USSC Landmark Case will decide if we still have our Republic

Archive. Enter at your own risk. Unmoderated thread.


Moderator: Super Moderators

User avatar
joequinn
Magister Ludi
Posts: 8282
Joined: 04-25-2000 02:00 AM

Post by joequinn » 03-19-2008 11:42 AM

Holy s**t! You people are already armed to the teeth, and you are quite sane! What of the others?

I ain't packing heat myself, and I hope that when the whole fraud collapses and the mobs take to the street for food, I am the first one to get it right between the eyes! I would greatly prefer such an exit to living in a Mad Max world!
"Fuggedah about it, Jake --- it's Chinatown!"

Biker
Pirate
Posts: 1786
Joined: 11-04-2006 08:39 AM

Post by Biker » 03-19-2008 11:53 AM

Ah Joe...The Norse have a saying: It rasps the soul to go out without a fight!

Biker:)
"Bring me my broadsword and clear understanding".

Ian Anderson

SETIsLady
Pirate
Posts: 19872
Joined: 04-14-2003 08:52 PM

Post by SETIsLady » 03-19-2008 11:59 AM

Biker, I handle the laser much better than I do my spell checker :D Actually still getting comfortable with it. When I have been to the shooting range, many have said its a great deterrent from actually having to pull the trigger. Sometimes pointing the laser is enough.

My gun is a .642 revolver, crimson trace laser grip and the new one the hubby has is Beretta PX4 Storm .45.

Biker
Pirate
Posts: 1786
Joined: 11-04-2006 08:39 AM

Post by Biker » 03-19-2008 12:10 PM

Yup Miss Lady, I expect that if I saw a laser dot hovering over the Family Jewels, I'd quite likely cease and desist any and all anti social behaviors quick, fast and in a hurry!

Biker:D
"Bring me my broadsword and clear understanding".

Ian Anderson

User avatar
joequinn
Magister Ludi
Posts: 8282
Joined: 04-25-2000 02:00 AM

Post by joequinn » 03-19-2008 12:34 PM

Oh my Gawd, SetisLady! I had this image of you as a prim, genteel Victorian lady! That's totally gone now! Now, whenever I think of you, I will have to imagine you like Ma Barker!

:D :D :D

http://www.thegenerator.biz/RetroMaBarker.jpg
"Fuggedah about it, Jake --- it's Chinatown!"

SETIsLady
Pirate
Posts: 19872
Joined: 04-14-2003 08:52 PM

Post by SETIsLady » 03-19-2008 12:41 PM

LOL Joe, if you have ever been in a hurricane down here in Florida, when the power has been out for a couple of weeks and there is no food or water, its not a pretty seen. People get a little nutty.

Really I am a good girl :D

SETIsLady
Pirate
Posts: 19872
Joined: 04-14-2003 08:52 PM

Post by SETIsLady » 03-19-2008 12:49 PM

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, often the deciding vote on the divided court, was next. "In my view," he said, "there's a general right to bear arms quite without reference to the militia either way."
Agreed, the constitution is very clear IMO

User avatar
SquidInk
________________
Posts: 5862
Joined: 03-15-2007 03:48 PM

Post by SquidInk » 03-19-2008 04:02 PM

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 second Amendment gives citizens no rights at all! Nothing! Instead, like the entire "Bill of Rights", it provides a guarantee against infringement by the government of naturally occuring circumstances. In other words, the government cannot take away what it never gave in the first place! Simple.

Our original system was based on the idea that people are naturally in possesion of, or were "endowed by their creator" with certain "rights". I don't know how any person, who is not a criminal at heart, can read the 2nd and then proclaim the people have no right to bear "arms".

However, the origins of the second amendment have more to do with protecting the nation from a rogue federal army than protecting your home from everyday street criminals.
Leading Federalist James Madison wrote:

Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Source


These days, the killing technologies have come along way. It is clear that the SCOTUS will allow the people to "keep and bear [small scale, single shot, or semi-automatic] arms", in order to protect themselves, in their homes, from one or two intruders at a time. But unlike in Madison's day, today 1/25th, or even 1/250th of the population, with the proper technical backing can surely decimate great numbers of lightly armed "militia". The entire military is geared toward defeating this type of opponent.

Much like voting, if the second amendment had any remaining relevance, it would have been destroyed by now. The "militia" had better learn a few modern asymmetrical tactics - and quickly.
Last edited by SquidInk on 03-19-2008 04:10 PM, edited 1 time in total.
For if it profit, none dare call it Treason.

Swerdloc
Pirate
Posts: 4445
Joined: 05-07-2000 02:00 AM

Post by Swerdloc » 03-19-2008 08:13 PM

Thanks to Psychicwolf and SquidInk for supplying needed historical (and grammatical) perspective on this issue. I don’t think it’s by any means simple, although it strikes very directly at our individual sensibilities and our concepts of what this American republic is supposed to be. There is plenty more interesting background to be found by Googling and Wiki-ing on the Constitution, the 2nd amendment, and the notions of standing armies and standing (or not standing) militias.

One thing that no one has really touched on, and that the media have largely ignored, is the fact that this concerns a law regarding the District of Columbia and passed by the DC City Council in 1976. DC is not a State, and has no direct representation in the Congress except for a non-voting Delegate in the House. Yes, the members of Congress from the surrounding areas in Maryland and Virginia sort of watch out for its interests, but they are really just representing their own constituents who work in DC. (Like me.) Yet it is home to half a million people, all U.S. citizens, some from elsewhere and some whose family roots in Washington go back many generations, who only gained the right to vote in presidential elections in the 1960s. The motto displayed on DC car license plates is “Taxation Without Representation,” which is quite literally true no matter what anyone says.

On the other hand, DC’s history under its own self-government—which dates back only to the 1970s, and which is still subject to Congressional veto—has been less than outstanding. Take the crime rate (please), which is still high, although far lower than it was, say, in the 1980s, when young drug-dealers were killing each other at the rate of one every 14 hours. (Admittedly, with guns that were illegal to own in DC.) Or take DC’s fondness for electing sorry cases like Marion S. Barry, who DC’s City Paper used to call “Mayor-for-Life,” and who, despite his 1990 bust for crack cocaine use and his continuing run-ins with the law, today still serves on the DC City Council.

So is DC, not a State but with more people than Wyoming, subject to the same rights and restrictions as a State? Should its laws, vis-à-vis the Constitution, be regarded differently? If one argues that its law, and its government, has its head up its butt, does it or does it not have the right to be so? One might think the same about Wyoming, or any other State.

All this ought to be borne in mind along with the larger question of the meaning of the Second Amendment.
Anchors Aweigh

User avatar
Psychicwolf
Pirate
Posts: 5999
Joined: 12-31-2006 12:47 AM

Post by Psychicwolf » 03-20-2008 02:08 AM

I think we should allow all Americans to own smoothbore muskets, swords, knives and axes…as intended by the founding fathers.

Otherwise how do you interpret “arms?” Do I get an F/A-18 if I can afford one? An M1-A2 Abrams tank?

More to the point…is ownership of any and all small arms protected under the 2nd Amendment? Does the mention of a “well-regulated milita” have no bearing on its intent? If not, why is it mentioned in this context? There isn’t a lot of wasted language in our founding documents and I’m disinclined to ignore the inclusion of this phrase…comma or no.

For an interesting view of these arguments I would recommend this book:
http://blog.oup.com/2008/03/guns-2/

And a sampling of these arguments by the author of that book and another constitutional scholar (for those who like scholarly discourse:)):
http://blog.oup.com/2006/07/the_second_amen3/
http://blog.oup.com/2006/07/the_second_amen2/
http://blog.oup.com/2006/07/the_second_amen/

I hope I have pasted those in the order they took place!
Dance to heal the earth. Not just when you're dancing, but always. Live the dance, whenever you move, in all you do, dance to heal the earth.

User avatar
SquidInk
________________
Posts: 5862
Joined: 03-15-2007 03:48 PM

Post by SquidInk » 03-20-2008 09:40 AM

Excellent points Swerdloc and PW!

I would say the people of DC, no matter what their "legal" standing, were endowed with the same "inalienable rights" as the rest of humanity. So, whatever those rights are, the charters of this nation were drawn in an attempt to keep the federal government from infringing upon those rights. I would call a ban an infringement, but I have no legal education.


I think we should allow all Americans to own smooth bore muskets, swords, knives and axes…as intended by the founding fathers.


Then you would make a great political leader!

Now, the phrase about well regulated militia gets right to the problem with the founding documents. To understand them, you must be familiar with many other writings, philosophies, and historical facts - most of which have been buried in the sands of time.

The second amendment comes indirectly from 12th century English common law. In fact it was the Assize of Arms, allowing for (and expecting!) the practice of archery by all able bodied men on Sundays, which eventually led to the 2nd amendment, and it's well regulated phrase.

Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1989, gives the obsolete meaning of regulated ...

To put in good order.

[obsolete sense]

b. Of troops: Properly disciplined. Obs. rare-1.

1690 Lond. Gaz. No. 2568/3 We hear likewise that the French are in a great Allarm in Dauphine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 Men of regulated Troops on that side.



In Federalist #29, Hamilton himself uses the phrase in this sense, although, being a federalist, he often spoke against the idea of militias, no matter how much practice they got in.

Here's another example...

That the strength of the Wabash Indians who were principally the object of the resolve of the 21st of July 1787, and the strength of the Creek Indians is very different. That the said Creeks are not only greatly superior in numbers but are more united, better regulated, and headed by a man whose talents appear to have fixed him in their confidence. That from the view of the object your Secretary has been able to take he conceives that the only effectual mode of acting against the said Creeks in case they should persist in their hostilities would be by making an invasion of their country with a powerful body of well regulated troops always ready to combat and able to defeat any combination of force the said Creeks could oppose and to destroy their towns and provisions.


In the above quote from the Journals of the Continental Congress, do you think the congress was concerned because the Creek had a better set of tribal regulations than the Wabash?

Here's another from Washington...

I am unacquainted with the extent of your works, and consequently ignorant of the number or men necessary to man them. If your present numbers should be insufficient for that purpose, I would then by all means advise your making up the deficiency out of the best regulated militia that can be got.

--- George Washington (The Writings of George Washington, pp. 503-4, (G.P. Putnam & Sons, pub.)(1889))



The militia with the most rules?

The well regulated phrase, as far as I can tell, simply means if the nation is to be dependent on this type of defense, they had better be good at the job, and train often.

As I stated before, it's all a moot point. We now have a standing federal army, so the state militias are not needed for defense of the nation. The federal army is so powerful, that taking up small arms against them in the case of some internal strife would be nothing short of suicide.

I believe if people had the will to preserve the nation, SCOTUS would not be discussing the second, or any of the original amendments, outside of a convention.

By the way PW, thanks for the links. I glanced at the first couple, and will look at the rest. I have never understood the "collectivist" point of view. How can we recognize collectivized rights without first recognizing individual rights?
Last edited by SquidInk on 03-20-2008 10:32 AM, edited 1 time in total.
For if it profit, none dare call it Treason.

Cherry Kelly
Pirate
Posts: 12851
Joined: 07-29-2000 02:00 AM
Contact:

Post by Cherry Kelly » 03-20-2008 10:02 AM

Carrying concealed is a bit more difficult for females except for our purses. However, I do have an ankle one -- little 38 - call it my bitty gun as it can get lost in my hands. Unfortunately blessed with large hands. They don't appear to be large until I turn them over and open palms. (For piano players octave +2 spread-thumb to pinkie) But I prefer my glock 9mm - as it fits my hand better. Course that old (black) bb/pellet gun looks enough like a glock to scare a lot of would-be thieves. My little fun gun is an old 22 derringer that belonged to a great aunt. (It supposedly belonged to a gambler before that -- dunno.)

Have thought about laser bit - might get one next time. Never even thought about the 'double' concept of laser, but yes I could see that being detrimental as well.

User avatar
SquidInk
________________
Posts: 5862
Joined: 03-15-2007 03:48 PM

Post by SquidInk » 03-19-2014 01:04 PM

:epicbattl

Almost exactly six years later... how utterly quaint it all seems now.
For if it profit, none dare call it Treason.

User avatar
kbot
Pirate
Posts: 6720
Joined: 03-12-2008 05:44 AM

Post by kbot » 03-20-2014 10:34 AM

Yup, you can have guns.......... just can't get ammo.
"The dogma lives loudly within you. And that’s of concern ......"

Post Reply

Return to “Politics and Government 2004-2009”