joether
Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: jlf1961
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
Ok, I have to explain things....AGAIN. Do you want your firearms protected under the 2nd amendment? Yes? Then your part of the local militia. You have duties, responsibilities, and a chain of command you will follow. The guns used by the militia are protected (i.e. the original intent of the 2nd's "the right to bear arms') from federal laws. That might mean you have to switch out some of your arms for the militia's approved arms (how that works is debatable I guess).
Now if you don't want to be in a a militia, you do not have to be in a militia. But then, you do not get the protections afforded under the 2nd amendment. This was actually true of the nation in the first twenty years of its existence. Many hunters had firearms but were not part of any militia in which they operated. If the government decided that muskets were banned, those hunters using firearms that were not a member of a militia (whom used muskets as their arms), would have to get rid of the musket.
Back in the old days, when the militia met up to drill, it was usually a social event that drew the town's people together. They got to know each other, trade information and products. The wives got together to gossip. Kids played. In 2015, most people are lucky to know the people living next door to them let alone those living just 1000 feet from their house. So you get to know other people in the militia. Makes for good networking and maybe some friends that like guns in a manner you do as well. Are you opposed to making friends, BamaD?
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
You insist that there is no individual right to bear arms.
No, there is no Constitutionally, individual right, under the 2nd. Very big difference between the two concepts. Mine is explained above. For yours to be true, I would have to be advocating a total and complete ban on firearms. Yeah, let me say it for the 217th time.....I'm NOT in favor of banning firearms.
The individual, in good standing with a militia, could have their militia approved arms in their house or business. They would be handled at a higher standard for those arms then other Americans (much like how we handle police officers). You break laws in any form (even speeding 1 mph over the posted limit) calls your credibility to become questioned. To many of violations or a severe one could remove you from the militia (and the protections it gives). If you were kicked out, does that mean you have to hand over your arms? Only if the law states so.
Uh, the supreme court pretty much threw away this argument more than once, but the best response to this is:
quote:
Nor is the right involved in this discussion less comprehensive or valuable: "The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta! And Lexington, Concord, Camden, River Raisin, Sandusky, and the laurel-crowned field of New Orleans, plead eloquently for this interpretation! And the acquisition of Texas may be considered the full fruits of this great constitutional right.
Nowhere else in the Constitution does a "right" attributed to "the people" refer to anything other than an individual right. What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention "the people," the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. This contrasts markedly with the phrase "the militia" in the prefatory clause. As we will describe below, the "militia" in colonial America consisted of a subset of "the people"— those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to "keep and bear Arms" in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as "the people"
Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority in Heller
Yeah, what was going on in the nation in 2008 there jlf1961?
The GOP/TP was having a tough time forming even a single argument on anything useful to the American population. They were the ones that wrecked the national economy. The schools were in disarray. We had two countries we never dlecared war on taking place. Gitmo was a source of 'violations of the 5th, 6th, and 8th amendments'. Did I mention the economy was sinking from the semi-recession of 2006 into a full on depression not seen since the early 1930's? All the while bashing a young, black President with anything and everything, regardless of how racist, silly, or absurd it was. Hey, even you guys on this board tried to pile on the bullshit!
In essence, the GOP/TP needed a win from somewhere. Why did the Court take up the Heller case? The lower courts were in agreement on the issue. The US Supreme Court RARILY takes up cases in which the lower courts are in agreement upon. This case was taken for political reasons...NOT...Constitutional ones. You have a conflict of interest that prevents you from viewing this objectively.
You sure you want to go head to head with me on this discussion? Since because of the ruling, sets this nation on its current course in which the 2nd is revoked in the not to distance future. I'm not all excited about what happens around that time. The ruling created circumstances in which people would become more and more disgusted by those whom take an almost 'religious' view in defending the 2nd amendment. The amendment was corrupted. The conservative justices did an 'end run around' the 2nd amendment. Something THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO DO! The only people allowed to change the amendment or the spirt of the amendment, is the LEGISLATIVE BRANCH. Even then, by one of four ways.
Country was screwed by conservative activist judges.....
But it didn't end there. The conservative propaganda machine started issuing out 24/7/365 day brainwashing moments to 'educate' people to the new way of thinking. The results we have experienced: more mass gun violence. Did we have mass shootings in the nation taking place every few weeks in the years that led up to 2008's decision? No of course not!
What you do not understand is that your already in Checkmate. Twelve moves away. But Checkmate is not bad for you. Its bad for the nation. Either by civil war or something else just as terrible. However, I do believe the nation will avert the crisis by allowing cooler heads to ponder and think on a better way to handle the problems. You will not like that outcome; but oh well....
|
RE: Nobody wants to take your guns. - 
Profile
.gif){kind=avatar}
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread