Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Abolition of liberty to prevent crime only abolishes liberty - not crime.
Governments that are incompetent to prosecute crimes after the fact are not "doing something" when they criminalize harmless people by prohibition.
Making good people helpless does stop predators from doing harm, armed or not.
Of course, when predators run the government, they're the "good guys," and prey who fight back are "bad."
I don't know if someone mentioned this yet. Since this thread is 17 pages long I am not going to search through them all for it, but just in case if it isn't mentioned yet, lets look at the Second Amendment shall we
"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."
I don't get why people who use the Second Amendment to justify having no gun laws always skip the bolded part. Having guns is a privilege and not a right because for it to be a right, a group has to be a WELL REGULATED MILITIA. Random people owning guns does not count as a well regulated militia. Using the Second Amendment as an excuse not to expand on gun laws makes you an imbecile no offense.
I don't know if someone mentioned this yet. Since this thread is 17 pages long I am not going to search through them all for it, but just in case if it isn't mentioned yet, lets look at the Second Amendment shall we
"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."
I don't get why people who use the Second Amendment to justify having no gun laws always skip the bolded part. Having guns is a privilege and not a right because for it to be a right, a group has to be a WELL REGULATED MILITIA. Random people owning guns does not count as a well regulated militia. Using the Second Amendment as an excuse not to expand on gun laws makes you an imbecile no offense.
"........Held:
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.
(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.
(b)
The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation
2
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
v.
HELLER
Syllabus 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.
(c)
The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(d)
The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms.
Pp. 30–32.
(e)
Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
(f)
None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank , 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois , 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller , 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e. , those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.
2.
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
Pp. 54–56................."
(pagination may be a little bit off)
Last edited by TamaraSavannah; 12-07-2015 at 01:03 AM..
Militia duty
From Bouvier’s Law dictionary, 1856 ed.
AGE.... In the United States, at twenty-five, a man [citizen] may be elected a representative in congress; at thirty, a senator; and at thirty-five, he may be chosen president. He is liable to serve in the militia from eighteen to forty- five inclusive, unless exempted for some particular reason.
. . .
Title 10 USC Sec. 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, ... under 45 years of age who are ... CITIZENS of the United States
. . .
“ It may be laid down, as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every citizen who enjoys the protection of a free government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America (with a few legal and official exceptions) from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls, provided with uniform Arms, and so far accustomed to the use of them, that the Total strength of the Country might be called forth at Short Notice on any very interesting Emergency.”
- - - George Washington; "Sentiments on a Peace Establishment" in a letter to Alexander Hamilton (2 May 1783); published in The Writings of George Washington (1938), edited by John C. Fitzpatrick, Vol. 26, p. 289.
. . .
Whether you know it or not, this is why "Selective Service" (the draft) is constitutional.
I don't know if someone mentioned this yet. Since this thread is 17 pages long I am not going to search through them all for it, but just in case if it isn't mentioned yet, lets look at the Second Amendment shall we
"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."
I don't get why people who use the Second Amendment to justify having no gun laws always skip the bolded part. Having guns is a privilege and not a right because for it to be a right, a group has to be a WELL REGULATED MILITIA. Random people owning guns does not count as a well regulated militia.
That's where you're making your mistake. If what you assert were true, the latter part would need to say, "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
It doesn't. It says the people. As in "We, the people..." Ring a bell?
This must be one of the talking points anti-gun folks have been given and swallowed whole without thinking it through. I've seen several people foolishly try to make this same failed argument.
Well yes those 700,000 on the terror watch list could be afforded due process and about 5-10 years from now we could address the list as it stands today, or we could temporarily remove their right to own a gun and they could demonstrate that this was a mistake.
I guess we will just wait for the next attack.
That's not how it works. Tell you what, take the next five years off from posting on the internet and if you've stayed out of trouble we will give you the opportunity to tell us why you should be let back on.
I don't know if someone mentioned this yet. Since this thread is 17 pages long I am not going to search through them all for it, but just in case if it isn't mentioned yet, lets look at the Second Amendment shall we
"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."
I don't get why people who use the Second Amendment to justify having no gun laws always skip the bolded part. Having guns is a privilege and not a right because for it to be a right, a group has to be a WELL REGULATED MILITIA. Random people owning guns does not count as a well regulated militia. Using the Second Amendment as an excuse not to expand on gun laws makes you an imbecile no offense.
It's been covered 1,345,675 times including at the Supreme Court and dismissed.
ok the no fly list is there because the airlines are a private institution, NOT a government one, thus there is no right to fly. however the right to keep and bear arms is listed in the constitution itself, and it PREVENTS the government from restricting that right, especially without due process. and since there is no due process for a terrorist watch list, it is unconstitutional, and thus you cannot restrict the rights of someone put on that list, like it or not.
the problem with the bill as i noted was it was an end run around the constitution, thus it was unconstitutional in the extreme, and there was NO recourse for someone mistakenly put on the list, and the AG could claim national security concerns to prevent someone from even trying to get off the list.
and i have a problem with government restricting the rights of people in this country without proper due process of law, as spelled out in the constitution, and without recourse for the people to get their rights reinstated again through proper due process of law.
now if you dont have a problem with the government restricting the rights of the people, the perhaps north korea would be a good place for you to live. i mean after all you have no problem with a dictatorial government now do you?
Those lists are developed by the Federal Government and enforced by the Federal Government. Obviously this judge feels differently.
Yes there should be recourse but it's funny how when it comes to guns that is off limits but hardly a peep about restricting people from flying which much more punitive.
Quote:
The U.S. government's no-fly list banning people accused of links to terrorism from commercial flights violates their constitutional rights because it gives them no meaningful way to contest that decision, a federal judge ruled on Tuesday.
U.S. District Judge Anna Brown, ruling on a lawsuit filed in federal court in Oregon by 13 Muslim Americans who were branded with the no-fly status, ordered the government to come up with new procedures that allow people on the no-fly list to challenge that designation.
Read more at Reutershttp://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-noflylist-idUSKBN0EZ2EU20140625#7FHJGvtg73yBWvrf.99
That's not how it works. Tell you what, take the next five years off from posting on the internet and if you've stayed out of trouble we will give you the opportunity to tell us why you should be let back on.
I would much rather go without a gun for the next 5 years, make it 10.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
