of the media industry and other corporations that are not involved in the regular business of imparting news to the public." Austin, 494 U. S., at 668. Numerous federal statutes have drawn this distinction to ensure that the law "does not hinder or prevent the institutional press from reporting on, and publishing editorials about, newsworthy events." Ibid. (citations omitted); see, e.g., 2 U. S. C. §431(9)(B)(i) (exempting news stories, commentaries, and editorials from FECA's definition of "expenditure"); 15 U. S. C. §§1801-1804 (providing a limited antitrust exemption for newspapers); 47 U. S. C. §315(a) (excepting newscasts, news interviews, and news documentaries from the requirement that broadcasters provide equal time to candidates for public office).89
(end quote)

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=02-1674




Consider how differently the Supreme Court has defined the freedoms of the press and of speech than did the founders.




US Constitution

"Congress shall make no law ...abridging the freedom of speech or of the press..."



Virginia Bill of Rights
Section 12. Freedom of speech and of the press; right peaceably to assemble, and to petition.

"That the freedoms of speech and of the press are among the great bulwarks of liberty, and can never be restrained except by despotic governments; that any citizen may freely speak, write, and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right; that the General Assembly shall not pass any law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, nor the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for the redress of grievances."

[MrSandman]

7. It has been said that to ignore the 2nd Amendment

would invite future encroachments on other rights secured by the Constitution.

[grayrace]

13. it also should be said that making the 2nd Amendment

something it never was is to invite ridicule of the rest of the BOR. Face it, standing case law says its the National/State Guard that MUST be free from Gov't disarmament. And since the Gov't does exactly the opposite and gives the Guards as much or more then they want/need its a non issue.

[hansberrym]

42. Please explain. I do not want to put words into your mouth,

but it sounds like you are saying the Second Amendment really means that the people do NOT have a right to keep and bear arms. And the Second Amendment applies ONLY to the Government.




Maybe you also agree with the "Institutional Press" nonsense that the Supreme Court spouted in McConell? (challenge to Campaign Finance Law)
Maybe only certain designated and approved persons/Corporations are entitled to the freedoms of the press and of speech which are quaranteed to everyone by the first amendment.

[grayrace]

44. you are using straw man arguments

the 2nd Amendment refers back to the "organized miltiia" as reserved to the states atleast twice and maybe a third time if you believe that "keep and bear arms" can only be a military term and not refer to private ownership. Which considering how english was used in the 18th and 19th centuries is very likely. The 1st Amendment on the other hand is an entirely different written animal. It was written to preserve individual freedom to speek and worship and to prevent the gov't from having a state sponsered religion. And since nearly all case law supports MY reading of the 2nd Amendment I think we know where it stands in REALITY.

[MrSandman]

45. Please show any references in 2nd Amendment

to select or organised militia. TNX

[grayrace]

46. duh

A well-reglated militia, obviously the organized militia and NOT the unorganized militia

being necessery to the secuirty of a free STATE, duh number 2

the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Alot of people think that keep and bear arms means in a towns armory and bear arms at orders of state militia. But that is a debatable point. Score is either 2v1 for collective right or 3v1 for collective right no matter how you count it.

[slackmaster]

47. Distinction between organized and unorganized did not exist

Until early in the 20th Century. Look up the Dick Act of 1903 and National Defense Act of 1916.

[grayrace]

48. did exist

The National Guard is the modern Militia reserved to the States by Art. I. 8, cl. 15, 16, of the Constitution

[slackmaster]

49. Non-sequitur

You were just talking about the time the Second Amendment was written. The NG did not exist at that time.

[BullDozer]

55. Sigh

1)
Section 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=10&sec=311

How can the militia be limited to the National Guard if to be part of the unorganized milita as defined a person must not be a member of the national guard?

2) The National Guard is raised under the authority of Congress to raise an army. The National Guard is part of the Army, and not the militia.

This is made clear in the 1990 Supreme Court case Perpich vs. Department of Defense. Then Minnesota Gov. Rudy Perpich claimed the DoD violated the Constitution when it ordered the Minnesota National Guard (which he claimed was the 'state militia') to duty outside the state without his consent or that of the state legislature.

The Supreme Court ruled against Perpich. It held the National Guard is an integral component of the US Army Reserve system (it has been since 1916). It further supported its ruling by specifying the difference between the “special militia” (in this case the Minnesota Guard) instead of the “general militia” (citizens with privately procured and owned arms) as expressed in the 2nd Amendment.

Basically the National Guard does exactly what the federal government tells it to do regardless of what the Governor in their home state wishes.

Since 1933 all persons who have enlisted in a State National Guard unit have simultaneously enlisted in the National Guard of the United States. Their National Guard enlistment (Federal) takes priority.

As you can see the National Guard belongs to the Federal government thus if we are to believe your arguement then what we would have is the 2nd amendment prohibiting the government from disarming itself and we know that's just not what is meant.

[MrBenchley]

56. Still trying to pretend unorganized means well regulated

I see.....

[BullDozer]

57. Peddle off

Anytime you'd like to produce the partion if US code or Law that says otherwise I'll read it.

Until that time I'll stick to the cleary written and understandable US COde that I've posted.

[MrBenchley]

59. And you'll try to pretend

unorganized means well regulated.

[BullDozer]

60. Yeah ok sure thing bub

Anytime you'd like to produce the partion if US code or Law that says otherwise I'll read it.

Until that time I'll stick to the cleary written and understandable US Code that I've posted

[MrBenchley]

61. Dozer, until the meaning of words changes

unorganized will NEVER mean well regulated. No matter how much you pout.

"Until that time I'll stick to the cleary written and understandable US Code that I've posted"
And you'll continnue to pretend it doesn't say exactly what it means.

[BullDozer]

62. Yeah right....

Anytime you'd like to produce the partion if US code or Law that says otherwise I'll read it.

[MrBenchley]

63. Hahahahahahaha!

Been therre, done that...and so have others...

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=381&invol=41| MARYLAND v. UNITED STATES, 381 U.S. 41 (1965)>

The National Guard is the modern Militia reserved to the States by Art. I. 8, cl. 15, 16, of the Constitution

"(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and"

[BullDozer]

64. Nice try

Now lets include that which you purposefully cut off in an attempt to deceive.

1)
Section 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.

..."(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and"...

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=10&sec=311

Now go cry in your corner.

[MrBenchley]

70. And no matter how often you post it

unorganized STILL doesn't mean well regulated....

[BullDozer]

84. Keep those wheels spinning B

Anytime you'd like to produce the partion of US code or Law that says otherwise I'll read it.

[MrBenchley]

91. Don't need any spin at all...

Until words change meaning, the claim that "unorganized" means "well regulated" will ALWAYS be a big, fat, steaming pantload.

[BullDozer]

92. Keep shoveling B

Until you can produce a law or Code change that eliminates that which is posted below then you are the only one shoveling loads of crap.

1)
Section 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and"...

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=10&sec=311

[jbuist]

95. "Well Regulated"

MrBenchley, you have a strong distain for firearm ownership by citizens it seems, and a strong distain for firearms owners in general from what I understand. I will do my best in keeping any replies to your posts non personal in nature, though I do take them personally which is only the fault of myself.

The issue at hand though seems to be your take on the words "well regulating" as being "regulated by law". I cannot agree with this, though I once did a few years ago.

Have you ever used a propane or natural gas tank? There's a device on there called a "regulator." Its there to make sure nothing goes horribly wrong with the gases coming out of the tank. Not too much, not too little.

Regulated has become to mean "regulated by law" since the BOR was written. At the time of writing "well regulated" used regulated in much the same manner that it would apply to an LP or NG regulator. In essense, it's stating that a well regulated militia is necessary; and by well regulated they mean that the members of the militia will have control of their arms. In short: They 'ought to be able to shoot straight. It holds nothing in it that states that it's members should be under the rule of law with regards to their arms. In fact, "shall not be infringed" is basically stating that no law shall ever be passed to keep a private citizen from owning arms.

I hope you're still with me and haven't turned your ears off. I am not a conservative happening into the forums for trolling. I happen to be "way off center" in regards to this issue regardless of which party you use for reference.

The idea that the other 9 ammendment to the BOR were put into place to protect individual rights while the 2nd was to protect a collective right is just preposterous! When it comes to firearms laws I never pull out the "2nd ammendment trump card", but since it's being addressed in this very forum, and you take issue with it. I shall.

Even the Supreme Court has, a number of times, stated that the 2nd is an individual right. It seems to flip-flop on the issue though. I don't like that at all, but that's the judicial system we're stuck with.

"Well regulated" doesn't mean what you think it does. I'm sorry. If you wish to spout off that the general population is untrained and therefore not "well regulated" you may have a leg to stand on. However, there's no law against being a poor shot. The first part of the 2nd is there to serve as a reminder regarding why the latter part of the ammendment exists. It could be rephrased, in my opinion to read

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, so that they may train properly to form a well regulated militia available for the federal government to call upon when needed."

Looking at the Supreme Court it's possible to present a case as to why my interpretation is wrong. However, when looking at the writings of the founders and framer it is IMPOSSIBLE to interpret it any other way. If the framers had written the 2nd oh-so-slightly differently nobody would have ever tried this whole "National Guard only" nonsense. In 1781 the 2nd could only be read one way. Our language has shifted, and it's now possible, in fact easy, to tie the 'militia' to the right instead of the people. It got even crazier once people said the 'militia' was no longer the 'people'.

If you ignore everything that happened after the BOR was ratified and only look at things before it, leading up to it's inception, there is no room for debate.

[MrBenchley]

99. Hahahahahaha.....

Wow,, just when I thought it was impossible to find a sillier notion than "well regulated" and "unorganized" being synonymous.

"Our language has shifted"
No, it hasn't.

[hansberrym]

65. Bench, if "well regulated" = "organized", then your ...

"state militia" argument is also defeated.

Congress has the power of "organizing" the militia, so an "organized" milita would be a Federally created and controlled militia.

Why do you suppose the National Guard is called the National Guard?
Because it was created to guard the nation!

IF the ONLY militia recognized and protected by the second amendment were the National Guard, then both the States and the people are shit out of luck, since the National Guard primarily and essentially serves the federal government's interests.


Just where is Judge Reinhardt's "state militia" that is "essentially organized and under the control of the states, but subject to regulation by congress and to federalization at the command of the president" ? (Silveira)

Can a militia that is sent overseas at the federal govenrment's command, despite the objection of the Governor of a state be said to be essentially under the control of the states?


Can a militia that is created and organized under authority of the federal government (see federal statutes posted by Dozer) be in any way characterized as a militia "essentially organized" by the state government?

Perhaps Judge Reinhardt has a different understanding of the word "essentially" than a normal person. The dictionary defines "essentially" as "fundamentally", and in no way can the organization or control of the National Guard be said to be essentially or fundamentally residing in the state govenments.

[iverglas]

66. utterly pointless as I find this entire discussion ...

"Why do you suppose the National Guard is called the National Guard?
Because it was created to guard the nation!"

... *that* is just plain silly.

My grandfather belonged to the Dragoon Guard. He was not assigned to guard a dragoon. Really.

Dictionary, please.

guard - a body of soldiers etc. serving to protect a place or person.

(The Irish police are called the Garda.)

national - of or common to a nation or the nation

The "National Guard" is obviously a body of soldiers or soldier-like people serving to protect whatever they are directed, by the nation, to protect. "National" is the kind of "guard" -- the guard "of the nation" in the possessive sense -- the "guard" belonging to the "nation". "My barbecue" is indeed "the barbecue of me" -- it belongs to me; it doesn't very often barbecue me. And a "national park" doesn't park the nation, it belongs to the nation.

A national guard might well "guard the nation", but it might well also do, and be meant to do, a number of other things ... as I understand it actually does.

I can only imagine how you might explain the "Canada goose": it was created to goose us Canadians? or maybe it is a "goose of Canada" as in "Canada's goose" ...


It remains completely beyond me what the point of these tedious debates over something that may have existed, and been needed, a few centuries ago might be. Wasn't the whole point of this "militia" business that there wasn't supposed to be a standing army in the US? Well, there is. That would be *my* first clue that the whole thing is about as relevant as bloomers.

.

[demsrule4life]

67. If it is pointless why bother posting?

[iverglas]

72. I give up

"If it is pointless why bother posting?"

Did that have a point?

.

[demsrule4life]

74. If you find the discussion "utterly pointless"

why expend so much energy into it.?

[iverglas]

75. if you can't understand what I'm saying

why "respond" to it?

The discussion I was obviously referring to was the chattering and nattering about "militias" -- organized, unorganized, regulated, unregulated, national, state, vanilla or chocolate.

The sum total of "so much energy" that I put into it was a post pointing out that the attempt to establish that "national guard" means something that guards the nation was silly.

If that strikes you as a great deal of energy, you must have a hard time getting up in the morning, given how many times more energy that requires. Why, I'll bet I burned off five calories on that post ...

.

[demsrule4life]

76. I never have a problem getting up in the morning

since that is my bed time :)

[MrBenchley]

69. Amazing isn't it?

No spin too desperate for the RKBA crowd.

[demsrule4life]

71. I don't spin to well

I have a crappy sense of balance.

[hansberrym]

77. Sometimes one has to fight fire with fire...

or in the case of exclusively collective rights advocates (which I know you are not), one has to fight silliness with silliness.

As you say:
"Why do you suppose the National Guard is called the National Guard?
Because it was created to guard the nation!"

... *that* is just plain silly.



I suppose I should have placed a note that it was MEANT to be sarcastic and especially SILLY.


It was meant to underscore the utter SILLINESS of the "State Militia" argument. This line of argument relied on by the Ninth Circuit in Silveira asserts that the second amendment applies only to "state militias" which are "essentially under the control of the state governments". The silveira court identifies the National Guard as this militia, but obvously the National Guard is "essentially organized and under the control of the" federal government since a federal statute authorized its formation and the federal goverment can assume control whenever it wants to.

All the reasons you gave for the silliness of my tongue-in-cheek comment regarding the National Guard apply as well to the "state militia" argument. While the state governments exercise immediate (day-to-day) control of the national guard, the ultimate control and organizing authority is with the federal government.


When the Virgina militia act cited in Miller says

"the militia of the counties westward of the Blue Ridge, and the counties below adjoining thereto, shall not be obliged to be armed with muskets, but may have good rifles with proper accoutrements, in lieu there...."

I do NOT think they meant that each couny had its OWN militia that was essentially under the control of the county. It is obvious that this was a reference to the RESIDENCE of those milita. This is further supported by the federal militia act of 1792(excepted below).


It is the Silveira court that attempts to convince people that the
term "state militia" signifies ownership and control by the state govenrments, rather than the far more logical meaning suggested by your comments.

Note that there are documented proposals forbidding the the federal gov from "marching the militia out of thier own state".
That would mean (If one were to believe the Silveira court) that the state owns the militia AND the militia owns the state!!
An enigma wrapped inside a conumdrum?? (JUST KIDDING!!!!)





The Militia Act of 1792, Passed May 8, 1792, providing federal standards for the organization of the Militia.
An ACT more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States.
I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and power-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a power of power; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and ....

[MrSandman]

81. If the militia is outdated...

"It remains completely beyond me what the point of these tedious debates over something that may have existed, and been needed, a few centuries ago might be. Wasn't the whole point of this "militia" business that there wasn't supposed to be a standing army in the US? Well, there is."

There are methods of Constitutional Amendment.

[hansberrym]

82. Correction

(Quoting Iverglas)
Wasn't the whole point of this "militia" business that there wasn't supposed to be a standing army in the US? Well, there is. That would be *my* first clue that the whole thing is about as relevant as bloomers.
(end quote)


No, you are mis-informed.

Congress already had the power to provide for a standing army with the ratification of the Constitution. The continuance of the militia system held a dual purpose; to act as a reserve to the standing army that would allow a smaller standing force, and to act as a check against tyrrany/usurpation of the people's rights by the federal government misusing the standing army.

[MrSandman]

83. And wasn't the militia

supposed to be there in spite of a standing army or select militia.

I am sure I will be asked to produce the cite on that one.

[MrBenchley]

68. Hans, who are you trying to kid?

Really? Are you trying to pretend that nutcase racists like the Aryan Nation and the Micihgan Militia are what the Second Amendment is describing? Are you trying to pretend that every numbskull with a popgun is?

Even more to the point, who but the REALLY desperate would possibly buy that crap?

"Perhaps Judge Reinhardt has a different understanding of the word "essentially" than a normal person."
Or perhaps some people are just full of crap and unwilling to face reality.

[demsrule4life]

73. I don't understand your fear of pop guns

since the range is limited by how long the string is.

[MrBenchley]

88. And I don't understand your fetish for them

[demsrule4life]

98. Fetish? I wouldn't call it that

I like mechanical objects that were once hand made by very skilled men that are mostly tuning harps in heaven now. The guns I own were made the old fashioned way, out of steel and fitted by skilled gunsmiths. I have no use for the modern plastic and steel guns but I defend the right of law abiding people to own them and if necessary use them to defend themselves with. Now if you want to change fetish to obsession my biggest obsession is with old mechanical watches. I have thousands of dollars more invested in watches then I do in firearms.

Speaking of old guns, my birthday is coming up, could you buy me this old Singer 1911-A1? it is only $39,000.

http://www.gunsamerica.com/guns/976389246.htm

Or if you are feeling real generous

http://www.gunsamerica.com/guns/976398372.htm

[hansberrym]

78. Strawmen everywhere, but not a fact in sight.

Do you have also have a different definition of "essentially" ?

Also,
is a "state militia" really owned by a state government?,
and controlled by a state government?,
and created under the authority of a state government?



Or is the phrase "state militia" more like "canadian geese" ?

[MrBenchley]

89. Canadian geese

would have a better argument than this, hans..

[hansberrym]

93. Don't know where Canada Geese stand on this issue, but ...

at least one Canadian seems to understand the silliness of the

"STATE MILITIA" argument.


Just evaluate "state militia" in the same way as "National Guard" was evaluated in the link below and the silliness of Judge Reinhardt's argument becomes obvious.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=31160&mesg_id=31501&page=


and my reply

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=31160&mesg_id=31515&page=

[iverglas]

94. leave me out of it

I have no idea what is/was meant, or by whom, by "state militia", and my eyes glaze over and feet get numb at the very idea of thinking about it.

I do not, however, off the top of my head, see any parallel between "national guard" meaning "that which guards the nation" and "state militia" meaning ... whatever it supposedly does or does not mean.

The point I was making was no more than that it is purely coincidental that the fallacy of equivocation can be employed in relation to the term "national guard", since "guard" is both a noun and a verb. Just like goose. And park. Had the term been "national army", nobody would have said that it meant "that which armies the nation".

I'm not seeing how anything could be "that which militias the state", so I'm not seeing how what I said has any bearing on whatever the issue is in that regard, despite the fact that I haven't a clue what that issue is, don't care what it is and have no intention of finding out what it is. I'm content to point and snicker at people who actually seem to think that this issue is one worth arguing about in the year 2004, when there hasn't been a militia, or any conceivable reason for having a militia, in anything but their minds for, oh, some generations, I'd guess. Me and the co-vivant to whom I recount these tales, we'll just sit on the chesterfield smoking Players and Matinées, trading images of farmboys in overalls with their balls and powder gazing up in wonderment as the Snowbirds (those are airplanes, not Canada geese) buzz their outhouses and fast-talkin' but polite Canuckistanis swarm over the border to liberate them ...

.

[hansberrym]

96. Hint: Canada Goose are so named because ...

their main habitat(residence)is in Canada, not because they are owned or "essentially controlled" by Canada.

http://www.nature.ca/notebooks/english/cdngoose.htm



I keep forgetting that you don't know and don't care what we are talking about.

[iverglas]

97. if they were

... "owned or 'essentially controlled' by Canada", that is ... I'm afraid that Texas would be suing us.

http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/1999/gcanada/central.htm

Management problems such as crop depredations, affinity for golf courses and green lawns, and roosting on domestic water supply reservoirs ...

I remember what the result of their "affinity" for green lawns looked like on Toronto Island 25 years ago when I lived thereabouts. Worse than my front porch steps used to look as a result of the local pigeons' affinity for my roof ledge, until I had it swathed in chicken wire and persuaded my neighbour to stop feeding the pigeons in return for my promise to feed the squirrels only sunflower seeds during gardening months, since all they did with peanuts was rip up her tomatoes to bury them. A green lawn frequented by Canada geese becomes considerably greener, and lumpier, in short order. Sort of like having a few hundred cats hanging around, only Canada geese don't bury.

Canada geese ... used to be on the verge of being an endangered species, if you can imagine, within my own memory. Although hmm, it seems that this was the Aleutian Canada Goose, maybe not the Giant Canada Goose that Texas knows.

And hmm. How would that one -- "Aleutian Canada Goose" -- fit into that "state militia" paradigm, I wonder ...

Imagine how bored by militias someone would have to be, to surf the net for Canada geese at 4 a.m. Almost as bored as I've been for the last 10 hours by the work I had to get done by noon, that's how bored.

.

[MrSandman]

79. Duh

that cite has nothing to do with 2nd Amendment as quoted
Article 1 is not in Bill of Rights

[alwynsw]

86. As decreed by a 1965 judgement?

One cannot help but wonder about the underlying agenda of the court at the time. Could it be because we had recently had the first assination of a VERY public figure assassinated in full view of every American with a television set? JFK's was the first nearly real time broadcast of an assassination (or attempt). It gave the small anti RKBA movement the jolt it needed. They could finally point to the television and point out the horrors of private gun ownership. (White and Goldberg were JFK appointees, owing no small measure of allegiance to his memory and his family's wishes).

Obviously, those who argue the supposed restriction against RKBA in the @nd Amendment have never read the memoirs of the founding fathers concerning not only that amendment, but the rest of the Constitution as well. I invite you to do so. In reading, you will discover that the vast majority of the delegates favored personal ownership of firearms for one or more of the following reasons:

1) Defense of the home or community against an oppressive government

2) Defense of the home or community againts Indian attacks (Indian used as a term of the times)

3) Defense of the home or community against crimiinals

4) To provide food for the home

Possible rebuttals:

1) Oppressive government? Look at the current occupants of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. and what many expect the Patriot Act and Homeland Security to lead to. Of course, there were also Waco and Ruby Ridge in the previous administration. (Before you get your back up over Waco and RR, read the FULL accounts available, including FBI and ATF transcripts and reports as well as the state andlocal law enforcement agencies involved.)

2) Granted, indigenous Americans are not a factor. We have in their place gangs that terrorize entire neighborhoods and cities, taking what they will, including, but not limited to lives, real and personal property, and the virtue of both ladies and men.

3) Read the paper. Home invasions, carjackings, rape, muruder, etc.
Criminals willalways be with us. Therefore, we must either cower before them or be prepared to defend our lives and those of our kith and ken as well as our property.

4) Have you priced beef lately? I live on a farm. I hunt. i save several hundred dollars a year by hunting.

[MrSandman]

80. Obviously? Look at contemporaneous writings...

States' Constitutions

Virginia
6/12/1776
"...a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people..."

Delaware
9/11/1776
"..a well-regulated militia is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free government."

Maryland
11/11/1776
"..a well-regulated militia is the proper and natural defence of a free government."

New Hampshire
6/2/1784
"..a well-regulated militia is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a state."


A more contemporary analysis:

"Normal constitutional argument begins with text. The first question to consider, then, is: What does the Constitution say about the right to keep and bear arms? There seem to be two main theories of what sense is conveyed by the language of the Second Amendment. The theory that is most often encountered by the intelligent lay public reads the words to say something like: "In order to make themselves secure, states have a right to have a well regulated militia, and Congress may not restrict state regulation of militia members' weapons." This is approximately the interpretation favored by most major newspapers' editorial writers, by gun control groups, and by a broad swath of conventional public opinion, running the partisan gamut from left (e.g., Rep. Charles Schumer of New York) to right (e.g., President Nixon) and most political shades in between.

But in places where close attention is paid to what words actually say, the states'-rights reading of the Second Amendment has attracted surprisingly little support. After all, the Second Amendment does not say, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, shall not be infringed." Nor do the words of the amendment assert that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is conditional upon membership in some sort of organized soldiery like the National Guard. Indeed, if there is conditional language in the Second Amendment at all, evidently the contingency runs the other way: "Because the people have a right to keep and bear arms, states will be assured of the well regulated militias that are necessary for their security." Some version of this reading is supported by almost all of the constitutional historians and lawyers who have published research on the subject. Indeed, this view is so dominant in the academy that Garry Wills, the lone dissenter among historians on the proper reading of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms," has dubbed it the Standard Model of the Second Amendment."
http://www.reason.com/9603/fe.POLSBYguns.text.shtml

[MrSandman]

85. Not obvious

"The Congress that passed the amendment also passed the Freedmen’s Bureau Act, which declared that the rights of “personal security and personal liberty” included “the constitutional right to bear arms” — a very practical right for freed slaves protecting themselves from Klan violence.

The Supreme Court, in Miller (1939), held that the Second Amendment protects militia-type arms, but found it irrelevant to ask whether the defendant was a member of the National Guard.

Some lower federal courts in the last three decades have opined, with the same superficiality as courts treated free speech before the 1920s, that the Second Amendment only protects the National Guard."

<Less obvious than you would have me believe>

http://www.independent.org/tii/news/950519Halbrook.html

"I'm not advocating gun ownership or an end to gun controls. But considering my own fierce attachment to the First Amendment, I have some sympathy for people fiercely attached to the Second Amendment, because they believe that individual autonomy depends on a right of self-defense. It's long past time for liberals to stop demonizing gun owners and fantasizing about virtually eliminating guns. We'd have to erase the Fourth Amendment--or what's left of it after the drug war--to rid American households of their firearms. We should, by now, have learned the lessons of Prohibition. The failures of efforts to ban alcohol, abortion, and various drugs have made clear the futility (and socioeconomic costs) of campaigns to criminalize behaviors in which millions of Americans indulge."

<Ignoring the Second>

http://www.prospect.org/print/V13/2/kaminer-w.html

[hansberrym]

87. Should read "The Congress that passed the 14th amendment

The arguments against the incorporation of the second amendment are as weak as the arguments against an individual rights interpretation.

Again we have both debate in congress and federal legislation showing that the second amendment was meant to apply to individuals for their individual protection.

[MrSandman]

90. Thanks, I thought I cut and pasted the quote

[hansberrym]

58. Please explain where you see a straw man in my earlier comment.

And what did you mean by "the "organized miltiia" as reserved to the states..." ?

The only powers "reserved to the states" with regard to the militia are "the appointment of officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by congress"

The "organization" power is with the federal government. If the only militia that was protected by the second amendment were the "organized militia", then the second amendment would be meaningless in that it would confer no protection for individuals, nor any protection for the states. Since the Federal government could define what was the "organized militia", it could define the "organized militia" out of existence.

Moreover, the second amendment does not contain the phrase "organized militia"
even once. It is ridiculous to make an build an argument based on a term which is not even in the text, while ignoring the contemporaneous usage of other terms actually in the amendment.


“Keep” means To provide oneself with arms and to constantly maintain supply (as in the contemporary militia acts of NY, MA, VA, and the and federal 1792 Militia Act). From the Virginia Act cited in Miller v. US; “every officer and private …shall constantly keep the aforesaid arms, accoutrements, and ammunition, ready to be produced whenever called for by the commanding officer…” (my emphasis)

“Bear arms” : at a minimum this phrase refers “to render military service in person” as per Madison’s draft of the amendment and other references describing “bearing arms” as the action of an individual.

Madison: “…no person scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person ”. (my emphasis)

George Wyethe of the Virginia convention: “…that any person scrupulous of bearing arms ought to be exempted upon payment of an equivalent to employ {b]another to bear arms in his stead.”

Also the SIlveira quoted from the Rhode Island convention: (identical to Wyethe) “…that any person scrupulous of bearing arms ought to be exempted upon payment of an equivalent to employ another to bear arms in his stead.”

Note that all three sources cited by the 9th Circuit use the term “bearing arms” to indicate an individual’s action- as opposed to a collective or state action.

And while the specific references concern military service, just as the collective rights advocates claim, this does not preclude a broader meaning. Note that there is nothing in the wording to make it a conditional (such as; if, when, only, etc.) However the clear reference to individual action, does disprove the collective rights advocates claim that only collective rights are intended.

Therefor the claim that the a "right of the people to keep and bear arms" can be more plausibly read as a collective right falls flat. It would make no sense to say that there is a collective right to do actions that individuals were to perform.



Why would the phrase "the people have a right to bear arms..." appear in a proposed amendment that even Judge Reinhardt(Silveira) admits is "unambiguously" a recognition of individual right.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=30512&mesg_id=30512



On a related topic- do you believe that the Congress or the Supreme Court has the legitimate authority to redefine who/what is the "press" in such a way as to restrict the protection intended(we agree that indivual rights were intended by the First Amendent)
to some government defined group (institutional press) rather than each and every one of us.

My point in making that comment earlier was to show the dangerous parallel between the Supreme Court's "institutional press" analysis in McConnell, and the "state militia" (meaning select militia) argument of the Ninth Circuit in Silveira.

[MrSandman]

5. NRA Defense Fund focuses on Gun Rights...

They do not equivocate or pretend otherwise. What I have seen, the NRA feels there are other organizations (ACLU) to work on other civil rights issues.

[MrBenchley]

3. In fact

the gun rights crowd has been one of the loudest supporters of this rubbish throughout...and has been credited by no less an authority than Jebbo for the insertion of this unelected drunk into the White House.

[DoNotRefill]

4. Hmmmm....

That's like expecting the AARP to sound off and lobby for changes in education for pre-schoolers.

The NRA is an organization dedicated to the Second Amendment. That's what they do, that's ALL they do. Condemning them for not defending other amendments is silly.

Oh, BTW, I notice you didn't mention the NRA's challenge to the CFRA. Their co-plaintiff was....drumroll....wait for it....the ACLU.

[the_acid_one]

8. The loss of "civil rights".

Thus far has not been widespread nor paticularly severe as of the moment.

I'm sorry, but the government is not "oppressive" enough at this point in time to warrent even the consideration of taking up arms. The NRA is there to insure that the arms are still available if such a time does arise that we require them.

[Wcross]

9. The only ones defending the second......

Maybe thats why gun owners send them money? Yes, self defense is a civil right that can not be denied by government.

[grayrace]

10. ask pro gun people where they were in 2001 when Bush was inaugurated

every time they say gun ownership is a protection against tyranny

[Superfly]

11. Ask anti-gun people where they were in 2001

when Bush was inagurated and they say voting is a protection against tyranny.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[demsrule4life]

14. The gun commuinity would get no support

people like you and the mainstream press would of classified any gun community action as an act of loonies.

[grayrace]

15. "The gun commuinity would get no support"

thank god for small miracles. Imagine if the gun community could just install whoever they wanted into the presidency over the will of the voters. Oh wait.....

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[grayrace]

17. please point out personal attackes

I don't see any, I was very hopeful about this forum and was watching my posts from the beginning. If you will point out what you find offensive I wont use it again.

[Superfly]

18. There were 2

first, the implication that I did not vote Dem...

Secondly, the implication that my gun-buddies, as you put it, did something celebratory when Bush was inagurated.

[grayrace]

19. not really fitting the definition of personal attack

I answered you when you asked what anti-gun people did, we voted dem. I think asked if you did. Just to see your response. Its kind of telling that you choose to alert over it then to simply answer. And the notion that gun ownership is a protection against tyranny is often voiced by pro gun people. So I wanted to know if pro-gun people would actually come through, when an election was stolen and tyranny followed if they didn't even feel guilty about it.

[Superfly]

20. We shall let the mods decide.

BTW, asking a long-time member of DU if he or she voted Deomctratic is kind of dumb, don'tcha think?

[grayrace]

21. voting data is purposely kept secret by gov't

so theres no way to know for sure how many "du'ers" vote democratic. However supporting something like shooting a Roma in the back tends to me to be "undemocractic".

[Superfly]

22. Correction: "Supporting a criminal..."

nt

[grayrace]

23. I didn't want to say you were supporting a "criminal"

because that might be an attack, thats why I spelled it out exactly as would be an honest representation of the entire thread.

[Superfly]

24. So, now you think he's a criminal?

Before, you were saying he's a poor defenseless Roma.

Which one is it?

[grayrace]

25. the shooter was the criminal i was refering to

he was the only one convicted

[Superfly]

26. And that's where you and I disagree.

The shooter was the victim.

[grayrace]

27. well, as long as the courts go my way we shouldn't have any problems

n/t

[Superfly]

28. And as long as they're the courts in England, I don't care.

NT

[grayrace]

29. same rules apply in America

as a case like this would get the same result. If hes not a threat, deadly force is NOT ALLOWED.

[Superfly]

30. Depends on which state you live

and the mindset of the jury.

Thankfully, I live in a state where this conviction would never have been made, probably.

[grayrace]

31. this conviction would always be made in America

because you have to show atleast a resonable threat to use deadly force. Appeals courts almost always say so.

[the_acid_one]

32. Texas allows...

...use of deadly force to defend property. I think there are other state that will aswell.

[grayrace]

33. well Texas certainly shouldn't be our model

n/t

[demsrule4life]

34. Utah and Indiana

also, I don't think it is in the books for Indiana, but I personally know two hoods that were shot for stealing property and the shooters were not convicted in court.

[CO Liberal]

40. It Is When All The Votes Are Counted

Which was NOT the case when the NRA's boy Georgie was appointed by Billy Rehnquist & The Supremes.

[hansberrym]

43. Or that the courts will save us

n/t

[the_acid_one]

35. Uhr..it takes some severe stretching...

....to be able to say Bush is a "Tyrant" with a straight face.

I mean, I dont like a lot of what he's done nor what he wants to do, but if anyone thinks this is tyranny they seriously need to get a clue. My life today isnt any differant then it was when Clinton was President.

[grayrace]

36. uhhh, denying right to vote

killing tens of thousands of people in defiance of international law. Allowing his family and friends to be profiteer from an unjust war. Any of this ring a bell?

[grayrace]

37. and I'm NOT going to Alert on that even

n/t

[iverglas]

38. first they came for the Iraqis ...

"My life today isnt any differant then it was when Clinton was President."


It's a Good Life.

[grayrace]

39. and his life might not be any different

if he A) weren't unemployed now or B) in the military, or C) a voter.

[Kolesar]

41. I shouted "Bush is a Tyrant" in Washington & Cleveland

I have lost track of the number of peace marches I have been in. I am seriously scared of these guys.

[MrBenchley]

50. Meanwhile AshKKKroft is an NRA life member

and both Jebbo and Gail Nortonn have been keynote speakers at NRA klaverns.

[slackmaster]

52. Who cares?

And what does that have to do with the subject?

[DavidMS]

51. It looks to me like some "pro-gun" people realize this....

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=53f76a7db3ebe9ceead33f8ca2ea4187&threadid=57167

One subsequent poster (clubsoda22) wrote this: (the stuff in quotes is for context).

Jim (a gun rights lobyist), you're definately fighting this the right way. It's hard for an anti-gun group to come out against you because it would make them look racist, sexist and classist. The best way to fight this is not fighting it on a RKBA platform, but a discrimination platform. I'm glad to see that's how you're doing it, because an RKBA platform is automatially doomed to fail in california.

The best part is, if an anti gun group does bite, you can seriously discredit them by saying "this isn't about guns, this is about civil rights! The rights of free americans--whether they are male or female, rich or poor, black, white, hispanic, or otherwise--not to be discriminated against by the state." Basically, you just call them a bunch of racists, sexists and classists without using charged language.

So its realy a due process issue/equal protection under the law issue. Those are issues that we (Democrats) believe are important also. I think there is some common ground here.

[MrBenchley]

53. What a pathetic pantload

"The best way to fight this is not fighting it on a RKBA platform, but a discrimination platform."
Yeah, when one phony issue fails, why not cook up another one out of whole cloth? Then when that fails, make up another lie.

"if an anti gun group does bite, you can seriously discredit them by saying "this isn't about guns, this is about civil rights!"
Yeah, just ask Ted Nugent...or Larry Pratt...or John AshKKKroft...or Trent Lott...or any of the other bigoted imbeciles touting the bogus gun rights issue.

By the way...swell lot of scummy playmates over there at highroadrage....

"Kicked off Democraticunderground for the 9th time...My wolf-in-sheep's-clothing act gets better every time out....They're terrified of debate...that's so funny...makes me feel good...how else would you get away with proliferating liberal nonsense...My favorite screename I came up with was "left of stalin"...After hanging out with the DU crowd, I'd suggest a good shower at a biohazard facility...That would lull them into thinking you're one of the "progressives" while actually showing a wee bit of true colors...Reading that message board is like watching a political debate between semi-literate 4-year-olds...."shallow-thinker" "blind-sheep" either one should get you appointed to a "moderator" status fairly quickly on those liberal lemming sites....Demorats have had that problem for a very long time now. They would dearly love to have their socialist utopia, but they know they must make their way through the intransigent partisans to get there...at least we don't have to hide "underground" from the light of day."

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33227&highlight=%2ADemocratic+Underground%2A

[slackmaster]

54. All Red Herrings, All The Time

:boring: