The Gun Industry Scam!

[Glenn Vardy]

The existing provisions in state BoR's


VIRGINIA (June 12, 1776)
13. That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of

peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

DELAWARE (September 11, 1776)
18. That a well-regulated militia is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free government.

PENNSYLVANIA (September 28, 1776)
XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

MARYLAND (November 11, 1776)
XXV. That a well-regulated militia is the proper and natural defence of a free government.

NORTH CAROLINA (December 18, 1776)
XVII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under the strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

VERMONT (July 8, 1777)
XV. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State; and, as standing armies, in the time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

MASSACHUSETTS (October 25, 1780)
XVII. The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as in time of peace armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.

NEW HAMPSHIRE (June 2, 1784)
XXIV. A well regulated militia is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a state.
-------------------------------------------------------------

Only one of these provisions contains the word "keep" and that's for "the people" and the "common defence."

They're ALL militia provisions.

[provis99]

1. well now that we have a permanent standing army,

these provision are all moot, as well as being quaint and silly.

[gejohnston]

4. with the founders spinning in their graves

Unless you own stock in the MIC, I say we dismantle the empire and have an army based on the Swiss model. Have an active duty navy and air force large enough to defend and police our coasts and air space.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

66. Ummm

Gun politics in Switzerland are unique in Europe. The personal weapon of militia is kept at home as part of the military obligations. Switzerland has one of the highest militia gun ownership rates in the world.<1> In recent times political opposition has expressed a desire for tighter gun regulations.<2> A referendum in February 2011 rejected stricter gun control.<3>

--clip--

In some 2001 statistics, it is noted that there are about 420,000 semi-automatic rifles stored at private homes, not assault rifles because assault rifles are select-fire (fully or semi automatic) firearms. mostly SIG SG 550 types. Additionally, there are some 320,000 semi-auto rifles and military pistols exempted from military service in private possession, all selective-fire weapons having been converted to semi-automatic operation only. In addition, there are several hundred thousand other semi-automatic small arms classified as carbines. The total number of firearms in private homes is estimated minimally at 1.2 million to 3 million.<8>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland

That would seem to argue AGAINST an assault weapon ban and actually mandating people keep such weapons in their homes.

[gejohnston]

152. Yes that would

although the Swiss ones are select fire and property of the military. Once you end your militia service, pay the unit ten bucks and the unit armorer will disable the full auto feature and it is yours to keep.

[virginia mountainman]

2. LOL.. Can you point to a single article in the Bill of Rights...

That is a restriction on the people, and NOT a restriction on government power??

Also, do you realize that the Militia, for the most post are male citizens that are of "militarily effective" ages???

This is codified in Federal law.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/311.shtml

I post the pertinent part here, to help you...

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.

Highlights mine...

[provis99]

10. you obviously don't understand what "unorganized militia" means.

It means those who are eligible to be drafted into the standing army; it means precicely the same as Landwehr and Landsturm does in Germany ie. males of military age. Those not in the "unorganized militia", cannot be drafted (due to infirmity, imbecility, handicap, indispensible occupation and the like).

[AtheistCrusader]

18. Under US Code, that means all males between the ages of 17 and 45.

[Hoyt]

25. So, do you have to turn in your guns upon attaining age 45? Gunners can't survive that.

[AtheistCrusader]

29. Of course not. Why would I turn in my private property?

You continually misconstrue the intent of the 2nd amendment.


The 2nd does not say what *I* can do. It states what the federal government *MAY NOT* do. The purpose, therein, being the formation of an armed and capable militia in times of need. The age range/definition in US Code for 'militia' came much later than the Constitution or the BoR. And it is served by having an armed populace to begin with, before trouble, before a need.


And a militia need not be weapons-related. I keep encouraging my governor (a democrat) to use her powers to call up the militia for the purposes of flood control, sandbagging, search and rescue, etc. There are examples of the proper use of a militia in our history as a nation (some quite recently), and it is a tradition we should keep alive.

Necessary to the security of a free state.

Ponder upon that.

[oneshooter]

37. Did you? Would you? n/t

[ileus]

40. After age 45 there's no reason to care for life...

I'm 41....I can see where in 4 years life won't be worth worrying about. LOL

[gejohnston]

3. What the hell does the gun industry have to do with it?

The Bill of Rights is a set of negative rights, which means limits on government not what is allowed to the people. Read the ninth amendment. In Heller, the majority said the second made it an individual right. The minority said the ninth made it an individual right.

The semantic pissing match between you and Stephen P. Halbrook is a nice intellectual exercise and history lesson, but that's all it is.

[PavePusher]

9. "pissing match"?

He's facing into the wind and his face is wet...

[Remmah2]

33. You expect truth in advertizing?

A fair fight? Honesty? Reality?

[Fred Engels]

5. If there's a point in there somewhere,

it is very well hidden.

[Maine_Nurse]

6. Why did you leave out the states like Maine?

State of Maine Constitution Article 1 Section 16: " Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned." Makes me glad I live here.

[iverglas]

12. written when?

1819 Maine: Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms for the common defence; and this right shall never be questioned.

"for the common defence" was written OUT in 1987.

Relevance?

[ileus]

14. Maine sounds pretty nice....plus you have Moose.

[Euromutt]

54. Probably because Maine wasn't one of the 13 original states

At the time of the Declaration of Independence and the ratification of the federal Constitution, what is now Maine was still part of Massachusetts, and remained so until 1820.

It should, however, be pointed out that the state constitutions of the time do not necessarily reflect on the intent behind the federal constitution. The "several States" of the time didn't always get along well with each other, and the restrictions placed on the power of the federal government were arguably motivated less by high-minded ideals and more by the desire on the part of the several states to prevent a bloc of other states being able to seize control of the federal government and using its power to impose their particular social and religious mores on the remaining states. By way of crude illustration, it's possible the Puritan ex-colonies of New England supported restricting the federal government's ability to meddle in religious affairs in order to protect the primacy of Puritan Calvinism in their own territories.

[Starboard Tack]

69. They were colonies, not states.

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

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

[Starboard Tack]

74. Far more of an expert than most native born Americans.

Of course he had to take all those tests that few who were born here would ever pass.

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

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

[Starboard Tack]

77. Interesting observation, but I'm not sure that reflects the general population of ex-pats

At least not from personal experience. But I would avoid those types anyway. At least half of my friends are from Europe and I have family and friends still over there. I can't think of one who would ever consider toting a gun, or opposing a national health care system. I know lots of tories, none who oppose the NHS. But that said the British Tory party usually falls to the left of both major parties here on social issues.
Of course, I don't know any who participate in political online discussions, except for one old Brit friend in NYC, who is an old hard line Marxist.

[iverglas]

78. yeah, it's part of the cyberworld phenomenon

The right wing in all its manifestations, everywhere, acting bigger than its britches.

That said, relatively recent ex-pats are often the ones who really do have nothing good to say about the place they left and why. ;)

Historically, both our right-wing parties in Canada, Liberal and Progressive Conservative (the "Progressive" was just a hangover from a long-ago merged smaller party, but the Red Tory influence was fairly strong), were to the left of both major parties in the US. With our shiny new Conservative Party, as you saw at the politicalcompass, that situation has changed. Ours are now closer to yours. The great hope is that the Liberal Party will now wither and die, having become irrelevant in federal parliamentary terms when it was decimated in the last election, and we will have a viable left option. The official opposition is now the NDP, with a spectacular number of seats won in the spring ... and our leader died on Monday.

Just because you might be interested,

Jack Layton's last letter:
http://www.ndp.ca/letter-to-canadians-from-jack-layton

and a CBC reporter whose voice only broke once while reading it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FuHk0WdLHI

and there are video and other tributes all over the net, with a state funeral to be held on Saturday.

Sometimes it seems like the gods conspire against you.

[friendly_iconoclast]

94. We're familiar with the ex-pat USAmericans who do the same thing.

We had one (now tombstoned) USAian in Australia who was quite energetic about telling what a "fine society" Australia has
(I missed the chance to ask him if it is a Great Society). Another is quite expert about things he hasn't experienced for
22 years. As you might have said:

"Their views about matters USAmerican seldom reflect the views of the people living there..."

[TheWraith]

103. Funny then how you seem to be such an expert on the US, not being an American or anything.

Doesn't trashing US immigrants for supposedly being experts, while acting as an "expert" yourself from well outside the country, strike you as a little hypocritical? Or a lot hypocritical?

[friendly_iconoclast]

132. "Their views about matters USAmerican seldom reflect the views of the people living there".

Some people have trouble adjusting to their own irrelevance....

[Euromutt]

104. By the time of the framing of the federal constitution, they had ceased to be colonies

Regardless of whether you want to date it from the Declaration of Independence (1776), Cornwallis' surrender at Yorktown (1781) or the signing of the Treaty of Paris (1783), the United States were definitely no longer colonies by the time of the Constitutional Convention of 1787. The term "United States," moreover, was used for the first time on July 2nd, 1776 when the Second Continental Congress voted to declare the independence from Great Britain "of the thirteen United States of America."

So you're wrong.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

7. Ooops!

How on earth did the Supreme Court miss what you discovered? They must be completely asleep at the wheel. Either that, or all 9 of them were paid off.

That's got to be it, because the only other possibility is that you're wrong and that couldn't be it....

[ileus]

15. NRA GOP goobers....

[Glenn Vardy]

24. Individual use

How on earth did the Supreme Court miss what you discovered?

You tell me.

None of the existing state provisions protected a right for individual "citizens" to own guns for privare purposes. This doesn't mean that it was illegal for citizens in those states to own guns or to use guns in self defence, but this doesn't mean that the PURPOSE of those militia provisions must have been to protect a right for individual "citizens" to use guns in self defence.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

36. Not my place...

...to bolster your claim.

You tell us how the US Supreme Court, in multiple cases, through multiple courts managed to entirely miss your conclusion.

Perhaps you're the most astonishing researcher and legal mind of human history, or as is more likely the case, you're simply wrong.

I'll let you consider which is more likely.

[gravity556]

57. Really? Here are some more states that support a RKBA for defense.

So Arizona's constitution with this in it

Arizona: The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the State shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men. Art. II, § 26 (enacted 1912).



Alaska: 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. The individual right to keep and bear arms shall not be denied or infringed by the State or a political subdivision of the State. Art. I, § 19 (first sentence enacted 1959, second sentence added 1994).



Alabama: That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. Art. I, § 26 (enacted 1819, art. I, § 23, with "defence" in place of "defense," spelling changed 1901).



Connecticut: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. Art. I, § 15 (enacted 1818, art. I, § 17). The original 1818 text came from the Mississippi Constitution of 1817.





Delaware: A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use. Art. I, § 20 (enacted 1987).




Here's the link I used http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm since I have no desire to keep looking up states wherein the OP is proven wrong again and again. Maybe after I've had some coffee I'll post yet more states that explicitly support a citizen's right to self defense...

[Glenn Vardy]

79. Look at the DATES.

the OP is proven wrong again and again

Isn't it clear that I meant the "existing" provisions AT THE TIME the Constitution was ratified? Look at the dates of those provisions.

[DonP]

8. Where's the "Gun Industry" part?

[spin]

11. Interesting. That's why I like the Florida Constitution ...

CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA Article I

SECTION 8. Right to bear arms.—
(a) The right of the people to keep and bear arms in
defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the
state shall not be infringed, except that the manner of
bearing arms may be regulated by law.
(b) There shall be a mandatory period of three days,
excluding weekends and legal holidays, between the
purchase and delivery at retail of any handgun. For the
purposes of this section, “purchase” means the transfer
of money or other valuable consideration to the retailer,
and “handgun” means a firearm capable of being carried
and used by one hand, such as a pistol or revolver.
Holders of a concealed weapon permit as prescribed in
Florida law shall not be subject to the provisions of this
paragraph.
(c) The legislature shall enact legislation implementing
subsection (b) of this section, effective no later than
December 31, 1991, which shall provide that anyone
violating the provisions of subsection (b) shall be guilty
of a felony.
(d) This restriction shall not apply to a trade in of
another handgun.
History.—Am. C.S. for S.J.R. 43, 1989; adopted 1990.

emphasis added

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?Mode=Constitution&Submenu=3&Tab=statutes&CFID=224563556&CFTOKEN=18957294#A1S08

I also like the 2010 Florida Statutes on firearm registration:

The 2010 Florida Statutes(including Special Session A)

Chapter 790
WEAPONS AND FIREARMS

790.335 Prohibition of registration of firearms; electronic records.—
(1) LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS AND INTENT.—
(a) The Legislature finds and declares that:
1. The right of individuals to keep and bear arms is guaranteed under both the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and s. 8, Art. I of the State Constitution.
2. A list, record, or registry of legally owned firearms or law-abiding firearm owners is not a law enforcement tool and can become an instrument for profiling, harassing, or abusing law-abiding citizens based on their choice to own a firearm and exercise their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed under the United States Constitution. Further, such a list, record, or registry has the potential to fall into the wrong hands and become a shopping list for thieves.
3. A list, record, or registry of legally owned firearms or law-abiding firearm owners is not a tool for fighting terrorism, but rather is an instrument that can be used as a means to profile innocent citizens and to harass and abuse American citizens based solely on their choice to own firearms and exercise their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed under the United States Constitution.emphasis added
4. Law-abiding firearm owners whose names have been illegally recorded in a list, record, or registry are entitled to redress.

***snip***

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0790/Sections/0790.335.html

[ileus]

13. Speaking of the gun industry what is your next SD firearm purchase?

[rl6214]

16. Texas BoR

Sec. 23. RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.

The legislature has decided that the people will have the right to the "wearing of arms" and we have concealed carry, with a view to prevent crime.

[oneshooter]

26. " RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. Every citizen shall have the right

Do that mean the same as every person?

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[SteveM]

17. "...Impressionism had a significant influence on the Hudson School during..."

[AtheistCrusader]

19. You don't seem to have linked your title, nor commentary, to the citations you referred to

in the various contemporary state constitutions.

Can you elaborate?

[slackmaster]

20. I'm not seeing any kind of connection between your post and the gun industry, or any kind of logic

[Tuesday Afternoon]

21. sense

your post makes none.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

22. Ohio BoR...

"The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power." (1851)

[RSillsbee]

23. Guess I'm good to go

Colorado Constitution Article II, Section 13
The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons.

[provis99]

27. these state constitution articles on keeping guns are more interesting:

they are also more in line with the conservative origins of keeping guns, too.

Florida: "That the free white men of this State shall have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence." Art. I, § 21.

Arkansas: "That the free white men of this State shall have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence." Art. II, § 21

a lot of the other additions to the state constitutions on this issue occured when the right-wing reactionaries took more recent control of the state legislatures:

North Carolina in 1971.
New Mexico in 1986.
Nebraska in 1988.
Idaho in 1978.
Delaware in 1987.
Wisconsin in 1998.
Utah in 1984 and so on.
http://www.trolp.org/main_pgs/issues/v11n1/Volokh.pdf
These later additions often overturned previous laws and constitutional articles allowing the regulation of guns.

You will also notice that most of the state constitutions specify right to self-defence, not just militia service, because it was widely believed that the US Constitution did not in fact protect a right to keep guns for personal self-defence, so it was felt necessary to include this in the state constitutions.

[gejohnston]

28. Did you read this or just copy and paste from someplace else?

regulation of guns have always been allowed and have always existed in the states with the possible exception of Vermont. They have been regulated on the federal level since the 1930s, not counting the Uniform Pistol Act of 1927. Judging from your spelling of defense/defence, I am assuming you are Canadian or from another commonwealth country. Each state has its own mechanism to amend their constitution. How familiar are you with US gun laws past and present? It is more complex than you think. Some state regulations has been stricter in the past. South Carolina and Texas are two examples. Did you read your source closely?

North Carolina 1971 has nothing to do with personal defense

New Mexico
1912: “The people have the right to bear arms for their
security and defense, but nothing herein shall be held to permit
the carrying of concealed weapons.”

Idaho
1889: “The people have the right to bear arms for their
security and defence; but the Legislature shall regulate the
exercise of this right by law.”

Utah
1895: “The people have the right to bear arms for their
security and defense, but the legislature may regulate the
exercise of this right by law.”

The others are the original.

Here is a bonus

Wyoming 1889: “The right of citizens to bear arms in defense
of themselves and of the state shall not be denied.”

Vermont 1777: “That the people have a right to bear arms for
the defence of themselves and the State—and as standing armies
in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be
kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict
subordination to and governed by the civil power.”

[provis99]

30. read how they spell defence in the constitutions listed, dummy.

Particularly in the Arkansas part. If you're going to insult a source I use, it would be better for you to read it first. As for your insult that I am "Canadian", frankly I think Canadians have a few ideas better than us, so insulting someone by calling them "Canadian" doesn't really work on me.

[gejohnston]

31. what insult?

it was not in insult, simply that spelling is common in the commonwealth countries, I simply asked how familiar you are with US gun laws. The reason I asked is that you implied that guns are unregulated in the US. I did not insult your source. I used your source and asked if you read it. Since I copied and pasted directly from it, that must mean I read it.
How is asking if you are from Canada or a commonwealth country an insult? That is how they spell it. I get asked the same thing when I change spellings by US folks when I share with my Canadian friends. I also have been deployed with Canadians and Brits. Yes I did notice the early US spelling, which changed since then but it was not instantly.
What makes you think I did not read it? I copied and pasted directly from it.
How did I attack your source?
Why is it when something is pointed out as false, the default response is personal attack or patronizing faux intellectual bullshit? There is maybe two or three exceptions. At least you are not the worst.

[Lex1775]

39. Arizona

Article 2, Section 26:

"The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the state shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men."

[Glenn Vardy]

44. Misleading?

I posted all the state provisions that existed at the time of the framing. As I said, only ONE contained the word "keep" and that was for the "common defence."

Bearing this in mind, look at this commentary from Volokh:
"Nearly all secure (at least in part) an individual right to keep some kinds of guns for self-defense. Some date back to the Framing; some have been enacted in the last four decades."

When he refers to "nearly all" of the provisions, he means at THIS time. When he says that "some" date back to the framing, it could be misleading. If he were here now and was asked to point to the provisions that existed at the time of the framing that secured an "idividual" right to "keep" "guns" for "self-defense," he might say that that's not what he said, and he'd be right. When he says that "some" date back to the framing, he means some "provisions" date back to the framing, not necessarily provisions of the same nature as those described in the previous sentence.

[gejohnston]

45. yeah but it is not remotely relevant to what I was answering

the poster claimed the individual right in those states (and implied that was the case across the board) did not exist in those states until the late 20 century. I used the same document to point out that was not the case. The person also does not seem to know how states amend their constitutions by claiming that the those states were captive of right wing assemblies.

New Mexico was still part of Mexico at that time (the capitol was moved from Santa Fe to Mexico City about 50 years after the founding. Wyoming was divided between Mexico, French Louisiana, and British Oregon (my hometown sits where the three met) anything about guns written in 1912 or 1889 respectively does not matter.

I still fail to see what your larger point is or its relevance.

[SteveM]

50. And of course there is Rhode Island...

"The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom
in a state, any person may publish his sentiments of any subject,
being responsible for the abuse of that liberty . . . ."

Sound familiar? Sure hate to think that "any person may publish his sentiments on any subject," subject, of course, only to their promulgation via a "press" clause!

:D :toast: :toast: :smoke:

[Remmah2]

32. Vermont

VERMONT (July 8, 1777)
XV. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State


"That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves "

Seems pretty cut and dried.

[Atypical Liberal]

34. On militias.

I have some spare time this morning, so I will indulge you as I have so many others who tow the "militia" line in the past.

The government of the United States was designed, very intentionally, to decentralize power. This was done because they had just fought against a government that had highly centralized power, held by the hands of a king. To achieve this goal, they split the government into three separate branches, each operating independently of each other: The Judicial, the Legislative, and the Executive branches. This is basic civics. What they don't teach you in elementary school is that the founders also sought to decentralize military power. There was not supposed to be a standing army. In fact there were no standing federal troops until, as I recall, about 1805, except for an artillery unit at West Point.

The reason for not having a standing army under control of the federal government was the same as for splitting the government into separate branches: To keep concentrated power - military power - out of the hands of the central government. Instead, they propagated a decentralized military system, whereby each state maintained its own military force. The militias were made up of men from their respective states and led by officers also from their respective states. It was assumed that these forces could only be marshaled together to operate in concert for the good of all the states with the consent of those states. It was assumed that these forces would be loyal first to their home state, and as such would not be willing, nor able, to engage in oppressive actions against other states. The militias were to eliminate the need for, or at least be able to counter, federal military power. In this way, the federal government would be deprived of military means to oppress the states.

In 1905, the state militias were federalized under the Dick Act. This formed the Organized Militia (National Guard) and the Unorganized Militia (all able-bodied men aged 17-45 not otherwise in the Organized Militia). What this effectively did is turn the armed forces of the states from acting as a counter to federal military power and instead made it an adjunct to it. The National Guard functions essentially as reserve federal military power.

I have not doubt that the founders had this eventuality in mind when they crafted the second amendment:

"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."

What the second amendment says is that militias are necessary to the security of free states, and the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

You will notice that the amendment does not say that the right of the militias to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. No doubt the founders anticipated corruption of the institution of the militias, and consequently they determined that the ultimate repository of military force shall reside in the hands of the people, not the militias.

And this is where we are today.

Even if all the State and the federal Constitution intended for the people to bear arms in the service of militias, the militias spoken of in those documents no longer exist.

This does not mean that the reasons for keeping arms in the hands of the people no longer exist, nor that the idea of having the ability to counter federal military power is no longer valid.

And of course, all of this only addresses firearms and militias. It says nothing about people owning firearms for self-defense, which the founders no doubt also approved of.

But all of this is now academic.

The Supreme Court of the United States has held, unanimously, that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right irrespective of membership in any organization.

These Supreme Court Justices have far more knowledge concerning Constitutional law that you can achieve in a lifetime.

[Glenn Vardy]

51. Right of militia?

You will notice that the amendment does not say that the right of the militias to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. No doubt the founders anticipated corruption of the institution of the militias, and consequently they determined that the ultimate repository of military force shall reside in the hands of the people, not the militias.

They didn't secure the right to the "militia," "state governments," or individual "citizens/persons." No, they secured the right to "the people" the collective body from where ALL just powers are derived.

[Atypical Liberal]

63. How many people constitute a collective?

They didn't secure the right to the "militia," "state governments," or individual "citizens/persons." No, they secured the right to "the people" the collective body from where ALL just powers are derived.

Well, again, all I can say is all nine Supreme Court Justices disagreed with your interpretation.

Also, how many people do you need to get together to constitute a collective? We've got some 4.5 million NRA members. Is that sufficient? Or do we have to have 100% participation of the population? Or is two enough?

How many people have to get together before they have the right to speak against the government?

How many people have to be gathered together before they are secure in their persons and belongings?

How many people have to be gathered together before they are protected from unreasonable searches?

How many people must be gathered together before they can choose a religion to follow without harassment from the government?

How many people have to be gathered together before they can petition the government to redress grievances?

How many people have to live in a house before the government is not allowed to quarter troops in it?

Is it OK for the government to arrest individuals without a warrant?

Are only groups of people entitled to speedy trials?

Are individuals not entitled to trials by juries of their peers?

Is it OK to have excessive bail or punishments on individuals?

Do you see how absurd your line of reasoning is? The entire Bill of Rights is a restriction on the federal government, not on the people. But even if this were not so, it is preposterous to think that a group of people can have a right while individuals cannot also have the same right.

If you have to be part of a group in order to exercise a right, then you don't have any rights as an individual. That is ridiculous at face value.

[Glenn Vardy]

80. The WHOLE.

How many people constitute a collective?

It's nothing to do with numbers. It means the WHOLE as a body no matter how many individuals the body consists of.

In a few state constitutions AT THAT TIME, "the people" ALONE had the right to govern and regulate the internal police. This isn't a right that can be exercised by individuals acting alone, or any group of individuals other than the WHOLE body of the people. This proves BEYOND DOUBT that collective rights differ IN THEIR APPLICATION. The security of a State was NOT intended to be a matter for individuals or groups of individuals other than the WHOLE people, as a body, JUST LIKE the provisions about governing and regulating the police force. A provision in the same Declaration of Rights protecting "the people" from unreasonable searches wouldn't prove that individuals have the right to govern and regulate the police, would it? They differ IN THER APPLICATION.

[one-eyed fat man]

35. Time to get your knickers in a twist

From the Kentucky Constitution: http://www.lrc.state.ky.us/legresou/constitu/001.htm

Section 1 - Seventh - Keep and Bear Arms

The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State, subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons.

The Kentucky court of appeals settled the question in clear and unambiguous language.

Holland v. Commonwealth 1956

"In our state the legislature is empowered only to deny to citizens the right to carry concealed weapons. The constitutional provision is an affirmation of the faith that all men have the inherent right to arm themselves for the defense of themselves and of the state. The only limitation concerns the mode of carrying such instruments. We observe, via obiter dicta, that although a person is granted the right to carry a weapon openly, a severe penalty is imposed for carrying it concealed. If the gun is worn outside the jacket or shirt in full view, no one may question the wearer’s right so to do; but if it is carried under the jacket or shirt, the violator is subject to imprisonment for not less than two nor more than five years. The heavy emphasis...is upon the undue advantage given to a person who is able suddenly to expose and use a weapon..."

Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear sees no reason to change the current “open carry” policy for handguns at the State Capitol. Beshear says he feels comfortable and safe in the building. But even if he wanted to alter the policy, Beshear says he doesn’t have the authority. "...the legislature is in control of that issue, and not the governor,” he said.

The right of a FREE people to bear arms for their defense is very basic, and has always been a counter to the misuse of arms by criminals. Clubs, staves, walking sticks, shillelaghs, knives, dirks, daggers, swords, rapiers, and revolvers have all been carried as a defense against highwaymen, marauders, assassins, robbers and thieves who would prey on the law-abiding.

[Glassunion]

38. These are not the "existing" provisions in state BoR's

In fact, these are not "provisions" at all.

A Bill of Rights is just what it says it is. Rights. Not stipulations, clauses, or provisions; they are the rights of the citizens.

That aside, these are not the "existing" rights either. For example, PA has since updated their BOR and what you have posted is not what currently "exists".

On edit: WTF does this have to do with the gun industry?

[Glenn Vardy]

41. Revealing

Glassunion:
"...what you have posted is not what currently "exists".
--------------------------------------------------------

And that's what you thought I meant?

That you'll ALL avoid the point made in my post is revealing

[gejohnston]

42. still missing the point

still the ninth amendment. Individual theory still won 9-0. Second amendment five, ninth four.

[spin]

43. At the best you have pointed out that in some states the BoR

in the state Constitution talk about "militia provisions". In other states, such as Florida, the wording is different.

CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA Article I

SECTION 8. Right to bear arms.—
(a) The right of the people to keep and bear arms in
defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the
state shall not be infringed, except that the manner of
bearing arms may be regulated by law.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?Mode=Constitution&Submenu=3&Tab=statutes&CFID=224563556&CFTOKEN=18957294#A1S08

For some reason you feel the fact that SOME state Constitutions do not mention the word "keep" in the section of their BoR that discusses RKBA shows that the gun industry is guilty of pulling a scam on the American public.

Excuse me, but I do not follow your logic.

[iverglas]

48. it's like whacking moles

Here's your problem:

http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm

1838: "That the free white men of this State shall have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence." Art. I, § 21.

1865: Clause omitted.

1868: "The people shall have the right to bear arms in defence of themselves and of the lawful authority of the State." Art. I, § 22.

1885: "The right of the people to bear arms in defence of themselves and the lawful authority of the State, shall not be infringed, but the Legislature may prescribe the manner in which they may be borne." Art. I, § 20.

1968: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the state shall not be infringed, except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law." Art. I, § 8.

What it currently says is really quite gobsmacking ... that someone would pack a constitution full of junk like this:

(a) The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the state shall not be infringed, except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law.

(b) There shall be a mandatory period of three days, excluding weekends and legal holidays, between the purchase and delivery at retail of any handgun. For the purposes of this section, "purchase" means the transfer of money or other valuable consideration to the retailer, and "handgun" means a firearm capable of being carried and used by one hand, such as a pistol or revolver. Holders of a concealed weapon permit as prescribed in Florida law shall not be subject to the provisions of this paragraph.

(c) The legislature shall enact legislation implementing subsection (b) of this section, effective no later than December 31, 1991, which shall provide that anyone violating the provisions of subsection (b) shall be guilty of a felony.

(d) This restriction shall not apply to a trade in of another handgun. Art. I, § 8 (sections (b)-(d) added in 1990).

Phew.


But anyhow, you guys just do keep making the case against yourselves, doncha?!

[gejohnston]

53. that is because Florida

amends its constitution by referendum. I am sure there is all kinds of stupid shit. I fail to see how anyone is making a case against themselves.

[iverglas]

59. "I fail to see how anyone is making a case against themselves."

Then apparently you are failing to read what is placed under your nose.

Every attempt to refute the original thesis here has failed, and failed quite spectacularly in that they have all proved that thesis.

This is what Maine's constitution said in 1838:

That the free white men of this State shall have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence.

Ya see?

[gejohnston]

70. Like I said before

Like Obama, I see the Constitution as a set of negative rights. That means the BoR is limits on the state, not citizens. There is also the ninth amendment, which the minority in Heller cited as making RKBA an individual right. In other words, this is an academic exercise that has little relevance to then or now.

Maine vs Vermont, so what? Vermont became a state before Maine.

[iverglas]

73. then for pity's sake

That means the BoR is limits on the state, not citizens.

... stop trying to base your "right" on the Bill of Rights.

Ye gods and little fishies.


Maine vs Vermont, so what? Vermont became a state before Maine.

What can you possibly be talking about?

[gejohnston]

76. I only speak for myself

I don't remember me personally claiming any such thing, other than using the ninth maybe. Still, the BoR says what the state may not do, not what individuals do. Individual sovereignty via the Enlightenment, embrace it.

VERMONT (July 8, 1777)
XV. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State; and, as standing armies, in the time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

[SteveM]

49. "...point made?" You mean "gun industry?" Non sequitur.

[Glassunion]

58. What exactly is your point?

The Gun Industry Scam!

The existing provisions in state BoR's

<Here is where you went on to list a select few clips from the bill of rights from a handful of states>

Only one of these provisions contains the word "keep" and that's for "the people" and the "common defence."

They're ALL militia provisions.

1. The gun industry scam... What are you talking about? Where in your OP did you define what the scam is, or how it is related to your post.

2. You then said, "The existing provisions in state BoR's" and then went on to list them. These "provisions" currently do not exist. So what are you getting at?

3. Are you claiming that these little clips from the BORs from these states are defining the militia rights and not the rights of citizens?

[iverglas]

47. good lord, that's beyond belief

A Bill of Rights is just what it says it is. Rights. Not stipulations, clauses, or provisions; they are the rights of the citizens.

One doesn't know what to say, even if one could say it, had one's breath not been taken so thoroughly away.

google search results "provisions of the bill of rights"
About 3,490,000 results

Yikes.


That aside, these are not the "existing" rights either. For example, PA has since updated their BOR and what you have posted is not what currently "exists".

If you read that over carefully, you might start to get the point ...

[Glenn Vardy]

52. Clauses

A Bill of Rights is just what it says it is. Rights. Not.. clauses

"THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive CLAUSES should be added..."

[beevul]

56. Clauses applicable and binding on WHOM glen?

Care to take a poke at answering that?

[Glassunion]

62. Under your definition of the word they are not clauses.

The bill of rights are restrictions not on the people, but on government.

From your posts, you seem to be under the impression that the Bill of Rights, in both the individual states and the US, are a list of permissions that our government is allowing us to partake in, only under certain stipulations.

In the very preamble that you quoted, the clauses mentioned are applied to the government not to the people. The remaining text of the preamble: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

[iverglas]

65. I feel I have to ask

Are you going to offer "English is not my first language" as the explanation for this bizarre burble?

Do you actually not have a clue what "provisions" and "clauses" are???

[Glenn Vardy]

81. What "clauses?"

In the very preamble that you quoted, the clauses mentioned are applied to the government not to the people.

What "clauses?" For some (unknown) reason, you stated that the BoR hasn't got "clauses." Now you've made a statement about who the "clauses" are applied to. Does the preamble say anything about securing ten individual rights? The purpose of making false, blatent assertions is to pull the discussion away from points that you can't address.

[aikoaiko]

46. What is the scam?

:shrug:

[gravity556]

55. Skipped right over the states that provide for personal defense.

Not going to dig through to correct the rest of your biased work, but keep this in mind:

Arizona: The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the State shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men. Art. II, § 26 (enacted 1912).

[iverglas]

60. skipped right over the entire discussion

The very first line in the OP:

The existing provisions in state BoR's

Now read down the list, and recall other threads in the last few days in this forum, and note that the provisions in question were those EXISTING AT THE TIME THE BILL OF RIGHTS IN THE U.S. CONSTITUTION WAS WRITTEN.

The subject matter ... and isn't it amazing that I am the one grasping this? ... is HOW TO INTERPRET THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO YOUR CONSTITUTION.

The Arizona provision enacted in 1912 doesn't really go a long way in that direction, does it?

[gejohnston]

61. because Arizona was part of Mexico during the founding

and became a state in 1912, but still before the collective theory was thought of or used in court.

[iverglas]

64. now go back and start over

Read the opening post, and say that those provisions were written "before the collective theory was thought of".

Those provisions are the very embodiment of the collective right "theory".

[gejohnston]

67. still has nothing to do with

the ninth amendment. Nor does it have anything to do with the BoR being limits on the state. They were a product of the individual sovereignty part of the enlightenment. That is why I find this whole exercise academic and not really relevant.

[Llewlladdwr]

68. What exactly is the scam? NT

[gejohnston]

82. At least I'm not the only one

trying to figure out the scam or the point.

[ileus]

71. IMHO the scam is the fact all the goodies you need to buy with your new firearm.

[apocalypsehow]

83. Well, of course the "collective" reading of the Second amendment is the correct one, and once a

Democratic president appoints another progressive - a real one, not that mythical creature known as the "pro-gun liberal" - to the Supreme Court, the vote will be 5-4 for that constitutional view.

My question is this: if President Obama gets the opportunity to appoint another high court justice, and it can be reasonably inferred from that appointee's writings that they are the fifth vote to overturn Heller and all its related jurisprudence, while at the same time being reliably progressive on every other judicial issue that might come before them, will the "pro-gun liberals" in the Gungeon prove by supporting that appointment, and the president who makes it?

Now, I don't want to talk about some other issue, and I don't want to argue about the Second amendment. What I want to hear is "yes, I will support such an appointment" or "no, I will not support such an appointment."

I doubt I'll get many takers on the question itself, and am equally sure we'll be treated to volumes of noisy jazz wanting to talk about everything but the specific question on the table.

[Glenn Vardy]

84. And....

...would the nation feel free with the threat of violence from armed, right-wing mobs (calling themselves the "militia") hanging in the air?

[apocalypsehow]

85. Uhhhhh...wut?

:shrug:

[friendly_iconoclast]

86. The *entire* Supreme Court disagrees with you about the "collective" reading

It's obvious you have not actually read the dissents in Heller, as they do not support your "one changed vote will bring back the collective interpretation" dream:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD.html

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., PETITIONERS v.
DICK ANTHONY HELLER

On writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(June 26, 2008)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Justice Stevens, with whom Justice Souter, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer join, dissenting.

The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD1.html

Breyer, J., dissenting

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., PETITIONERS v.
DICK ANTHONY HELLER

On writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(June 26, 2008)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Justice Breyer, with whom Justice Stevens, Justice Souter, and Justice Ginsburg join, dissenting.


....II
The Second Amendment says 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 interpreting and applying this Amendment, I take as a starting point the following four propositions, based on our precedent and today’s opinions,to which I believe the entire Court subscribes:

(1) The Amendment protects an “individual” right—i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred. See, e.g., ante, at 22 (opinion of the Court); ante, at 1 (Stevens, J., dissenting)......

Looks like you'll need five new justices to get what you want...

[apocalypsehow]

87. Nope just one. In any event is that a "yes" or a "no"? Or do you need the question repeated for you?

"My question is this: if President Obama gets the opportunity to appoint another high court justice, and it can be reasonably inferred from that appointee's writings that they are the fifth vote to overturn Heller and all its related jurisprudence, while at the same time being reliably progressive on every other judicial issue that might come before them, will the "pro-gun liberals" in the Gungeon prove by supporting that appointment, and the president who makes it?"

Answer the question.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

89. Wouldn't happen

So its a non-issue.

Heller wont just simply be overturned. After all, to where would you appeal now? There is no higher court.

So, you'd have to bring a new case which attempted to prove that somehow, someway, in the face of 225+ years of precedent and history, as well as multiple USSC cases, the RKBA is collective rather than individual.

Will. Not. Happen.

Simple as that.

You have a better chance of getting Marbury v. Madison "overturned"...

[apocalypsehow]

93. Answer the question. Thanks. n/t.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

97. Sigh...

I would not support anyone in any political office who had the stated goal to restrict my rights - ANY of them.

[apocalypsehow]

114. So, you would not support a Democratic president appointing a progressive, liberal court justice.

Got it.

You did see the sign when you came through the door, right? It's "Democratic Underground." Just in case you thought it was something else, thought I'd help out.

[gejohnston]

116. Is this a litmus test for you?

Would you support a Democratic president appointed a progressive, liberal justice (or simply not an activist in either direction) that does not share your view on the 2A?
Or one that shares your view on 2A but thinks Citizens United vs FEC was correctly decided, which is what the ACLU thinks, would you support that?

[apocalypsehow]

120. Still waiting on that "yes" or "no" - answer the question put to you. n/t.

[gejohnston]

154. I don't answer stupid questions based

on false premises by people who have no interest in thoughtful discussion.
Heller does not ban sensible regulation, unless you define sensible differently than I do.

DC ban was not sensible nor was it reasonable.

[apocalypsehow]

161. I've already got you marked down for "Refused to answer/unable to work out the linguistic meaning of

of the straightforward question," so you're good.

[gejohnston]

168. I've already marked you down as

being totally clueless and can't answer or explain your positions because you have no earthly idea what you are talking about.
Since Heller does not prevent sensible regulation, your question is stupid and based on a false premise.

[apocalypsehow]

170. That's nice. n/t.

[Glenn Vardy]

101. Is it in the bag?

Heller wont just simply be overturned. After all, to where would you appeal now?

So the scam's worked?

...in the face of 225+ years of precedent and history

Niether support you. But say it often enough and people will be scammed. EVEN in the early case that you guys rely on which mentions the Second Amendment, they said that "THE stated purpose" of the amendment was to secure a "well regulated militia." For some reason, the judge ranted on about how persons of ANY age and ANY sex could carry ANY weapon for the purpose of militia service. But we all know that that's a load of crap, don't we?

[gejohnston]

118. not about a scam

but would have to find a court case to get it moved up to the SCOTUS and get them to take it. Not easy.
Do you know it it is a lot of crap?

[friendly_iconoclast]

90. "Yeah, they wrote that- but they didn't mean it" That reply is the Aswan High Dam of denial.

You are now claiming that the justices' dissents don't actually mean what they say. (My answer is "Yes", btw.)
Not that it'll make any difference- 7-2 for an individual right still wins.

In your opinion, which justices support a "collective right" interpretation of the Second Amendment?
And if they do, why on Earth did they not say so in the two Heller dissents?

[apocalypsehow]

92. Heller was decided 5-4 - math lessons are in order. So the answer is "yes"?"

You would support such a justice?

Edit: despite the further attempt at deflection, finally got an answer.

[friendly_iconoclast]

95. But *all* the justices held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right.

The dissents were over whether the DC laws that Dick Heller was challenging were constitutional (obviously the dissenters held
that they were.) You might try reading both dissents in their entirety- I linked to both, and they're not that long

Willful ignorance is one thing, but denial of observable reality is another thing entirely. No wonder you lot are losing ground:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=212694

More than one poster there denied that guns were confiscated, even after being shown video of same and links to relevant citations of state laws authorizing confiscations.

[apocalypsehow]

96. One more justice, and Heller is overturned. Since you said above you would support such a ruling,

by supporting a Supreme Court justice who would vote to overturn it, what is there left to argue about?

"No wonder you lot are losing ground"

The census numbers say otherwise. An increasingly Blue America = increasingly sensible, progressive gun restrictions and laws. I'm sure you welcome that, right? Right?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

98. Blue does not equal...

...pro-gun-control.

Do not make the mistake of assuming that is the case.

[apocalypsehow]

109. Yes, it does. n/t.

[rrneck]

123. Blue only equals gun control

in the most superficial interpretation of the term.

[apocalypsehow]

126. Tell it to Chicago. And NYC. And Milwaukee. And California. And Massachusetts. And...just about any

other Blue oasis of progressive politics and sensible gun control policies. I'm sure those folks would be interested to know that some anonymous "enthusiast" in a sub-forum somewhere on the internet thought the plain terms in which their statutory codes regulate firearms were "superficial"...( :eyes: )

In any event, have you answered the question yet? Is it "yes" or "no"? No more superficial jazz: a question has been laid on the table. A "yes" or a "no" is solicited. Which is it? :shrug:

[rrneck]

135. Wooooooooow! Youre tough!

Gee, I dunno. It's so hard to decide under the withering assault of your impeccable logic. Its been so long since I participated in an undergraduate bull session this bombastic and absurd it will take me all of two seconds to say yes, I would support the president's nominee.

Your silly little ideological litmus test successfully ignores reality. Nobody does anything for just one reason and even though the vast majority of gun owning liberals would answer yes, they might for instance also send money to the NRA that might otherwise go to a Democratic candidate. They might go out and buy a shit load of guns in anticipation of a ban. And those are just the die hard liberals. Elections are won on the (generally pro gun) political center. Welcome to the real world.

[apocalypsehow]

138. Great map: as demographics turn that chunk of the NA continent increasingly Blue, the gun control

laws of those Blue areas are going to come with them, as sure as the day is long. That's what all the sneering anger is about, and I well understand: where I on wrong side of history, as our RKBA "enthusiasts" most surely are, I'd be quite upset about it myself. Especially if I couldn't do a thing about it, which none of you can. I'd even resent it when someone pointed it out, and point and scream and sputter.


BTW, have you registered your "yes" or "no" to the original question, yet?

It's quick & easy: type three letters in the one instance; two in the other. Hit "Post message." Look forward to your "yes" or "no" - thanks.

[rrneck]

140. Do you really think

only Republicans are buying over a million guns a month? That the spread of shall issue concealed carry laws were some Republican coup? That any political party, especially Democrats, are some monolithic voting bloc that falls in line behind a singling issue? In fact, if your mythical supreme court nominee had all the right liberal credentials except gun control would you support him/her? Answer the question. I already answered yours. I guess you need to learn to read.

[apocalypsehow]

142. Still waiting on that "yes" or "no" - answer the question put to you. n/t.

[rrneck]

143. It's in post

#135. The one with the giant purple map, Stevie.

[apocalypsehow]

145. So, the answer is "yes": rrneck would support a SC justice who would vote to overturn Heller, and

the related jurisprudence that has come after it in 5-4 decisions.

Great! Another "pro-gun liberal" who is willing to see the right-wing sewage that constituted the majority opinion in Heller overturned, even if it means sensible gun control laws get to stay on the books! Hallelujah! More progress!

[rrneck]

146. There is a question pending for you

and I'll add another.

Do you have a firearm free self defense solution that works better than a gun? Or are you satisfied with your off the shelf mass produced paper thin consumercentric ideology designed to make you feel good?

[apocalypsehow]

148. Nope, no question pending for me: go peddle that loaded noise to someone who's interested.

That wouldn't be me.

If you rephrase your question to conform with the minimum standards of decorum, civility, & relevance, and ask again real polite-like, I might favor you with a reply. Otherwise, see yah! Thanks.

[gejohnston]

150. pot meet kettle

since it is obvious to me that you confuse Alan Keyes like rants, ridicule without knowing what you are talking about with thoughtful discussion.

[rrneck]

163. It's SOP

Come out full of piss and vinegar and when they have to put up or shut up they get their feelings hurt and run away.

[rrneck]

151. That's what I thought.

So, you got nothing. That's OK. We'll just let that question hang there until you are able to face it.

:rofl:

[gejohnston]

149. define sensible

I have yet to see a definition of sensible. That said, I fail to see how Heller is right wing sewage. Citizens United, yeah.

[friendly_iconoclast]

144. Vermont is a "Blue oasis of progressive politics and sensible gun control policies."

Why did you leave it out?

[apocalypsehow]

147. Vermont: population 637, 337. Combined population of CA, MA, NYC, Chicago, & Milwaukee = 55,267,149*...

Hmmmmm....yes, I'm just at a total loss as to why Vermont isn't particularly relevant when it comes to the future of Blue America and the status of gun control in the United States in the years ahead.

Just stumped, I tell yah!


( :eyes: )








*I even shorted the actual population numbers a bit by not including the metropolitan statistical areas in the total, which would have pushed the total Blue areas to tens of millions more. Ancillary question: why are so many folks in the Gungeon seemingly so resentful of the expansion of the Blue regions of America in contrast to the shrinkage of the Red, right-wing asshole parts of same, and the progressive laws that come with that expansion? Wery, wery curious....

[gejohnston]

153. California

started under Reagan and right wing Republicans in 1967.
Your question is based on a couple of false premises, so it is not worth answering.

Heller did not ban "sensible regulation" or any regulation outside of bans. DC was a ban. DC was neither sensible nor reasonable for a number of reasons. Same with Chicago.

Define sensible
How does Heller prevent those sensible regulations
what do you know about current federal regulations
various state regulations
Other than the fact that you don't like it, what is it about Heller you don't like

[friendly_iconoclast]

156. Be prepared for an onslaught of electronic logorrhea, little or none of which...

...will answer what you asked.

[gejohnston]

158. I know

by one of the few self described progressives that went to the Alan Keyes school of debate.

[gejohnston]

159. What about Milwaukee?

STATE PREEMPTION OF LOCAL GUN CONTROL ORDINANCES
Wisconsin and approximately 40 other states preempt local authority to regulate firearms.
1995 Wisconsin Act 72 prohibited local ordinances that would exceed state regulation of the
sale, use, possession, carrying, transportation, licensing, registration, or taxation of firearms
. Ordinances that are no more stringent than state law are permitted. For example,
municipalities may restrict the discharge of firearms within municipal boundaries.
Act 72 invalidated existing local controls on the purchase, possession, and use of hand­
guns in municipalities around the state, including ordinances in Eau Claire, Green Bay,
La Crosse, Madison, Milwaukee, Racine, Sheboygan, Stevens Point, Superior, and Wausau.

http://legis.wisconsin.gov/lrb/pubs/wb/00wb11.pdf
http://legis.wisconsin.gov/lrb/pubs/wb/08wb16.pdf

ENHANCED ENFORCEMENT EFFORTS IN MILWAUKEE
Milwaukee’s Operation Ceasefire. In January 2000, Milwaukee inaugurated a program
of strict enforcement of federal and state firearms laws. Modeled on Virginia’s “Project Exile”,
which began operations in 1997, it involves swift prosecution and harsh punishment for viola­
tors of firearms laws using special gun courts, joint local-state-federal enforcement efforts and
a prosecution task force that seeks to impose tougher penalties for felons who use guns. A city­
wide media campaign designed to deter the unlawful possession of firearms is supported by
state appropriations of $150,000 in the 1999-2001 biennium

Look, they do or did something both the NRA and Brady Campaign agree on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Exile

[apocalypsehow]

160. What about Groucho?

Because asking random questions and inserting idle irrelevancies which have nothing to do with the discussion at hand is such, such fun!


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=452256&mesg_id=453460

[gejohnston]

166. You said Milwaukee had strict gun laws

so that was hardly irrelevant. Oh yeah that's right. You make stupid statements you can't back up about stuff you have no clue about. On top of that, you play childish word games.

[apocalypsehow]

169. I said:

"And...just about any

other Blue oasis of progressive politics and sensible gun control policies."

Not a speck of which has been invalidated by any irrelevancy you have posted to date - but nice try.

[gejohnston]

173. half assed back pedal

but nice try. So what the hell is sensible gun control policy? Do you know?

[apocalypsehow]

175. half assed falsehood

per usual.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=452256&mesg_id=453460

[gejohnston]

177. what falsehood is that?

You mentioned the place specifically. That made it relevant.

[apocalypsehow]

178. Comprehending what one reads: it's what for breakfast.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=452389&mesg_id=454607

Good luck with try #3. :thumbsup:

[gejohnston]

180. you should try it sometime

[apocalypsehow]

181. Try parsing out the linguistic meaning of my straightforward "yes" or "no" question first, then I

might - might - take anything you have to post semi-seriously.

Do you need a link to the original question? :shrug:


On edit:no, not "seriously" - "semi-seriously" is about the best I can do.

[gejohnston]

185. fair enough

Like I said, I don't answer stupid questions based on false premises by those who seem more interested in troll like behavior than thoughtful discussion.

Heller allows sensible regulation.

[apocalypsehow]

188. So, still no "yes" or "no" to a straightforward question. You do realize that it's not really

"Heller" I'm asking about, don't you, but, rather the liberal supreme court vote appointed by a Democratic president to potentially overturn Heller?

Can we get a "yes" or a "no" on it please?

[gejohnston]

190. none of the above.

[Name removed]

192. Deleted message

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

[rrneck]

199. And we never left this:

Do you have a firearm free self defense solution that works better than a gun? Or are you satisfied with your off the shelf mass produced paper thin consumercentric ideology designed to make you feel good?

Or is the grand inquisitor suddenly at a loss for words? All you have to do is type yes or no...

[We_Have_A_Problem]

211. No, it does not.

VT, for example, is a very blue state. It also has the least restrictive gun laws in the nation.

Want to try again?

[Glenn Vardy]

100. Which individuals? To do what?

The dissent didn't say that the right belongs to EVERY individual, like freedom of religion. They said that the right belongs to each individual MILITIAMAN. They didn't say that the right protected the right of those militiamen to "carry guns."

To argue that the right belongs to "individuals" but is "limited in scope" was a tactical mistake. The right belongs to "the people" as a body, and those individuals eligible to serve would do so on behalf of "the people." Even though this would exclude three quarters of the "Individuals," it could STILL be said that "the people" are bearing arms for their security. It ain't about looking after number one.

[Euromutt]

107. Do you apply that same argumentation to the rest of the Bill of Rights?

Do the rights of the people "peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances" and "to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" only apply to individuals called, or eligible to be called, into government service?

If not, why does "the right of the people" as used in the Second Amendment mean something different from the way it's used elsewhere in the Bill of Rights?

[Glenn Vardy]

121. Collective rights differ IN THEIR APPLICATION

Wherever you see "the people," a collective body is being identified. This is true in State Declaration of Rights and the US Bill of Rights. Collective rights differ IN THEIR APPLICATION. In a few of the State BoR's at that time "the people" had the exclusive right to govern and regulate the police. In those same BoR's "the people" had the right to be free from unreasonable searches. Now, an individuals belonging to that body has the right to be free from unreasonable searches, but he doesn't have the right to regulate the police as an individual. They're both collective rights, but they're not applied in the same way. None of them apply to all individuals like free speech, freedom of religion and the right to trial by jury in the US BoR.

[apocalypsehow]

110. Still waiting. n/t.

[friendly_iconoclast]

124. Have some coffee and clean your reading glasses. I said "yes" in post #90.

Denial of observable reality, indeed...

[apocalypsehow]

130. So, the answer is "yes": f_i would support a SC justice who would vote to overturn Heller.

Good stuff! I'll put you down for the progressive and sensible side of the issue of gun control, one supported by the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, even if only by legal proxy. That's progress.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

99. What was decided by a 5-4 decision...

...was that DC's law was unconstitutional.

What was UNANIMOUSLY held was that the 2nd protected an individual right.

McDonald was similar - the 2nd Amendment applies to the states (5-4), unanimous agreement that it protected an individual right.

The Supreme Court has never, not once, held that the 2nd Amendment was a collective right, or that it imposed a restriction upon the individual.

[apocalypsehow]

112. Answer the question. Thanks. n/t.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

212. An irrational

and inaccurate question cannot be answered.

[Euromutt]

108. To be fair, the SCOTUS used that same argument in Slaughterhouse...

...when the Court gutted the "privileges and immunities" clause of the 14th Amendment, leading to this tedious "incorporation" of the Bill of Rights one lengthy court case at a time. I will grudgingly admit some admiration for Clarence Thomas for taking the position that the Slaughterhouse precedent should be overturned as a travesty of justice, not respected.

[ileus]

88. I could never support an anti-2 appointment.

The freedom afforded by the second amendment is the #1 issue that could/would impact me.

[apocalypsehow]

91. Why? We're all good liberal Democrats down here, aren't we? Well, allow me to rephrase that:

we're all good liberal Democrats + one good Social Democrat who is a member of a political party even further to the progressive side of the scale than the U.S. Democratic Party. Hope I characterized that correctly. :-)

In any event, given every other issue that such a justice might decide to the benefit of progressive policies and liberal values, you would take one issue, and one almost uniformly supported by the U.S. right-wing at that, to take a stand against that appointment by a Democratic president?

Just want to be clear here, so there are no misunderstandings.

BTW, thanks for your straight-forward answer, as opposed to an attempt to duck & dodge it, which is all I'd gotten so far before your reply.

[Glenn Vardy]

102. Tell me....

I could never support an anti-2 appointment. The freedom afforded by the second amendment is the #1 issue that could/would impact me.

Were you enslaved before Heller? Will you be disarmed and thrown into a FEMA camp if SCotUS interprets the Second Amendment correctly? Don't be easy prey for those right wing nutters.

[Euromutt]

106. What's "of course" about it? Do you favor a "collective reading" of the other amendments as well?

At least, those amendments that guarantee a "right of the people." Does in your opinion the government not require a warrant to search and seize the person or property of an individual, only to search and seize the persons and property of the entire people at once? Do the people only have the right to peaceably assemble when performing a service for the government? Does the Tenth Amendment reserve "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states" "to the states respectively, or to the states"?

In short, why should "the right of the people" as used in the Second Amendment mean something different from the "the right of the people" as used everywhere else in the Bill of Rights?

<...> will the "pro-gun liberals" in the Gungeon prove by supporting that appointment, and the president who makes it?

Prove what? You're missing a clause there.

[apocalypsehow]

113. Not interested in all this diversionary jazz: answer the question put to the "enthusiasts":

"My question is this: if President Obama gets the opportunity to appoint another high court justice, and it can be reasonably inferred from that appointee's writings that they are the fifth vote to overturn Heller and all its related jurisprudence, while at the same time being reliably progressive on every other judicial issue that might come before them, will the "pro-gun liberals" in the Gungeon prove by supporting that appointment, and the president who makes it?

Now, I don't want to talk about some other issue, and I don't want to argue about the Second amendment. What I want to hear is "yes, I will support such an appointment" or "no, I will not support such an appointment."


How hard can a "yes" or a "no" be to type? :shrug:

[Euromutt]

198. By "diversionary jazz" you mean you can't support your assertion.

That's not a question, it's a statement. Your assertion was insupportable bullshit, and when called on it, you'd prefer to divert attention from it. Understandable, but no less dishonest.

In the interim, I asked for clarification on your question, to wit, "prove what?" Your question seems to be missing the clause describing what it is that pro-gun liberals are supposed to prove. I might further note that nobody's actually under any obligation to answer your question, and certainly not by the only answers you want to entertain, not least because it's a plurium interrogationum fallacy (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#manyq). You want my answer? It's "it depends" because there any number of additional factors that could influence my answer, including (but not limited to) what other candidates are available.

[petronius]

117. Your question is nonsensical flamebait, poorly-framed and based on a series of errors

That said, I'll support the most broadly progressive nominee available, although I'd prefer one that is progressive on all issues, not all-minus-one.

With that out of the way, do you understand yet that that all nine of the current justices disagree with your subject line, not just five of them? And that erasing Heller entirely would do nothing at all to change the fact that the 'individual' reading is actually the correct one?

[apocalypsehow]

122. So is that a "yes" or a "no"? Not interested if you LIKE the question or not: type one, please.

Or don't, and make it clear you have no interest in answering it, in which case I'll simply disregard any further replies you make about the matter. But all that other jazz doesn't interest or concern me: answer the question put to you. "Yes" or "no" isn't really that hard of a concept to wrap your head around, and it's easy to type.

[petronius]

127. Do you not understand that insistence on carefully contrived yes/no questions is the crutch

of a weak discussant? And that it's even more pathetic when the framing of the query is riddled with errors and so transparently designed to be flamebait? "Like" has got nothing to do with it.

But if it makes you happy: yes, if the best nominee Obama could find is one who would have voted against Heller then I'd support his choice. I thought that was clear in my response. (More generally, I don't have or approve of simple litmus tests like that, except that I expect progressive presidents to nominate progressive candidates, and I realize that even 'progressive' justices get it wrong sometimes.)

Now, do you understand, after all the responses to you, the factual, rhetorical, and logical flaws that make your question so nonsensical? You can limit yourself to a yes/no if you like, or answer at greater length - I don't need to play feeble games to carry on a conversation...

[friendly_iconoclast]

128. I think I found his role model: The Prohibition Party

As with alcohol, so it is with guns:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_Party

Prohibition Party
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Prohibition Party (PRO) is a political party in the United States best known for its historic opposition to the sale or consumption of alcoholic beverages. It is the oldest existing third party in the US. The party was an integral part of the temperance movement. While never one of the leading parties in the United States, it was an important force in the politics of the United States during the late 19th century and the early years of the 20th century. It has declined dramatically since the repeal of Prohibition in 1933. The party earned only 643 votes in the 2008 presidential election. The Prohibition Party advocates a variety of socially conservative causes, including "stronger and more vigorous enforcement of laws against the sale of alcoholic beverages and tobacco products, against gambling, illegal drugs, pornography, and commercialized vice."...

[apocalypsehow]

129. So, the answer is "yes": petronius would support a SC justice who would vote to overturn Heller.

Great! So you actually support sensible gun control, if only by legal proxy, after all.

[petronius]

131. Seems like you forgot something there - I'll look forward to the rest of your response

:shrug:

(As for your non sequitur: we all support 'reasonable' gun laws; rejecting Heller isn't that. You should actually read and think here, rather than continuing your unimpressive little game...)

[apocalypsehow]

133. Seems like I asked a question, and, after much diversion & obfuscation you finally spit out a "yes."...

So :shrug: right back at yah.

"You should actually read and think here, rather than continuing your unimpressive little game...)"

Hey, if you don't like answering straightforward questions, no one's forcing you to hit "Post message." Funny how that works: when I don't feel like interacting with another poster on an internet forum, I just pass by their posts and find someone else to talk with. Highly recommended - it seems to work every time....








(wait for it...wait for it...)

[petronius]

136. If that's really how it seems to you, you should be embarrassed to admit it

This was a quite feeble performance from you, AH - it won't surprise me at all if you choose to slink away without addressing your litany of errors. But if you decide not to hide from what has actually been said to you, I'm happy to continue...

[apocalypsehow]

137. Hey, I'm delighted with the answer I (finally) got: petronius supports overturning Heller via a

progressive supreme court appointment. It's obvious that the embarrassment, to the extent it exists, is on the fellow who had to grit teeth to spit out the "yes" to what was a straightforward question, and now continues to want to argue about that "yes" he already gave.

And, of course, you continue to post angry replies to me, even after I outlined to you a sure-fire (no pun intended) way you could avoid being "forced" to answer straightforward questions you don't like: quit hitting "Post message" to AH's replies. But by all means continue: that "yes" of yours is a vote for progressive legal jurisprudence in the form of an overturning of Heller and all that followed on a 5-4 vote. That's where the true "embarrassment" rests - on the fellow who finally gritted out that "yes."



Edit: typo + revise & extension.

[petronius]

139. Trying to bury your fail in a flood of words? I actually answered your question in my first response

Why are you so afraid to answer mine? :shrug:

[apocalypsehow]

141. As I have stated repeatedly: I'm delighted with the answer you provided me, to wit, "yes."

You keep insisting that my delighted acceptance of your "yes" - yes, petronius supports a progressive appointment to the USSC even if it means overturning Heller, et al - constitutes some kind of "fail" or instance of "embarrassment" or something not right with the world, and you keep posting replies that indicate that your "yes" means something other than what "yes" traditionally means when a straightforward question is asked. It's quite curious.

I'll say it again: thank you for your reply, "yes." Thank you for supporting progressive values on the USSC, even if that appointment leads to the overturning, 5-4, of the jurisprudence to be found in the rancid, right-wing filth that was the majority opinion in Heller.

Thank you for allowing me, with your continued superfluous replies, to continue to highlight your embrace of progressive values even at the expense of the gun lobby. As I said - that's progress!

[petronius]

162. I don't mean to be rude, but it seems that while you were fapping yourself over that

fetid and copious pantload you just delivered, you somehow neglected to answer even one of the questions you were asked. Here's a link in case you've forgotten. As you've so eloquently expressed, a DUer of even standard intelligence should have no difficulty addressing a simple query.

I do apologize if this causes you any further embarrassment, and I won't pester you again if you're unable or unwilling to contribute to the topic, but you seem so eager to join the conversation that I thought I'd offer you one more chance to actually, you know, join the conversation. After all, I wouldn't want anyone to get the (obviously erroneous) impression that you were merely a lightweight flibbertigibbet limited to playing silly word games...

[friendly_iconoclast]

164. I'm sure he's quite persuasive with those that already agree with him n/t

[gejohnston]

167. I'm not so sure even with those

there is full of shit, then there is full of shit.

[petronius]

171. It's disappointing, isn't it? You get your hopes up seeing a fresh face in the room,

only to have them dashed when the new arrival turns out to have the rhetorical and logical abilities of a wet sock. Despite its healthy self-image, I'd rank this one just a mere smidgen above the MyrnaLoy level of discernment (with an unfortunate infusion of Hoyt-like tendencies). Which, more's the pity, is still low enough to drag down the overall quality of the forum... :(

[apocalypsehow]

172. What's quite pleasing in the midst all that "disappointment," is your embrace of Heller's overturn!

Thanks again for your "yes": http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=452389&mesg_id=454498

Good stuff. :thumbsup:

[gejohnston]

174. what would really be pleasing if

future president Howard Dean appoints a SCOTUS that overturns regulations Heller allows.

[apocalypsehow]

176. what would really be pleasing if

degrees in gibberish were handed out down here in the Gungeon. The competition for Valedictorian would be insanely intense.

[gejohnston]

179. I don't think so

I think it would be only a couple of top contenders.

[apocalypsehow]

182. Then you wouldn't make it: I apologize.

There are so many other candidates pimping for the "pro-gun liberal" mirage ahead of you in the non-stop gibberish category down here, that you simply wouldn't get into the top ten, let alone top five.

Sorry, Charlie... ;(

[gejohnston]

187. Actually

I was thinking of anti gibberish. You would win the Alan Keyes award for pure bullshit.

[apocalypsehow]

191. You sure do seem to have an obsession with Alan Keyes. Which is curious in & of itself... n/t.

[Name removed]

193. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[petronius]

183. Yep, a tight race in a narrow field - but this new entrant does muddle the rankings a bit

An Awards Show would be fun, we could call them the Gungies. For this specific Gungie - Best Use of Gibberish that the Poster Apparently Thinks Contains Meaning - I can really only think of three high-quality applicants (I bet you can too)... ;)

[apocalypsehow]

186. How does it feel, having agreed to supporting the vote to overturn Heller, to be on the right side

of history for once? I imagine it feels good. For once.

Thanks again for your "yes" (one & all see link in Sig):

[gejohnston]

189. a shoe in for the Alan Keyes Award, no wait

I have someone else in mind for that. The Bill O'Reily Award perhaps?

[petronius]

194. Naming them for people, that's a good idea!

We could have:

The Bachmann Award - For Truly Incomprehensible Nonsense
The Palin Award - For Desperate Attempts to Be Insulting
The Inhofe Award - Best Pseudo-Scientific Poseur
The Limbaugh Award - For Numbing Repetitiveness

And, as you say, the O'Reilly and the Keyes.

I'm sure it would be a rule-breaker to actually name the nominees, but I wonder if your list is similar to mine... :shrug:

[apocalypsehow]

196. I've got an even better one: the "yes I'd support the progressive SC vote to overturn Heller" award

I nominate "petronius."

[friendly_iconoclast]

207. Let's not forget The Paisley Award- For Counterproductive Invective That Energizes...

...Those You Demonize.

[apocalypsehow]

165. "As I have stated repeatedly: I'm delighted with the answer you provided me, to wit, "yes."

You keep insisting that my delighted acceptance of your "yes" - yes, petronius supports a progressive appointment to the USSC even if it means overturning Heller, et al - constitutes some kind of "fail" or instance of "embarrassment" or something not right with the world, and you keep posting replies that indicate that your "yes" means something other than what "yes" traditionally means when a straightforward question is asked. It's quite curious.

I'll say it again: thank you for your reply, "yes." Thank you for supporting progressive values on the USSC, even if that appointment leads to the overturning, 5-4, of the jurisprudence to be found in the rancid, right-wing filth that was the majority opinion in Heller.

Thank you for allowing me, with your continued superfluous replies, to continue to highlight your embrace of progressive values even at the expense of the gun lobby. As I said - that's progress!"

Since you apparently missed the reply you responded to above - that's another curious condition I'd look into, were it me: responding to posts I either hadn't read or didn't understand - I thought I'd repeat it for your benefit.

Thanks again for your "yes" reply - good to know you're on the side of overturning the right-wing filth that is the majority opinion in Heller! :thumbsup:

[Glassunion]

134. If you just simply wanted a yes or no answer to a specific question

why did you include all of that other fluff in your post?

Nice tactic though...

1. state opinion of something and make blanket statements
2. post an question mildly related to step one
3. demand that you don't wish to talk about anything covered under step one, just answer step 2
4. include a dare and speculation
5. ?????
6. Profit

[Name removed]

155. Deleted message

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

[gejohnston]

157. I get the linguistic meaning

I refuse to answer stupid questions that are based on a false premise, asked by people have no interest in thoughtful discussion.
Heller does not ban nor over turn sensible regulation. DC was not.

[jmg257]

105. Cool. We, the people are members of the Militita. Effective

Militias (as they existed at the time) are not only the best means to secure our freedoms, they are necessary.

In order to be effective, Militia members must keep and bear appropriate arms. As the founders decided when these and other militia clauses were recorded, the arms are to be supplied and kept by the people themselves. The arms must also have some commonality.

OK. The people must supply themselves with, and keep, arms that would be most effective in defense of themselves and the state.

Please have our governments remove all restrictons on such arms (and accoutrements like magazines), including but not limited to the following...

M-16
CAR
M-14
M-9
M1911
SCAR
M-82


Man, would the gun industry love THAT!

edit typos

[gejohnston]

111. if we did it as many of the founders wanted

the budget (and the better stuff we spend the money on like infrastructure, schools, and health care) would also love it,
The empire, the MIC, and the politicians and lobbyists they buy would hate it.

I think it is a good trade off, don't you?

[jmg257]

115. Tough call. We could get our asses kicked if we only counted

on the constitutional-type Militias for the common defense. Alot more effective 'arms' would be needed then just guns, and a lot more training for whomever flies/drives/loads/fires/controls/... them. Having a good professional military does have it's benefits.

Of course the people realized and decided a 100 years ago that a large government controlled and funded standing army and militia was more effective and preferrable (then saving some cash and having to do militia duty). Congress redefining and recreating 'the Militia' (although not granted that power) was all it took.

Besides the enormous expense, so far a huge standing army hasn't been that much of a 'bane of liberty' for us (though certainly for others!).

[gejohnston]

119. I'm thinking more on the Swiss model

back then you still had an active duty navy, and would have an air force if it existed. Crew serviced weapons would not be in the family garage.

While it has not been the bane of liberty, but it has been a bane to improved infrastructure, education and health care funding etc.

[friendly_iconoclast]

125. But rich dudes like John Hancock owned (and fought) warships w/ cannon.

Hell, even my not-so-big town could come up with a couple of howitzers and some MANPADS if those days were to return.

[Glenn Vardy]

197. Armed mob

The people must supply themselves with, and keep, arms that would be most effective in defense of themselves and the state.

Please have our governments remove all restrictons on such arms (and accoutrements like magazines), including but not limited to the following...

M-16
CAR
M-14
M-9
M1911
SCAR
M-82


Man, would the gun industry love THAT!

James Wilson, Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention:
"I believe any gentleman, who possesses military experience, will inform you that men without a uniformity of arms, accoutrements, and discipline, are no more than a mob."

Do you think that the Founders intended this uniformity of "arms, accoutrements, and discipline" to be decided by individuals like you?

[jmg257]

200. Not at all. Clearly the congress was to come up with such guidelines.

Which they did in the Militia Acts. Obvious they wanted the existing Militias of the several states to be well-regulated and well-armed, and thought it best that the people supply their own arms.

As the weapons I listed are among the most effective - proved & used by this country's standing armies, it is obvious that they would also be the most effective arms when used by the Militias. Their use by the Militia is even more important, since well-armed and well-trained Militias are the best means, ARE NECESSARY in fact, in securing our freedoms. The people's access to such arms is secured - the people's right to keep and bear arms due to their role in the Militias...because we know the alternatives if the Miltias are ineffective.


Why we must do something about those cities, municipalities, states, etc. that have laws which interfere with the people's capabilities of being an effective Militia, in that they limit the people's access to keep (and bear) militia 'grade' arms including handguns like the M-9, regular capacity magazines, rifles with bayonet lugs, pistol grip and recoil surpressors, etc.

[Glenn Vardy]

209. Uniformity of arms

jmg257
"The people must supply themselves with, and keep, arms that would be most effective in defense of themselves and the state. Please have our governments remove all restrictons on such arms (and accoutrements like magazines), including but not limited to the following (list of military weapons). Man, would the gun industry love THAT!"

Glenn
"James Wilson, Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention: "I believe any gentleman, who possesses military experience, will inform you that men without a uniformity of arms, accoutrements, and discipline, are no more than a mob." Do you think that the Founders intended this uniformity of "arms, accoutrements, and discipline" to be decided by individuals like you?"

jmg257
"Not at all. Clearly the congress... thought it best that the people supply their own arms."
----------------------------------------

But "not at all" the arms of each individuals choice?

[jmg257]

214. Yes...each individual could choose, as long as the arms had commonality.

M16 & M4 & SCAR (all 5.56)
M14 & AR10, etc (all 7.62)
M9 & P226 (9mm)

Would all possibly be acceptable.

Different manufacturers of the same arm would certainly be OK.

Colt, Armalite, Bushmaster, DPS, S&W, Remington, etc. etc. all produce similiar arms to the M16/M4. I'm sure they could easily all be 'mil-spec' militia-grade weapons if warranted.

I think there could be some issue with mags if they are not interchangable, but once it was worked out how important that was, then it would be my choice. As long as my choice fell within the guidleines that made sure of the uniformity so the arms & militias' effectiveness would not be diminished of course.

[RSillsbee]

203. You don;t have a clue what you're talking about do you?

M-14: (M1A) widely available (if exspensive) civilian rifle made by Springfield Arms right now

M9: Nothing more than a Beretta 92 FS

M1911: Hundred year old design quite possibly one of the most popular pistols on the market

[jmg257]

204. Right. M1A is close, but the M-14 is also in current favor of the standing army due to its

effectiveness. Same with numerous versions of the M16/CAR, SCAR etc.

As Glen says, the observation, of the exisiting Militia of the several States in the body of the Constitution (and the very important roles given them in protecting the freedoms of the people) and the Militia-related 'keep and bear' & 'necessary' securities in the 2nd cover the people's (i.e. the Militias) access to such weapons.

[RSillsbee]

205. the M1A and the M14 are the same weapon

unless you count the few M-14 that were select fire.

As Glen says, the observation of the exisiting Militia of the several States in the body of the Constitution and the Militia-related 'keep and bear' securities in the 2nd cover the people's (i.e. the Militias) access to such weapons.

Are you implying a collective right? That argument has been done to death here

Heller V. DC

(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.<43><44>

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.<43><44>

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28

How many different ways can that be said?

[jmg257]

206. I'm implying that the 2nd amendment further secures the right of the people to arms...

which the body of the constitution already did. The constitution and the 2nd also recognize the importance of the Militias. It would be foolish to ignore that fact, because (no matter how it might be argued)...The people are the Militia. The people have the right to supply themselves - individually - with arms that are effective in their role in the Militia.

My 1st choice is a selective fire M-14. (I distinguish that from the semi M1A). In 5.56 an M4 would be OK.


Doesn't need to be said in any other way. I wasn't arguing anything re:'collective vs individual', just pointing out that one should not underestimate the importance of the Militia clauses in the Constitution & BOR, the importance of THE Militias as discussed and made necessary in the constitution (Militias being institutions that existed before the constitution), and the importance of how the new congress 1st mandated the people should be armed for miltia duty...with common (same caliber) effective arms, they would supply themselves (this helps show us what the founders intended).

[RSillsbee]

208. I always though only SOME M-14s were select fire

Didn't realize they all were. Live and learn.

If I had to have an M16 I'd want an A1

[Name removed]

184. Deleted message

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

[rrneck]

202. Since you saw fit to put this post in your sig line

Why don't you put the answer to this question there too.

Do you have a firearm free self defense solution that works better than a gun? Or are you satisfied with your off the shelf mass produced paper thin consumercentric ideology designed to make you feel good?

[Name removed]

195. Deleted message

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

[LAGC]

201. You assume Heller will be over-turned -- WRONG.

It is settled law, and all the increasing jurisprudence based on it reinforces it more and more.

Just as Roe v. Wade hasn't been over-turned despite a "conservative" SCOTUS majority, Heller won't be over-turned by one or two more anti-gun justices.

Total city-wide gun bans are unconstitutional.

Deal with it.

(P.S. Add me to the list of "pro-gun liberals" who will support a liberal SCOTUS nomination even if he/she is anti-gun, as I'm not afraid of Heller being revisited any time soon.)

[Euromutt]

210. That's an important point in this context

Hell, the Slaughter-House rulings haven't been overturned, despite being quite obviously lousy jurisprudence, and that's a topic that came up again during McDonald v. Chicago. So instead we plod forth with one case after another to "incorporate" the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights into the 14th Amendment one by one, and the elephant in the room is that for the very notion of "incorporation" to make sense, you have to tacitly acknowledge that the Slaughter-House rulings (which said the "privileges and immunities" clause of the 14th didn't mean what it plainly did, namely that the BoR was binding on the states) were wrong. But rather than cut to the chase and overturn Slaughterhouse, successive courts choose to continue to pay lip service to that jurisprudential garbage. If they won't even overturn that, why would any iteration of the SCOTUS overturn Heller and McDonald?

[jmg257]

213. "..our CITIZENS have a NATURAL RIGHT to ARM and defend THEMSELVES, "

Emphasis yours.

Your quote from Mr Smth in the merchant vessel debates shows conclusively that "to arm and defend themselves" refers to an individual (and natural) right.

That makes, let's see...

1)PENNSYLVANIA (September 28, 1776)
XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves...

2)VERMONT (July 8, 1777)
XV. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves...

that's 2 out of 4 that even mention the RBA, to include an obvious provision for individual use.

That's means 50/50 odds you are wrong. Throw in the Pennsylvania Minority usage, & the evidence clearly shows that there are atleast 2 purposes of such 'right to keep/bear arms' clauses - securing the collective rights of the people/militia, and securing the private rights of each citizen/individual. Both important no doubt.

And we agree.

[derby378]

215. All rendered obsolete by the Second Amendment

I mean, duh.