RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

zerosignal -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 2:51:13 PM)

The counter-argument to interpreting the right to keep and bear arms as coextensive with (and limited to) the need for a well-regulated militia is this:

Today, hostile foreign powers will not attack states using muskets or cannons. In the event a militia is needed to defend a state from military encroachment, the aggressor will use tanks, warplanes, sophisticated bombs, powerful rockets, missiles, helicopters, et cetera. Interpreting the rights created by the Second Amendment to enable citizens to keep and bear the arms necessary to create a militia capable of effectively defending against that level of attack opens Pandora's box.

Owning functional handguns (the subject of the litigation here, in DC v. Heller) won't even be the starting point if people are allowed to keep and bear that level of armament. Citizens would be after assault rifles, IED's, surface-to-air missiles, antitank weaponry, and God knows what else. Every Blood, Crip, Latin King, and Eric Harris wannabe could, absent exacting regulation we currently don't have, join or declare themselves part of the local milita and arm themselves to the teeth with advanced weaponry. It goes without saying that at that point, the last thing we'd need to worry about is defending against attacks from without-- attacks from within would be more than capable of doing enough damage.



Moloch -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 2:51:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

TracyTaken kindly explain to me why the gun manufacturers keep the coffers of the NRA bulging if profit isn't the motive for them.The lobbying efforts aren't funded in their entirety by membership fees.Please lets be honest here the industry isn't going to stand by and leave protection of their interests to hunters and collectors ,it takes a boat load of money to buy influence,and the NRA has that and than some...


Because the NRA helps to protect the domestic market. Smith and Wesson arent out to protect 2nd amendment, they want to make money.




Real0ne -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 2:53:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

Can you name or show any writings or anything a founder father wrote/said to suggest that the "People (should) have the ability to fight back against a tyrannical government"

Having been through a civil war,we`ve learned what happens when you rebel against tyranny (or think that you are).

Added:I`m for regulated private ownership of pistols and long guns.

As I read this latest ruling,really nothing has changed in either direction.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Question to gun owners who don`t want gun registration(ie "regulation"):

Would you also be for unregistered voters/voting?If not,why not?

And if not,explain why an unregistered citizen voter is more dangerous or deadly than an unregistered weapon.



HOLY GEEZUZ MOZEZ!!!

You mean you never read the declaration of independence?????

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America


When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

snip----

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

— John Hancock

New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

Massachusetts:
John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Connecticut:
Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New York:
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey:
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

Delaware:
Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

Maryland:
Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia:
George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

North Carolina:
William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

Georgia:
Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm


ALL regulation with ONE exception is unconstitutional, and that is IF YOU ARE IN JAIL!!!!  That is the only time you are not allowed to BEAR a gun.   That does not mean you cannnot own a gun while you are in jail.

The immigration vs gun argument is nonsense frankly and there is no comparison to be had except to switch horses in this conversation.


Now if we "accept" regulation then we are choosing to give up our rights.  If not all but by stages.  

So you are for American citi zens giving up their rights?











Real0ne -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 3:04:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael

Can you really not see the difference between an organization supporting by citizens and one run by corporations?

Citizens ARE the system! Whats next, you going to complain they vote?



Well, that's just a PLAIN IGNORANT statement. Corporations are owned by shareholders who happen to be citizens. Arguably here, you are making a distinction without difference. Next, the NRA is probably closely associated with Gun Manufacturers, Dealers, and Sellers. I'm quite sure the NRA is a far cry from some grass roots citizen-based organization. Next, even if it were a citizen's based organization, is it good public policy to let a loud, powerful minority of Americans control and guide the public debates on national issues?

slvemike4u's point is perfectly valid and is also substantiated by the likes of Robert Reich, who wrote SUPERCAPITALISM; namely that democratic influences on public policy have been hindered / drowned out by organized, well funded special interest lobbyists in Washington.


Wow do you have a grossly oversimplified version of what a corporation is.   Must have been sleeping during the many discussions we had on it spelling out those diferences and you just lump it all into one big ole glob.

As someone already pointed out the nra gets virtually all its donations from citizens and members.

You would benefit if you did a little hard research on corporations and why they are so hated by those who want accountability in governemnt.






Moloch -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 3:05:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: zerosignal

The counter-argument to interpreting the right to keep and bear arms as coextensive with (and limited to) the need for a well-regulated militia is this:

Today, hostile foreign powers will not attack states using muskets or cannons. In the event a militia is needed to defend a state from military encroachment, the aggressor will use tanks, warplanes, sophisticated bombs, powerful rockets, missiles, helicopters, et cetera. Interpreting the rights created by the Second Amendment to enable citizens to keep and bear the arms necessary to create a militia capable of effectively defending against that level of attack opens Pandora's box.

Owning functional handguns (the subject of the litigation here, in DC v. Heller) won't even be the starting point if people are allowed to keep and bear that level of armament. Citizens would be after assault rifles, IED's, surface-to-air missiles, antitank weaponry, and God knows what else. Every Blood, Crip, Latin King, and Eric Harris wannabe could, absent exacting regulation we currently don't have, join or declare themselves part of the local milita and arm themselves to the teeth with advanced weaponry. It goes without saying that at that point, the last thing we'd need to worry about is defending against attacks from without-- attacks from within would be more than capable of doing enough damage.



Are you kidding me?!  "Our founding fathers didnt have assault rifles  blah bla blah"
What a load of crap, Americans had the best the strongest the most accurate and deadly rifles in the world.
When the war for independence broke out  Americans had Kentucky Rifles, it was usually a .50 rifle with rifling,
the British Army had Muskets!!! A friggin smootbore muskets, they had to stand shoulder to shoulder walk up to the enemy so close you can smell them and hope you hit something.
Its like comparing an AK-47 to a Rock.
When the 2nd amendment was written American citizens had the most effective rifle in the war.
Americans could regulary hit a man sized target 200 yards away, with a musket you were lucky to hit some one 100 yards away!

forgot to add:  2nd amendment was written to protect the peoples rights from external AND internal tyrrany. Which means I should be able to have the equipment which will enable me to be on equal ground with federal troops. I.E. Body armor, paralax free sights, night vison  etc..




SugarMyChurro -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 3:06:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59
Can you name or show any writings or anything a founder father wrote/said to suggest that the "People (should) have the ability to fight back against a tyrannical government"


Is that a joke?

-----

Thomas Jefferson, November 13, 1787, letter to William S. Smith:

God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.

-----

While not a founder, Abraham Lincoln is considered influential and you did mention the civil war. This is from his first inaugural address, March 4, 1861:

This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it.

-----

And there are so many more. That the people have that fundamental right is a very well established matter of political philosophy, especially in the United States where that very philosophy gave rise to the revolution against the tyranny of King George III.

Jefferson called for a revolution very 10-20 years. Personally, I cannot think of a more important thinker among the founders.




BitaTruble -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 3:09:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080318/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_guns;_ylt=AkjZl1CtCggmrqKdhgDgYoRI2ocA

Looks like the majority of the Supreme court pretty much has made up its mind that citizens are entitled to own gun.   They will probably impose some restrictions (based upon US v Miller, 1939).   But total ownership of a type of gun allowed will probably not happen.  


Himself and I watched (er.. listened) to the oral arguments last night and one of the things which struck me as quite odd was the fact that none of the justices asked a question which seems to me to be very pertinent to this particular case. Washington D.C. has a ban so why do they have a process in place in which one can apply for a permit keep a handgun in a place of resident at all?

Makes no sense to me. Beyer and Ginsburg are iffy on the subject (and Thomas wasn't present) but I can't see the court over-turning the lower courts ruling given the nature of the questions asked by the justices. In particular and very telling, I think, was the statement made (sorry, don't remember which justice made it.. might have been Scalia and I'm paraphrasing here) that one can't take an individual ammendment and throw out the preamble to the constitution which defines the intent of the body of work.

I think it's quite clear what the framers intended when the Bill of Rights was finally ratified given what the wording of the second ammendment was throughout the process until we got to the final product (google for the process - I find it very interesting but then, I'm a contitutionality whore). I would not, were I a justice, believe that 'militia' was exclusive to the right to keep and bear arms and that 'the people' is collective rather than individual. Also, what we have is not 'a' right to keep and bear, it's 'the' right, (presupposed) another point which Himself and I thought important and which was brought up by one of the justices.

I love this stuff and am looking forward to Fox VS FCC on the 1st ammendment.

Celeste




Kirata -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 3:10:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: zerosignal

It goes without saying that at that point, the last thing we'd need to worry about is defending against attacks from without-- attacks from within would be more than capable of doing enough damage.

Obviously you haven't noticed that we got there long ago. It would be fair to say, I think, that citizens living in gang-controlled neighborhoods are not living in a "free state" by any interpretation.
 
K.
 



kittinSol -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 3:13:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moloch

What are you smoking? I can get an AK for unders 400$  with amma and magazines.



Good for you, but I was referring more to nuclear war heads and other missiles than to paltry Kalashnikovs.

Do you get off on being offensive :-) ?



Real0ne -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 3:15:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moloch
Are you kidding me?!  "Our founding fathers didnt have assault rifles  blah bla blah"
What a load of crap, Americans had the best the strongest the most accurate and deadly rifles in the world.
When the war for independence broke out  Americans had Kentucky Rifles, it was usually a .50 rifle with rifling,
the British Army had Muskets!!! A friggin smootbore muskets, they had to stand shoulder to shoulder walk up to the enemy so close you can smell them and hope you hit something.
Its like comparing an AK-47 to a Rock.
When the 2nd amendment was written American citizens had the most effective rifle in the war.
Americans could regulary hit a man sized target 200 yards away, with a musket you were lucky to hit some one 100 yards away!

forgot to add:  2nd amendment was written to protect the peoples rights from external AND internal tyrrany. Which means I should be able to have the equipment which will enable me to be on equal ground with federal troops. I.E. Body armor, paralax free sights, night vison  etc..





The right to own and BEAR arms has 2 main purposes.

1)self defense against intruders or otherwise someone doing bodily harm

2) self defense from the government.  (thats right the GOVERNMENT)

I suppose you are going to go up against the us army mortar rounds, ar15's etc etc etc with bear skins and bone knives right?

RIGHT! 



Real0ne -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 3:16:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moloch

What are you smoking? I can get an AK for unders 400$  with amma and magazines.



Good for you, but I was referring more to nuclear war heads and other missiles than to paltry Kalashnikovs.

Do you get off on being offensive :-) ?


nuclear war head is nothing tcompared to a dirty bom.





Moloch -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 3:19:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moloch

What are you smoking? I can get an AK for unders 400$  with amma and magazines.



Good for you, but I was referring more to nuclear war heads and other missiles than to paltry Kalashnikovs.

Do you get off on being offensive :-) ?


Because you implied that you cant affored to protect yourself unless you own a nuclear weapon.  Or did I misunderstand you?
No I dont enjoy being offensive I was born offensive, it it consoles you I talk like that to every one.



Real0ne -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 3:21:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitaTruble
I think it's quite clear what the framers intended when the Bill of Rights was finally ratified given what the wording of the second ammendment was throughout the process until we got to the final product (google for the process - I find it very interesting but then, I'm a contitutionality whore). I would not, were I a justice, believe that 'militia' was exclusive to the right to keep and bear arms and that 'the people' is collective rather than individual. Also, what we have is not 'a' right to keep and bear, it's 'the' right, (presupposed) another point which Himself and I thought important and which was brought up by one of the justices.

I love this stuff and am looking forward to Fox VS FCC on the 1st ammendment.

Celeste




Moreso if yo uare not aware of it 7 of the 13 original states had the INDIVIDUAL right to own and BEAR arms right in their constitution!!!






kittinSol -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 3:23:56 PM)

Be grateful I don't own a gun then [:D] .

PS: and yes, you did misunderstand me.



TracyTaken -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 3:25:53 PM)

quote:

Now adjust for inflation and multiply due to the pressure caused by columbine and viginia tech and numerous other gun tragedys, that sure seems like a lot of cooperation between business competitors.I mean i'm not trying to imply that big business would subvert the democratic process to further there own agenda's (profit margin)......


What I see you doing is dismissing the fact that the majority of support for the NRA comes from plain ol' people.
(*note* plain ol' people watched Columbine and VT happen too)



colouredin -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 3:27:50 PM)

FR

Seems a lot of the argument as to why people should have a gun is "because its your right" because its written down, and those constitutions make you free, so in the UK where we arent allowed guns are we less free?



TracyTaken -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 3:29:36 PM)

quote:

I think it's quite clear what the framers intended when the Bill of Rights was finally ratified given what the wording of the second ammendment was throughout the process until we got to the final product (google for the process - I find it very interesting but then, I'm a contitutionality whore). I would not, were I a justice, believe that 'militia' was exclusive to the right to keep and bear arms and that 'the people' is collective rather than individual. Also, what we have is not 'a' right to keep and bear, it's 'the' right, (presupposed) another point which Himself and I thought important and which was brought up by one of the justices.


Wow!  I'm impressed, and I'm not completely sure where you stand on the issue from what you wrote.  It's nice to know people are really thinking it through though, and not dismissing the Constitution because it makes things more complicated sometimes.



BitaTruble -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 3:31:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: colouredin

FR

Seems a lot of the argument as to why people should have a gun is "because its your right" because its written down, and those constitutions make you free, so in the UK where we arent allowed guns are we less free?



The US Constitution is quite emphatic in stating that it is meant 'only' for those who are citizens of the US. What makes us free is not intended to be a global view of what freedom means to citizens of other countries. There are several politicians who could do worse than to remember that wording.

Celeste



TracyTaken -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 3:34:02 PM)

quote:

Seems a lot of the argument as to why people should have a gun is "because its your right" because its written down, and those constitutions make you free, so in the UK where we arent allowed guns are we less free?


I don't know.  I loved what I've seen of the UK, and there was some really funny things happen that wouldn't have happened in the US (re:  law enforcement and people resisting law enforcement).  In the US, it wouldn't have been funny.  Here, police assume you are armed, and it's smart to act accordingly.

I don't if that means more free or less free.  It doesn't particularly matter.  The culture is completely different (Americans deeply distrust US leaders).  Can you imagine what would happen if the US government decided that citizens shouldn't own handguns?  <shiver>



BitaTruble -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 3:36:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TracyTaken



Wow!  I'm impressed, and I'm not completely sure where you stand on the issue from what you wrote.  It's nice to know people are really thinking it through though, and not dismissing the Constitution because it makes things more complicated sometimes.



Oh. I'm a born Texan and like most born in the Lone Star state,  you can have my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers and it will be empty by the time you can try. Hope that clears up my position. [;)]

Celeste



Page: <<   < prev  7 8 [9] 10 11   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625