NRA Turds Gather in Toilet Bowl for Annual Diarrheic Discharge
xona
human scum gathered in Kansas City, MO., to kiss each others
terrorist assholes, as America's greatest NAZI organization,
the NRA, held its annual convention for its human lumps of
shit that are its essence. The main part of the cesspool
concentration came when the old aging NAZI actor, Charlton
Heston, slowly made his way to the podium, walking as if he
had a 12 gauge shotgun stuck up his well used political
asshole. Then looking at the camera with his wrinkled
sagging face, which resembled decaying flesh freshly plucked
by vultures, this great American NAZI leader opened his
snake like mouth and with a voice that sounded like he had
his chief little pimp, Wayne Lapierre's political cock all
the way in his vile mouth, Charley Hick-face spoke to the
various lumps of living shit proclaiming the greatness of
the NRA, an organization, second only to the tobacco
industry in its support and encouragement of cold-blooded
murder thorough the use of the products it worships- the
almighty GUN.
For several hours these most vile of Americans proclaimed
their NAZI heritage and philosophy, displaying to any and
all their complete contempt for the American Constitution.
Vowing to do all in their power to see that their little
Bush-whore gives them what they want.
Also in attendance was the Secretary of the Interior, Gale
Norton, the cheap two-bit political WHORE who is a favorite
political sex toy of various mining, oil, gass, and other
Republican PIMPS who rape the environment for personal
profit. This cheap political vile, repugnant, vomit faced
slut thanked the NRA on behalf of her boss the coke
snorting, drunkard, and mental miget, President George W.
Bush. Along with WHORE Norton was another first rate
republican SLUT, the shit-faced, down-right ugly
creep, Katherine Harris, the Florida Secretary of State, best
known for her ability to stick her entire head up Bush's
asshole and remove last turd she can find, which she then
uses as her own personal brand of makeup.
Rumor has it that Gale and Katherine serviced every NRA NAZI
member in what is being described as the largest gangbang in
NAZI political history.
xona
Lenscap1
xona <xona_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4ea44f33.01052...@posting.google.com...
> A collection of mostly middle-age, balding, fat bellied,
> human scum gathered in Kansas City, MO.,
>
intro...dickhead.....
Larry
Instead of bad mouthing you xona I will instead pray for you. Yes
pray... I will pray that if in Gods plan he must one day have a victim
of rape or a violent crime. That he will see fit to allow you to be
part of his plan. And that maybe a very large three time looser out
on parole will find you an easy target to have his way with. I pray
that the criminal does not use a gun but instead, his bear hands will
be more than enough to over power the likes of a coward as yourself.
Perhaps as you are being beaten you can explain to the criminal your
views on the NRA and perhaps convince him to either give up his
membership or not to join that terrorist group.
I hope, a little..... that you live.
Thanks
Larry
Rich Travsky
>
> And they call the republicans mean spirited.
> Instead of bad mouthing you xona I will instead pray for you. Yes
> pray... I will pray that if in Gods plan he must one day have a victim
> of rape or a violent crime. That he will see fit to allow you to be
> part of his plan. And that maybe a very large three time looser out
> on parole will find you an easy target to have his way with. I pray
> that the criminal does not use a gun but instead, his bear hands will
> be more than enough to over power the likes of a coward as yourself.
> Perhaps as you are being beaten you can explain to the criminal your
> views on the NRA and perhaps convince him to either give up his
> membership or not to join that terrorist group.
> I hope, a little..... that you live.
What kind of pathetic gawd plans a rape or violent crime for innocent people?
Labrea
says...
> Larry wrote:
> >
> > And they call the republicans mean spirited.
> > Instead of bad mouthing you xona I will instead pray for you. Yes
> > pray... I will pray that if in Gods plan he must one day have a victim
> > of rape or a violent crime. That he will see fit to allow you to be
> > part of his plan. And that maybe a very large three time looser out
> > on parole will find you an easy target to have his way with. I pray
> > that the criminal does not use a gun but instead, his bear hands will
> > be more than enough to over power the likes of a coward as yourself.
> > Perhaps as you are being beaten you can explain to the criminal your
> > views on the NRA and perhaps convince him to either give up his
> > membership or not to join that terrorist group.
> > I hope, a little..... that you live.
>
> What kind of pathetic gawd plans a rape or violent crime for innocent people?
-- As soon as I read this Larry fellow's post I kill filed him forever.
Where do people like this come from?
Hollywood Liberal Elitists Association
Paul Wesley Dunn
<schtick...@NOSPAMzdnetmail.com> wrote:
>-- As soon as I read this Larry fellow's post I kill filed him forever.
>Where do people like this come from?
Ex Conservative embracing the insane left's ME-Centric insanity
BD (Dave) Thompson
offended:
1. Seniors
2. Women
3. Men
4. Human Race
'Tis truly no wonder that HCI and anti-freedom trolls are the laughing stock
of the nation.
--
Dave
BD (Dave) Thompson
"Rich Travsky" <trav...@MOVEhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3B093008...@MOVEhotmail.com...
> Larry wrote:
> >
> > And they call the republicans mean spirited.
> > Instead of bad mouthing you xona I will instead pray for you. Yes
> > pray... I will pray that if in Gods plan he must one day have a victim
> > of rape or a violent crime. That he will see fit to allow you to be
> > part of his plan. And that maybe a very large three time looser out
> > on parole will find you an easy target to have his way with. I pray
> > that the criminal does not use a gun but instead, his bear hands will
> > be more than enough to over power the likes of a coward as yourself.
> > Perhaps as you are being beaten you can explain to the criminal your
> > views on the NRA and perhaps convince him to either give up his
> > membership or not to join that terrorist group.
> > I hope, a little..... that you live.
>
> What kind of pathetic gawd plans a rape or violent crime for innocent
people?
>
He/She doesn't plan it. It just happens. I would think xona would be
delighted to discuss the virtues of 'gun freedom' with the perpetrator.
--
Dave
Voice of Reason
news:3B093008...@MOVEhotmail.com...
people?
All of them. Just like the DemoncRATs they need people to live in fear
of what life might be like without them.
--
NIFOC
If nature had wanted us to be ashamed of our nudity, it would have given us
bigger hands.
The original point-and-click interface was a Smith & Wesson
http://www.flowgo.com/page.cfm?l=3685
And don't forget...
Gary Lantz prediction from 7/13/00:
Bush will be lucky to get 20% by election day.
Gary Lantz prediction from 8/16/00:
George W. Bush has no chance
Che'Gu Maru
Hollywood star to publicly support the Civil Rights Movement). Remember,
too, that during the middle '60's it was we liberals who championed the
right of law-abiding minority Americans to own and carry firearms. The
conservatives of the time was horrified at the notion of blacks and others
taking up arms to use in their own self-defense against night riders and the
like.
Liberals stood for the right of the individual as opposed to the rights of
"society". We asserted that the Bill of Rights applied to ALL American
citizens, rather than only to the upper-class establishment and then in
decreasing degrees as one's social and cultural position moved further and
further away from them. Finally, while we were adament supporters of the
separation of church and state, we also believed that any religious believer
who did not actually LIVE the principles he claimed to espouse and
demonstrate that belief through his political activities, was the very
worst sort of hypocrite.
That sounds a lot like the N.R.A. today, doesn't it?
Simultaneously, it seems, ignorant ideologues like Xona began calling
themselves "liberals".
But Xona is really as far from being a liberal as Buford Farrow is from
being a Christian.
It is no coincidence that when the Soviets were at their heighth, with
nations apparently falling like leaves, the liberals were the very first
people executed after the Soviets took over a country. It is equally no
coincidence that the ideologues like Xona were co-opted, given positions of
power, and put to work for the conquerers.
Xona cannot be a liberal because in her heart she is a lover of tyranny.
She is of the ilk who believe that they and they alone have the answers for
everyone, and anyone who denies her "truth" is worthy only for the firing
squad. Read between her lines and what she is really saying, "Come the
revolution and the OFF WITH YOUR HEAD!" She smears the NRA with the term,
"Nazi," even as she herself mirrors to the letter the tone and logic of
Hitler's speeches.
No, Xona is not a liberal. I am. I am also an NRA member, and there is no
contradiction whatsoever.
"xona" <xona_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4ea44f33.01052...@posting.google.com...
> A collection of mostly middle-age, balding, fat bellied,
> human scum gathered in Kansas City, MO., to kiss each others
> terrorist assholes, as America's greatest NAZI organization,
> the NRA, held its annual convention for its human lumps of
> shit that are its essence.
<<SNIPPED, BUT YOU GET THE IDEA>>
Mitchell Holman
}A lot of us joined the N.R.A. (Charlton Heston was perhaps the very FIRST
}Hollywood star to publicly support the Civil Rights Movement). Remember,
}too, that during the middle '60's it was we liberals who championed the
}right of law-abiding minority Americans to own and carry firearms. The
}conservatives of the time was horrified at the notion of blacks and others
}taking up arms to use in their own self-defense against night riders and the
}like.
}
}Liberals stood for the right of the individual as opposed to the rights of
}"society". We asserted that the Bill of Rights applied to ALL American
}citizens, rather than only to the upper-class establishment and then in
}decreasing degrees as one's social and cultural position moved further and
}further away from them. Finally, while we were adament supporters of the
}separation of church and state, we also believed that any religious believer
}who did not actually LIVE the principles he claimed to espouse and
}demonstrate that belief through his political activities, was the very
}worst sort of hypocrite.
}
}That sounds a lot like the N.R.A. today, doesn't it?
I am sure I have seen bigger loads of claptrap,
but I cannot remember when...........
Eric Williams
A: Because they're afraid nobody would show up.
blah
<ma...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> And they call the republicans mean spirited.
> Instead of bad mouthing you xona I will instead pray for you. Yes
> pray... I will pray that if in Gods plan he must one day have a victim
> of rape or a violent crime. That he will see fit to allow you to be
> part of his plan. And that maybe a very large three time looser out
> on parole will find you an easy target to have his way with. I pray
> that the criminal does not use a gun but instead, his bear hands will
> be more than enough to over power the likes of a coward as yourself.
> Perhaps as you are being beaten you can explain to the criminal your
> views on the NRA and perhaps convince him to either give up his
> membership or not to join that terrorist group.
> I hope, a little..... that you live.
> Thanks
> Larry
Pray? Pray?
I will raise your pray with a xona killfile entry.
SMsgt Mike
> xona wrote:
>
> A collection of mostly middle-age, balding, fat bellied,
> human scum gathered in Kansas City, MO., to kiss each others
> terrorist assholes, as America's greatest NAZI organization,
> the NRA, held its annual convention for its human lumps of
> shit that are its essence.
----------------------------------
What a filthy mouth you have on you, child!
Does your mother know you talk like that in public?
---
Mike Eglestone (Democrat) (NRA - GOA)
Senior Master Sergeant (E-8)
United States Air Force, Retired
Glen Smith
"Che'Gu Maru" <chgu...@hal-pc.org> wrote in message
news:9ebkg1$26nk$1...@news.hal-pc.org...
If the political entities today known as liberals were truly "liberals";
they would require firearms training for all high school students.
I agree with you. And the "conservatives" are not conservative either.....
JulianD.
and fewer. Problem is, not fast enough.
On 20 May 2001 22:51:53 -0700, xona_...@hotmail.com (xona) wrote:
JulianD.
wrote:
>
>
>> xona wrote:
>>
>> A collection of mostly middle-age, balding, fat bellied,
>> human scum gathered in Kansas City, MO., to kiss each others
>> terrorist assholes, as America's greatest NAZI organization,
>> the NRA, held its annual convention for its human lumps of
>> shit that are its essence.
>----------------------------------
>
> What a filthy mouth you have on you, child!
>
> Does your mother know you talk like that in public?
>---
Actually, that was tame for xona.
They should found her using the psych hospitals computers and strapped
her back in her bed by now.
Hugh G.
Matt Helm
Hugh G. wrote in message <3b099a0c...@news.earthlink.net>...
>Xona has a serious anal fixation.
>
-*MORT*-
xona
[snip the liberal crap]
>
> No, Xona is not a liberal. I am. I am also an NRA member, and there is no
> contradiction whatsoever.
>
You are 100% correct asswipe. xona is not a liberal and has never
in over 20,000 posts evry said IT was. xona is a TROLL, and you,
my LIBERAL TWIT, are the bottom fish that took the bait that made my
day.
xona
xona
> "Rich Travsky" <trav...@MOVEhotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3B093008...@MOVEhotmail.com...
> > Larry wrote:
> > >
> >
>
> He/She doesn't plan it. It just happens. I would think xona would be
> delighted to discuss the virtues of 'gun freedom' with the perpetrator.
Actually i like rough sex. So I would probably cheer him on with
wild sounds of animal lust.
xona
you rape me, I'll screw you right back
pithy
Question, widdle wiKKKy--have you found that part of the article
that Hairy Hope posted--the part where it says that China wants
$80 mill for the return of our reconnaisance plane?
Eh?
Question 2, widdle wiKKKy--how many deaths did UNSCEAR attribute
Chernobyl?
Tens of thousands?
Thousands?
Hundreds?
Or enough to count on both hands?
Eh?
Question 3, widdle wiKKKy--where did you get the stupid notion that
maps don't have to be reviewed for accuracy?
Question 4, widdle wiKKKy--why are you hiding? Tired of getting your
clymer kicked?
BRAAWWHAAWW..HAAAAWWW...HEEEEEEE...Heeeeeheeeeeeeeeeee............!!!
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"In the 1990s, the culture became a tool of coercion.
Using affirmative action, discriminatory taxation,
hate-crime laws, bribes to states and localities,
selective investigations, military adventures, and
armed federal cops, the Clinton administration was
doing far more than interfering in the economy. It
was attempting to reconstruct American life."
--Murray N. Rothbard
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
xona
> And they call the republicans mean spirited.
They are very correct.
> Instead of bad mouthing you xona I will instead pray for you.
Thank you.
> Yes
> pray... I will pray that if in Gods plan he must one day have a victim
> of rape or a violent crime. That he will see fit to allow you to be
> part of his plan.
Better yet, how about your mother.
> And that maybe a very large three time looser out
> on parole will find you an easy target to have his way with.
Sounds like your average NRA member to me.
> I pray
> that the criminal does not use a gun but instead, his bear hands will
> be more than enough to over power the likes of a coward as yourself.
Hmmmmm. Now that pretty much describes the creep that you call
Daddy.
> Perhaps as you are being beaten you can explain to the criminal your
> views on the NRA and perhaps convince him to either give up his
> membership or not to join that terrorist group.
Just like your mother while being gangbanged by 200 sailors kept
describing how good it was as they took her over and over. I
wonder which one was your dad.
> I hope, a little..... that you live.
Oh, you are too kind.
> Thanks
> Larry
>
Hey Larry, Live Lone, Be Healthy, and Prosper
xona
xona
You know, if we could eliminate the above four from earth, the animals
would be a lot better off, not to mention the environment.
xona
John B
Germany?
Dese...@mojave.net
Dese...@mojave.net
If you tell a lie often enough
eventually it will be perceived
as the truth...
dgg9
jamesw
I say go for it. Join the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (VHEM).
Start with yourself (charity begins at home). Just don't use an icky
gun (what with all the powder burning and the lead and the noise).
Cut lengthwise, instead.
And thanks for all your help in advance. Goodbye.
Jim
Paul Wesley Dunn
>the animals
>would be a lot better off, not to mention the environment.
do the universe a favor and swallow some draino
Paul Wesley Dunn
Ask Whittiker Chambers, when he tried to warn congress about Alger
Hiss
Ask Hubert Humphrey, when the punk socialists stole his nomination in
1968
Ask the women abused by WHC
the liberal democrats traded honor and duty for power and corruption
Paul Wesley Dunn
wrote:
>I am sure I have seen bigger loads of claptrap,
> but I cannot remember when...........
reread your past posts defending the scum you worship ,bitchy
citizen
> A collection of mostly middle-age, balding, fat
Too much foaming at the mouth irreverence!
Please try again:>))
Bamma Brian made a cliché that fit nitwitish ignoramus "Steve Krulick",to
a,"T"
If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit:>))
SMsgt Mike
The 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution is a Law:
"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."
----------------------
Linguistically, the term "bear arms" was not limited to
militia service. Madison had sponsored a bill in the
Virginia legislature under which a person who hunted deer
illegally could not "bear a gun out of his inclosed ground,
unless whilst performing military duty . . . ." 2 Jefferson,
Papers 443-44 (Boyd ed. 1951). Thus, one may "bear" arms
while not "performing military duty." Noah Webster, a
prominent federalist, defined "bear" as "to carry" or "to
wear . . . as, to bear a sword, a badge, a name; to bear
arms in a coat." Webster, An American Dictionary of the
English Language (1828). "To bear arms in a coat" typically
meant to carry a pistol in a coat for self defense.
Ten days after introduction of the bill of rights, Tench
Coxe, a well known Federalist, explained what became the
Second Amendment as follows: "As civil rulers, not having
their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to
tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be
occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert
their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the
people are confirmed by the next article in their right to
keep and bear their private arms." Federal Gazette, June 18,
1789, at 2. Madison endorsed Coxe's analysis, writing him
that ratification of the amendments "will however be greatly
favored by explanatory strictures of a healing tendency, and
is therefore already indebted to the co-operation of your
pen." 12 Madison Papers 239-40, 257 (1978). Coxe's
explanation was widely reprinted without contradiction.(7)
E.g., New York Packet, June 23, 1789, at 2; Massachusetts
Centinel, July 4, 1789, at 1.
The evidence is overwhelming that the Second Amendment was
intended to guarantee individual rights. For a comprehensive
study of the framers' intent, see S. Halbrook, "The Right of
the People or the Power of the State: Bearing Arms, Arming
Militias, and the Second Amendment," 26 Valparasio
University Law Review 131 (Fall 1991). If anyone in the
period of 1787-1791 thought the Second Amendment guaranteed
a "collective" State power to maintain a select militia or a
"right" belonging only to militiamen when in actual service,
and not an individual right of all "the people," it remains
a closely-guarded secret. No known writing from that period
asserts such a proposition.
------
Steve Krulick
Well, damn, not only did the message-cancel/repost mess throw
off my unread messages folder, but a glitch in my .snm file
caused a freeze when trying to open this TPG NG; so I had to
trash the files and re-download the messages, losing some of the
expired unread posts in the process. Since the killfile listings
got overwritten, I got to see that the same old disingenuous
maroons were posting the same old disingenuous tripe, in spite
of my trying to "educate" them with the truth! It seems
Mike/Stone/Eglestone just blithely posts his nonsense on,
whether it's true or not!
Maybe before I put him and some of the other "scholars" back
into the loony bin, I should see just how much silly stuff they
are pumping out!
> The 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution is a Law:
>
> "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."
> ----------------------
> Linguistically, the term "bear arms" was not limited to
> militia service.
Why, because of YOUR mere say so?
Get educated! Here's HUNDREDS of pre-1790 cites of the term
"bear arms" that clearly have military reference, along with
comparison to other separate uses by "carry arms" and the like.
http://www.potomac-inc.org/emerappa.html
Read Rowland's essay and tell me he and I are wrong!
> Madison had sponsored a bill in the
> Virginia legislature under which a person who hunted deer
> illegally could not "bear a gun out of his inclosed ground,
> unless whilst performing military duty . . . ."
Bearing a gun is NOT bearing arms. Of course you can "bear"
guns. You can also "bear" sorrows. You can also "bear" down. So?
It's NOT the same as "bearing arms"! Ignore the vast multitude
of "bear arms" references to find an irrelevant "bear a gun"
quote!
> 2 Jefferson,
> Papers 443-44 (Boyd ed. 1951). Thus, one may "bear" arms
> while not "performing military duty."
READ the sentence again: "bear a gun" means "carry a gun," not
"bear arms," which Madison used in his draft of the 2nd Amen to
MEAN "to render military service in person." Besides, any person
in the military or militia "bears arms" no matter what he is
doing at the moment, even typing triplicate forms, or repairing
an engine, since "bear arms" refers to the condition of service
or engagement in hostilities with an enemy in the large sense.
You really have to get your reading comprehension tested.
> Noah Webster, a
> prominent federalist, defined "bear" as "to carry" or "to
> wear . . . as, to bear a sword, a badge, a name; to bear
> arms in a coat." Webster, An American Dictionary of the
> English Language (1828). "To bear arms in a coat" typically
> meant to carry a pistol in a coat for self defense.
What a maroon! Do you even KNOW what a "coat of arms" is?
YOUR dumb method could render BEAR as a large brown land mammal;
"bear arms" could be construed to mean Gentle Ben's limbs! Do
you think a "coat of arms" means a parka with guns hooked onto
it? Or maybe it's a sport coat with six sleeves! Lunacy has no
bounds when you want to ignore the way people actually speak or
write in context!
Look, the definition as YOU cited it even purposely leaves out
the clear reference to what a "coat of arms" is:
"[t]o wear; to bear as a mark of authority or distinction; as to
bear a sword, a badge, a name; to bear arms in a coat." A mark
of authority or distinction! Like a Bright, Shiny Sword! A
Polished, Golden Badge! A Regal Titular Name! A Noble,
Emblazoned Heraldic Coat of Arms! A tiny Derringer HIDDEN in
one's jacket! OOPS... that last one doesn't fit the whole MARK
of authority or distinction pattern here, does it!
THAT last AUTHENTIC one was a reference to a COAT OF ARMS, as in
a heraldic shield! That is why the heraldic use of "arms" in
English (the very case Stephen Halbrook invokes) refers to
shields "coated" (covered) with blazonry...
>From Historian Garry Wills:
Take the case of Stephen P. Halbrook, one of the central figures
in this new literature. His imaginative manipulation of evidence
runs to arguments like this, from his 1989 book, A Right to Bear
Arms: the Second Amendment cannot be referring only to military
weapons, since a Federal-period dictionary (Noah Webster's),
under "bear," lists "to bear arms in a coat" as one usage, and
only a handgun could be carried in a coat pocket. Mr. Halbrook
does not recognize the term "coat of arms," a decidedly military
form of heraldry presided over by the College of Arms (by Mr.
Halbrook's interpretative standards, a medical institution
specializing in the brachium)... We are told that arms, all the
equipage of war, can be borne in a coat pocket. Heraldry is
mixed with haberdashery, humbug with history, and scholarly
looking footnotes with simple-minded literalism. By the methods
used in the Standard Model, we could argue that a good
eighteenth-century meaning for "quarter" shows that the Third
Amendment was intended to prevent soldiers from having their
limbs lopped off in private homes.
Besides, the term was not just BEAR, as in carry, but BEAR ARMS,
a verb phrase with its OWN meaning:
The Oxford English Dictionary defines "to bear arms" as meaning
"to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight." 1 OED 634
(J.A. Simpson & E.S.C. Weiner eds., 2nd ed. 1989) (hereinafter,
"OED"). It defines "to bear arms against" as meaning "to be
engaged in hostilities with." 2 id. at 21. As an exemplary use
of the phrase in 1769, the OED gives "An ample pardon . . . to
all who had born arms against him," and the exemplary use from
1609 is "He bare arms, and made weir against the king." Id"
The term was a verb phrase, analogous today to one like
"practice medicine." Sure, if you mistakenly break down the
phrases you can get bear=carry + arms=guns = carry guns, or
practice=keep trying + medicine=pills in a bottle = keep trying
pills in a bottle. But any literate person today knows that
"practice medicine" means to serve as a doctor, just as any
literate person of 1790 knew that "bear arms" meant to serve as
a soldier.
Proof that "bearing arms" has NOTHING to do with "carrying a
pistol in a coat pocket":
Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys 154 (Tenn. 1840)
The 28th section of our bill of rights provides "that no citizen
of this state shall be compelled to bear arms provided he will
pay in equivalent, to be ascertained by law." Here we know that
the phrase has a military sense, and no other; and we must infer
that it is used in the same sense in the 26th section, which
secures to the citizen the right to bear arms. A man in the
pursuit of deer, elk, and buffaloes might carry his rifle every
day for forty years, and yet it would never be said of him that
he had borne arms; much less could it be said that a private
citizen bears arms because he has a dirk or pistol concealed
under his clothes, or a spear in a cane.
> Ten days after introduction of the bill of rights, Tench
> Coxe, a well known Federalist, explained what became the
> Second Amendment as follows: "As civil rulers, not having
> their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to
> tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be
> occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert
> their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the
> people are confirmed by the next article in their right to
> keep and bear their private arms." Federal Gazette, June 18,
> 1789, at 2.
The "people" here is ONLY the well-regulated STATE militias.
Federalist Coxe is of like opinion with Federalist John Adams on
this:
John Adams, who was as important to the Massachusetts
Declaration of Rights as Mason was to Virginia's, borrowed the
style of the Quaker State's declaration when he drafted the
Declaration of Rights that stood for ratification with the 1780
constitution. "The people," he wrote, "have a right to keep and
to bear arms for the common defence." By "the people," John
Adams meant the militia. "The public sword, without a hand to
hold it, is but cold iron," he noted some years later, and "the
hand which holds this sword is the militia of the nation."...
(Lawrence Cress)
The right was in the context of the citizen soldier of the
conscript militia. In the eighteenth century private arms were
never strictly private. The public had a claim for public
purposes. Coxe was a strong Federalist. He was employed in
Hamilton's Treasury Department during the Whiskey Rebellion. He
expressed no concerns that the enrollment and inventory
requirements of the Militia Act would infringe on right of the
people to keep and bear their private arms.
THIS is the draft Coxe was referring to, the one Madison
ACTUALLY submitted:
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the
best security of a free country: but no person religiously
scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render
military service in person."
In the last clause of this version (the conscientious
objector provision), Madison clearly used the phrase "bearing
arms" to refer solely to using weapons as part of military
service usage. It is implausible to contend that virtually the
same phrase "bear arms" should have a different, much broader
meaning elsewhere in the very same sentence. (David Yassky)
Madison's use of the phrase "bear arms" to refer to military
activities is echoed in other contemporary usages; these usages
were standard at the time the Second Amendment was adopted.:
New Hampshire Constitution of 1784: "No person who is
conscientiously scrupulous about the lawfulness of bearing arms,
shall be compelled thereto, provided he will pay an equivalent."
Constitutional amendment proposed by Rhode Island's 1790
ratifying convention: "That the people have a right to keep and
bear arms; ... That any person religiously scrupulous of bearing
arms ought to be exempted upon payment of an equivalent to
employ another to bear arms in his stead."
Do you think that this last one means that a wealthy Quaker
could pay to have his butler march by his side to tote his rifle
around for him on the battlefield or parade grounds?
Did Quakers have "religious scruples" about "carrying guns" out
to the woods to hunt turkeys?
Does one "bear arms" against a rabbit?
As for the debates in Congress over the MILITIA AMENDMENT,
all discussions focussed on the STATE-led militias as the
ultimate palladium of liberties; show ONE example supporting
individual citizens rising to stop tyrannical STATE govt as a
reason for this provision! YOU CAN'T because there isn't any!
THAT would be insurrection and Adams' "To suppose arms in the
hands of the citizens, to be used at individual discretion... is
to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so
that liberty can be enjoyed by no man — is a dissolution of the
government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be
created, directed, and commanded by the laws, and ever for the
support of the laws."
> Madison endorsed Coxe's analysis, writing him
> that ratification of the amendments "will however be greatly
> favored by explanatory strictures of a healing tendency, and
> is therefore already indebted to the co-operation of your
> pen." 12 Madison Papers 239-40, 257 (1978). Coxe's
> explanation was widely reprinted without contradiction.(7)
> E.g., New York Packet, June 23, 1789, at 2; Massachusetts
> Centinel, July 4, 1789, at 1.
Madison's letter to Coxe of June 24, the one quoted above, is
thanking him for his entire output of supportive and helpful
observations, in many letters and essays, NOT just the one item
about bearing arms! I have the original letter before me
(Creating the Bill of Rights, Veit, et al) an there is NOTHING
about Madison having "endorsed Coxe's analysis" that you
refereed to to be found in THAT letter, or others, to Coxe! The
line you quote refers to THE previous lines ONLY: "It is much to
be wished that the discon[ten]ted part of our fellow Citizens
could be reconciled to the Government they have opposed, and by
means as little as possible unacceptable to those who approve
the Constitution in its present form... How far the experiment
may succeed in any of these respects is wholly uncertain. It
will however be greatly favored by explanatory strictures of a
healing tendency, and is therefore already indebted to the
co-operation of your pen."
So citing Madison's "endorsement" is bogus and irrelevant!
> The evidence is overwhelming that the Second Amendment was
> intended to guarantee individual rights.
Your mere unsubstantiated opinion only! Certainly it is NOT
based on what bogus and misrepresentative "evidence" was
presented above!
In NONE of the 2nd Amen debates were ANY individual rights
mentioned EXCEPT that of the conscientious objector clause! And
even THAT was strictly in conjunction with the state/fed balance
of power over the Militia! The House approved it, and the Senate
snipped it. Madison thought THAT individual right was worth
guaranteeing! Not good enough for the Senate though. THEY were
focussed on the maintenence of the Militia, and didn't want the
feds to be ABLE to decide just WHO was religiously scrupulous
ENOUGH, or to declare large segments as being exempt by that
right, and thus cripple the militia!
The expressed RIGHT is the JUS MILITIAE right of citizens to
participate in their state's or nation's military function, as
opposed to leaving it only to professional soldiers who serve
as hired retainers of the sovereign. Of course, historically and
legally, this "right" preceded the Constitution, since state
militias pre-dated the Revolutionary War! What Mason and Henry
wanted was to make sure that the pre-existing right of the
states to keep and maintain their militias was not infringed by
the new federal government, and thus the right of those
qualified to serve in the militia was not made moot by their
failure to be properly and sufficiently armed by Congress.
Any way you slice it, it's a MILITIA AMENDMENT, to satisfy the
states about fears their militias might be weakened or destroyed
by the new fed govt.
Madison was not describing the civil rights of private
individuals. Madison knew that militia duty was conscript duty.
He expressed no reservation about the enrollment and inventory
requirements of the Militia Act of 1792, enacted a few years
later, which was in force when he was president and which he was
under oath to faithfully execute.
There is NOTHING in the drafting and debating and passage of the
2nd Amen that speaks about "individual gun ownership"
independent of militia service! It's all about state versus
federal control and arming of the militia, and the virtues of
militias versus standing armies, since it's a MILITIA amendment
and NOT a GUN amendment!
The 2nd Amen is unique... the ONLY amendment with a preamble
that SPELLS OUT the reason for its existence!
And that is why one can't ignore it! In LAW, specifically
in Constitutional interpretation, there ARE NO subordinate
clauses! Chief Justice John Marshall, in Marbury v. Madison,
stated that there IS NO "surplusage" in the Constitution! This
"debate" is ONLY being promulgated by those who CAN'T or WON'T
accept that the 2nd Amen MUST be read and understood IN ITS
ENTIRETY!
IF they were not writing a narrowly focussed MILITIA AMENDMENT,
they could have simply left OUT the first half! (Yet even so,
based on what Madison MEANT by "bear arms," even the ABSENCE of
the first half leaves no doubt that it is strictly a militia
amendment!)
Had they wanted to be more broad and inclusive, the framers
could have "clearly" written something as simple as "The right
of individuals to own and carry guns shall not be infringed."
That they didn't write that, in itself speaks volumes. The first
two phrases are not window dressing, or "subordinate" clauses,
in the legal sense, rather than the grammatical sense.
"Main" clause is a grammatical, NOT a legal term; there IS no
subordinate "clauses" in Constitutional interpretation... the
law MUST be interpreted in its entirety. The ENTIRE 2nd Amen is
rightly seen as a militia amendment, not a gun amendment,
particularly when the phrase "bear arms" is properly understood
as MEANING "serve as soldier," which is the RIGHT the particular
individuals who qualify to serve have -- to serve in the
STATE-RUN militias -- and it is THAT right the feds can't
infringe upon.
The Bill of Rights, indeed the entire Const, is SILENT on the
ownership and carrying of GUNS! You WON'T find the words "own
and carry guns" in the Const. The term "keep and bear arms" does
NOT mean THAT! It means to serve in the militia (OED), or render
military service in person (Madison).
There IS nothing in the 2nd Amen to EXCLUDE individual private
ownership of arms. But there's nothing in the 2nd Amen to
GUARANTEE absolute individual ownership of arms either! That's
because the 2nd Amen wasn't ABOUT that! Those individuals who
qualified for "bearing arms" (serving) within a well regulated
militia could not be deprived of owning and storing at home
THOSE weapons in service to the militia, such weapons being
inspected and "enrolled" (registered) each year during the call
up for drilling and taking a "return of militia" to maintain a
record of the inventory of men and weapons the state had at its
disposal (Militia Act of 1792).
Other than that, there's nothing to prevent the feds or states
from placing limits on the classes of weapons that people may
own, and restrict the classes of individuals who may own
weapons. 200+ years of SCOTUS and Appeals rulings have affirmed
all this. And all within 2nd Amen interpretation.
The 2nd Amen neither protects nor prohibits owning and carrying
weapons, since that's not why it was written or what the
language means! (That is a matter for the states to deal with,
under their internal police power and public safety and order
powers; they CAN, if they choose, provide/protect an INDIVIDUAL
right to own guns, in their respective state constitutions, OR
they can deny/prohibit such a right.)
In the 2nd Amen, the fed govt (and the fed govt only, not the
state govts, as per Presser and Cruikshank) is merely prohibited
from infringing on the right (power, for those purists who claim
states don't have rights) of the states to maintain their
militias, particularly by "disarming" them, which, as George
Mason said during ratification debates, meant failing to "arm"
them, as they were instructed to do by the Const's militia
clause (which also gave the states the right/power to appoint
their own officers and do the actual discipline the feds laid
down for them to follow), and thus lead to their weakness and
inability to stand up to federal standing armies, one of the
anti-feds greatest fears.
That's about it. NO reference to hunting, personal self-defense,
target shooting in the Amendment OR any of the debates.
IF the Amendment was intended to protect arms ownership for its
own sake — or for any purpose desired by the owner — the
ratification debates would be full of references to the virtues
of arms ownership, or to frontier-dwellers' need to protect
themselves, or to rural Americans' need to hunt game.
That is simply not the case. The Anti-Federalists offered no
purpose for the Second Amendment other than the perceived danger
of standing armies. Jonathan Elliot's records of the debates in
the ratifying conventions contain at least 80 pages of
discussion concerning standing armies and the militia, 1
Elliot's Debates, supra, at 88, 371-72; 2 Id. at 96-99, 406,
520-522, 531, 536-37, 3 Id. at 378-94, 400-03, 405-31, 440-41; 4
Id. at 97-100, 214-15, 260-62; 5 Id. at 127, 440, 443-44, 451,
464-67, 480, and not a single reference to the need to bear arms
for any purpose other than militia service. Similarly, the index
to Herbert Storing's The Complete Anti-Federalist — the most
comprehensive collection of Anti-Federalist writings — lists 76
references to "standing armies." 7 Complete Anti-Federalist,
supra, at 94-95. That same index shows only 2 references to a
"right to bear arms,"...
Your interpretation is unsupported; the Militia clause MUST be
taken at face value, and in conjunction with what follows, which
MUST be interpreted by what precedes it.
"The Court's understanding follows a plain reading of the
Amendment's text. The Amendment's second clause declares that
the goal is to preserve the security of "a free state;" its
first clause establishes the premise that a "well-regulated
militia" is necessary to this end. Thus it is only in
furtherance of state security that "the right of the people
to keep and bear arms" is finally proclaimed." (Hickman v.
Block, '96)
"The second amendment provides 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." U.S.
Const. amend. II. Construing this language according to its
plain meaning, it seems clear that the right to bear arms is
inextricably connected to the preservation of a militia. This is
precisely the manner in which the Supreme Court interpreted the
second amendment in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 59
S.Ct. 816, 83 L.Ed. 1206 (1939), the only Supreme Court case
specifically addressing that amendment's scope. There the Court
held that the right to keep and bear arms extends only to those
arms which are necessary to maintain a well regulated militia."
(Quilici v. Morton Grove, '82)
"With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render
possible the effectiveness of such forces [the Militias] the
declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It
must be interpreted and applied with that end in view." (US v
Miller, SCOTUS, 1939)
"Thus it is ONLY [emphasis added (side-step finger pointing
expected); there is NO other reason] in furtherance of state
security that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is
finally proclaimed." Nothing about hunting, or target practice,
or plinking cans... or overthrowing the government!
The right to bear arms is merely the JUS MILITIAE, or the
right of the citizen to be involved in the state's (or nation's)
military function, as a citizen-soldier (as opposed to a
"regular" professional soldier in a standing army) "trained to
arms" and "enrolled" into an organized, "well regulated" state
militia. It's not about "carrying arms" or "kinds or arms" but
BEARING ARMS, (to serve as a soldier).
> For a comprehensive
> study of the framers' intent, see S. Halbrook, "The Right of
> the People or the Power of the State: Bearing Arms, Arming
> Militias, and the Second Amendment," 26 Valparasio
> University Law Review 131 (Fall 1991).
HA! NRA hack Halbrook has been repeatedly shown to use
disingenuously snipped out-of-context quotes to mislead and
obfuscate. He proposes an armed populace fantasy that has NO
historical, legal, linguistic, or logical foundation, and didn't
even exist AS an argument before the 1980s.
> If anyone in the
> period of 1787-1791 thought the Second Amendment guaranteed
> a "collective" State power to maintain a select militia or a
> "right" belonging only to militiamen when in actual service,
> and not an individual right of all "the people," it remains
> a closely-guarded secret. No known writing from that period
> asserts such a proposition.
Yeah here's another version of the same crap:
> > "In recent years it has been suggested that the Second
> >Amendment protects the 'collective' right of states to
> >maintain militias, while it does not protect the right of
> >"the people" to keep and bear arms. If anyone entertained
> >this notion in the period during which the Constitution and
> >Bill of Rights were debated and ratified, it remains one of
> >the most closely guarded secrets of the 18th century, for no
> >known writing surviving from the period between 1787 and 1791
> >states such a thesis."
And we have the words of George Mason, who inspired Madison to
draft the Bill of Rights, as to WHY the need for a Militia
Amendment! And we have the debates in Congress over Madison's
draft, which shows what THEY were concerned with! Why ask some
modern-day hack lawyer, who was neither there nor even seems
familiar with the historical and linguistic context of the
Amendment's writing and passage?
Halbrook has NEVER shown evidence, in context, from the same
period and from the same debates, that supports an individual
2nd Amen right to own guns independent of militia service.
OF COURSE "the people" have "the right to keep and bear arms"
since THAT is what the 2nd Amen SAYS. It's just that "the
people" doesn't mean EVERYONE, but rather the "populus armatus"
and "keep and bear arms" doesn't mean "own and carry guns"!
Either Halbrook is ignorant of that, or being disingenuous.
And this "recent year/collective" rap is absurd: ALL law review
articles preceding 1960, going back to at least 1900, take the
collective interpretation; NONE before 1960 takes the
individualist line! As for the courts, this concept even
precedes Miller (this is from the govt's brief IN Miller):
In the only other case in which the provisions of the National
Firearm Act have been assailed as being in violation of the
Second Amendment (United States v. Adams, 11 F. Supp. 216 (S.D.
Fla.)), the contention was summarily rejected as follows
(pp.218-219): The second amendment to the Constitution,
providing, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall
not be infringed," has no application to this act. The
Constitution does not grant the privilege to racketeers and
desperadoes to carry weapons of the character dealt with in the
act. It refers to the militia, a protective force of government;
to the collective body and not individual rights.
> Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...
> disarm only those who are neither inclined
> nor determined to commit crimes...
> Such laws make things worse for the
> assaulted and better for the assailants;
> they serve rather to encourage than to
> prevent homicides, for an unarmed man
> may be attacked with greater confidence
> than an armed man.
>
> --- Jefferson's "Commonplace Book,"
> 1774-1776,
> quoting from On Crimes and Punishment,
> by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764
Quoting what someone else thinks about something doesn't mean
one even agrees with it; hey, I write down things I disagree
with all the time in order to refute later. But the 2nd Amen is
NOT about laws forbidding the carrying of arms (something that
routinely was done to blacks in Jefferson's day), but about
militia service. So this is irrelevant to the 2nd Amen, and has
nothing to do with Madison's concept of "bearing arms." Said
during revolutionary, not constitutional times. Hell, it
predates the Revolution!
Therefore, it obviously has nothing to do with what Tom had to
say about the second amendment since it was said around 15 years
earlier!
Jefferson said THIS:
When discussions during the early national period turned to the
preservation of liberty, then, classical assumptions about the
citizen's responsibility to bear arms in the interest of the
common good quickly came to the fore. "For a people who are
free, and who mean to remain so," Jefferson reminded Congress in
1808 in language that summarized the republican principles
embodied in the Second Amendment, "a well organized and armed
militia is their best security." No one argued that the
individual had a right to bear arms outside the ranks of the
militia. To the contrary, bearing arms outside the framework of
the established militia structure immediately provoked fears for
the constitutional stability of the Republic. (Lawrence Cress)
Jefferson also wrote:
"Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence,
and deem them like the ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be
touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom
more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond
amendment... laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the
progress of the human mind... as that becomes more developed,
more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, institutions must
advance also, to keep pace with the times.... We might as well
require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy
as civilized society to remain forever under the regimen of
their barbarous ancestors."
(Thomas Jefferson, on reform of the Virginia Constitution)
And:
> "On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us
> carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted,
> recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of
> trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented
> against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
>
> - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Justice William
> Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p 322.
And ALL the debates over the 2nd Amen ONLY touched on the
MILITIA, and the state/fed role in control and maintenance;
there was NO discussion of private ownership of guns independent
of militia service. Which is why MADISON'S OWN WORDS in his
original draft of the 2nd Amen are the best evidence of what
"bear arms" means.
-------------------------------------------------
Steve Krulick
kru...@dem101.org
http://dem101.org
Democracy101:
Improve Democracy with... MORE Democracy!
* 1 Person = 1 Vote
* 1 Vote, More Choice
* 1 Vote + 50% = Win
* 1 % Voters = 1 % Representation
* 1 Nation, 1 Electoral System
* 1 Voter, More Voice
-------------------------------------------------
BD (Dave) Thompson
"Steve Krulick" <kry...@ulster.net> wrote in message
news:3B0AB385...@ulster.net...
>
> Maybe before I put him and some of the other "scholars" back
> into the loony bin, I should see just how much silly stuff they
> are pumping out!
>
> > The 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution is a Law:
> >
> > "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."
> > ----------------------
>
> > Linguistically, the term "bear arms" was not limited to
> > militia service.
>
> Why, because of YOUR mere say so?
>
> Get educated! Here's HUNDREDS of pre-1790 cites of the term
> "bear arms" that clearly have military reference, along with
> comparison to other separate uses by "carry arms" and the like.
> http://www.potomac-inc.org/emerappa.html
> Read Rowland's essay and tell me he and I are wrong!
>
You really need to retire your posting bot. By any school of debate, just
ONE incident of 'bearing arms' will negate your entire argument.
Additionally, you continue to ignore the small phrase in the 2nd that says
"TO KEEP".
In addition, Hamilton would laugh in your face. I guess he didn't know what
the document was
really about. He blathered in the Federalist Papers.
"Little more can be reasonably aimed at with respect to the people at
large than to have them properly armed and equipped. This will not only
lessen the call for military establishments; but if circumstances should at
any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army
can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a
large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline
and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights and those of
their fellow citizens."
You and Rowland are wrong. There - that was easy.
--
Dave
Steve Krulick
>
> "Steve Krulick" <kry...@ulster.net> wrote in message
> news:3B0AB385...@ulster.net...
> >
> > Maybe before I put him and some of the other "scholars" back
> > into the loony bin, I should see just how much silly stuff they
> > are pumping out!
> >
> > > The 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution is a Law:
> > >
> > > "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."
> > > ----------------------
> >
> > > Linguistically, the term "bear arms" was not limited to
> > > militia service.
> >
> > Why, because of YOUR mere say so?
> >
> > Get educated! Here's HUNDREDS of pre-1790 cites of the term
> > "bear arms" that clearly have military reference, along with
> > comparison to other separate uses by "carry arms" and the like.
> > http://www.potomac-inc.org/emerappa.html
> > Read Rowland's essay and tell me he and I are wrong!
> >
>
> You really need to retire your posting bot. By any school of debate, just
> ONE incident of 'bearing arms' will negate your entire argument.
Except that nobody has produced a clearcut and irrefutable
example of this in pre-1790 in-context usage! Oh, there may be
one dug-up example by a semi-literate dashed off in a hurry in
some irrelevant passage, but the VAST preponderance -- HUNDREDS!
-- used in official and legal documents are clearly military or
militia-oriented. You really need to provide proof and cites,
even ONE incident.
For all the side-stepping over whether Quakers actually hunted
using guns, nobody even brought up to address the irrefutable
examples that have NO other meaning:
New Hampshire Constitution of 1784: "No person who is
conscientiously scrupulous about the lawfulness of bearing arms,
shall be compelled thereto, provided he will pay an equivalent."
Does anyone KNOW of ANY laws that compelled people to "carry
guns"? Or any people who had religious qualms about the
LAWFULNESS of "carrying guns"? Cites? And what is this paying an
equivalent stuff? Give someone else money and YOU won't be
compelled by LAWS to "carry a gun"? Is there ANY way to read
this except as a militia article?
Constitutional amendment proposed by Rhode Island's 1790
ratifying convention: "That the people have a right to keep and
bear arms; ... That any person religiously scrupulous of bearing
arms ought to be exempted upon payment of an equivalent to
employ another to bear arms in his stead."
Same here. "...to employ another to bear arms in his stead." Is
someone being paid to "carry a gun"? This is simply a militia
amendment. AS WAS MADISON'S!:
The best evidence for the Second Amendment meaning of "bear
arms" is in the original draft of the Amendment proposed in the
First Congress by James Madison: "The right of the people to
keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and
well regulated militia being the best security of a free
country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms,
shall be compelled to render military service in person."
In the last clause of this version (the conscientious
objector provision), Madison clearly used the phrase "bearing
arms" to refer solely to using weapons as part of military
service usage. It is implausible to contend that virtually the
same phrase "bear arms" should have a different, much broader
meaning elsewhere in the very same sentence. (David Yassky)
Why will NOBODY address and refute this simple FACT?
Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys 154 (Tenn. 1840)
The 28th section of our bill of rights provides "that no citizen
of this state shall be compelled to bear arms provided he will
pay in equivalent, to be ascertained by law." Here we know that
the phrase has a military sense, and no other; and we must infer
that it is used in the same sense in the 26th section, which
secures to the citizen the right to bear arms. A man in the
pursuit of deer, elk, and buffaloes might carry his rifle every
day for forty years, and yet it would never be said of him that
he had borne arms; much less could it be said that a private
citizen bears arms because he has a dirk or pistol concealed
under his clothes, or a spear in a cane.
Can anyone twist Judge Greens words around here to make "bear
arms" simply equal "carry guns"?
> Additionally, you continue to ignore the small phrase in the 2nd that says
> "TO KEEP".
You are either a disingenuous liar or an ignorant troll! I have
addressed this point at least a DOZEN times, and even answered
YOU on May 13th. Here, read it AGAIN:
IF Madison had written "the right of individual persons to own
and carry weapons, shall not be infringed," you MIGHT have a
point. But he DIDN'T. "Bear arms" was a term of art, a verb
phrase (and the extended version keep-and-bear-arms, too); you
can't break it up because you WANT to use 21st Century logic.
The term was a verb phrase, analogous today to one like
"practice medicine." Sure, if you mistakenly break down the
phrases you can get bear=carry + arms=guns = carry guns, or
practice=keep trying + medicine=pills in a bottle = keep trying
pills in a bottle. But any literate person today knows that
"practice medicine" means to serve as a doctor, just as any
literate person of 1790 knew that "bear arms" meant to serve as
a soldier.
You seem to be unaware of what the words mean AS they were
written in the 18th Century, AND what the courts have since
confirmed the "right" to be.
"To keep and" merely EXTENDS the verb phrase "bear arms," as in:
medicine
practice medicine
study and practice medicine
"Kildare has decided to study and practice medicine."
Keep-and-bear-arms is a term of art.
Now, I didn't use this to be an EXACT parallel of "keep and bear
arms," since that wasn't my purpose. But I will say that, just
as one needs to be licensed to PRACTICE medicine, not just
ANYONE can STUDY medicine, either. If you think so, try walking
into the Harvard Medical School, sit down in a classroom, and
tell everyone you're "studying medicine"! In order to STUDY
medicine, one must be ACCEPTED into an accredited Medical
School, and THAT means meeting very strict and demanding
requirements, something only a fraction of even college grads
can do, and THEN one must train and maintain one's grades and
performance over the entire study period of YEARS.
So, sure, any 20-year-old has the same "right to study and
practice medicine" as anyone else -- in theory and potential --
but until he or she is ACCEPTED in med school, graduates, is
licensed, and opens a practice or works for a hospital or
clinic, that "right" is not exercised.
Likewise, in 18th Century America, SOME people (free, white,
property-owning, able-bodied males, 18-45, not in prison or
mentally-defective) had the potential right to "keep and bear
arms" but until they were ACCEPTED into an authorized, well
regulated "trained band" "under military discipline," they were
NOT considered IN the Militia, and the "right" was not
exercised.
First, you must use the word IN CONTEXT, which in this case, is
the MILITIA.
ALL the debates about the 2nd Amen involved the militia:
universal militia vs. select militia, state vs. fed control of
the militia, who - state or feds - was going to provide arms. I
challenge you to produce ANY 2nd Amen debate material that
discusses private ownership of weapons. As the term "keep and
bear arms" MEANS militia preservation (keep arms) and service
(bear arms), "owning and using guns" is NOT what Madison was
protecting. As Miller said:
"With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render
possible the effectiveness of such forces [the well regulated
Militia armed, organized, and disciplined by the Congress, as
stated in the previous paragraph] the declaration and guarantee
of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and
applied with that end in view..."
You have a limited sense of the militia's operation. ARMS does
not refer merely to the personal weapons that a single
militiaman might bring when called up. "Keeping" is a militia
function, and it includes BOTH the communal storage and "keeping
up" of "arms" (which is the ENTIRE "equipage" of warfare: cannon
and balls, powder, tents, flags, wagons, siege apparatus,
engineering equipment, regimentals, accouterments, etc.) AND the
personal "keeping" of those REGISTERED militia weapons (see
Militia Act of 1792) specified by law.
This is from historian Garry Wills:
To keep. Gun advocates read "to keep and bear" disjunctively,
and think the verbs refer to entirely separate activities.
"Keep," for them, means "possess personally at home" — a lot to
load into one word. To support this entirely fanciful
construction, they have to neglect the vast literature on
militias. It is precisely in that literature that
to-keep-and-bear is a description of one connected process. To
understand what "keep" means in a military context, we must
recognize how the description of a local militia's function was
always read in contrast to the role of a standing army. Armies,
in the ideology of the time, should not be allowed to keep their
equipment in readiness...
The idea of militia "stands" in common depots or arsenals was
not confined to England. In America, the Articles of
Confederation required that "every state shall always keep up a
well regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and
accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use,
in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a
proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage."
(equipage being etymological sense of arma). Thus it is as
erroneous to suppose that "keep" means, of itself, "keep at
home" as to think that "arms" means only guns. Patrick Henry
tells us, the militia's arms include "regimentals, etc." flags,
ensigns, engineering tools, siege apparatus, and other
"accouterments of war."
Some arms could be kept at home, of course. Some officers kept
their most valuable piece of war equipment, a good cross-country
horse, at home, where its upkeep was a daily matter feeding and
physical regimen.
But military guns were not ideally kept home. When militias were
armed, it was, so far as possible, with guns of standard issue,
interchangeable parts, uniform in their shot, upkeep and
performance — the kind of "firelocks" Trenchard wanted kept "in
every parish" (not every home). The contrast with armies was not
to be in performance (Trenchard and others boasted of the high
degree of efficient organization in militias). The contrast was
in continuity. The militia was always at the ready, its arms
"kept." Armies came and went — their "continuation" was what
Trenchard attacked...
To keep-and-bear arms was the distinguishing note of the
militia's permanent readiness, as opposed to the army's duty of
taking up and laying down ("deponing" is Trenchard's word) their
arms in specific wars. The militia was maintained on a
continuing basis, its arsenal kept up, its readiness expressed
in the complex process specified by "keep-and-bear." To separate
one term from this context and treat it as specifying a
different right (of home possession) is to impart into the
language something foreign to each term in itself, to the
conjunction of terms, and to the entire context of Madison's
sentence.
"It is possible, and likely, that the "keep arms" component was
also understood in early America in an exclusively military
context. This is especially likely since virtually every militia
act used the word "keep" or a close synonym to describe the
requirement to own or have custody of a weapon and maintain it
for military use. And there is no doubt that Americans like John
Adams, the author of the Massachusetts bill of rights of 1780
which was the first to use "keep arms" as part of a
constitutional guarantee, saw the English common law
implications of the phrase. However, like "bear arms," "keep
arms" was American terminology, as opposed to the English "have
arms" expression. Therefore, it is time to relook at the Second
Amendment and reconstruct this badly deconstructed article of
the Bill of Rights in a military context." (J.K.Rowland)
The "people" with the Jus Militiae right to "keep and bear arms"
(which means to serve IN the militia) were those who qualified
for the militia; Congress could not infringe on that right by
making it moot by FAILING to fulfill their constitutional duty
to ARM, ORGANIZE, and DISCIPLINE the Militia, which is what
Mason and the anti-feds were concerned about, and WHY the 2nd
Amen was written and passed.
Those individuals who qualified for "bearing arms" (serving)
within a well regulated militia could not be deprived of owning
and storing at home THOSE weapons in service to the militia,
such weapons being inspected and "enrolled" (registered) each
year during the call up for drilling and taking a "return of
militia" to maintain a record of the inventory of men and
weapons the state had at its disposal (Militia Act of 1792).
Only those who "bear arms" have any militia interest in "keeping
them" in the sense Madison and Adams used the term. Your right,
if any, to "possess and carry guns" is up to state and local
ordinances, under their police powers and public order and
safety concerns. Once you understand that "bear arms" MEANS "to
serve as a soldier" and DOES NOT MEAN "carry guns" it all starts
to make sense.
The Jus Militiae right of citizen-soldiers to participate in
their state's military function, to "render military service in
person" (Madison's use of "bearing arms" in the conscientious
objector clause of his original draft of the 2nd Amen which the
House passed but the Senate removed) and to "keep up the
supplies and readiness" of the militia (John Adam's
understanding of the term "keep arms" which he first
incorporated into the Massachusetts Const of 1780 -- "a right to
keep and bear arms for the common defence."), has been confused
with some individual right to own and carry guns independent of
militia service.
"John Adams, who was as important to the Massachusetts
Declaration of Rights as Mason was to Virginia's, borrowed the
style of the Quaker State's declaration when he drafted the
Declaration of Rights that stood for ratification with the 1780
constitution. "The people," he wrote, "have a right to keep and
to bear arms for the common defence." By "the people," John
Adams meant the militia. "The public sword, without a hand to
hold it, is but cold iron," he noted some years later, and "the
hand which holds this sword is the militia of the nation."...
"(Lawrence Cress)
"To keep and bear arms" IS what militiamen DO! They SERVE
IN (bear arms) and MAINTAIN the readiness of (keep arms) THE
MILITIA! Look at Madison's usage, or the OED's! It's axiomatic
that the militia can't be maintained IF the states have their
right to maintain their militias infringed by the federal
government!:
HICKMAN v. BLOCK No. 94-55836. United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.
Decided April 5, 1996.
We follow our sister circuits in holding that the Second
Amendment is a RIGHT held by the states, and does not protect
the possession of a weapon by a private citizen.
Consulting the text and history of the amendment, the Court
found that the right to keep and bear arms is meant solely to
protect the RIGHT OF THE STATES to keep and maintain armed
militia.
The Court's understanding follows a plain reading of the
Amendment's text. The Amendment's second clause declares that
the goal is to preserve the security of "a free state;" its
first clause establishes the premise that a "well-regulated
militia" is necessary to this end. Thus it is only in
furtherance of state security that "the right of the people
to keep and bear arms" is finally proclaimed.
> In addition, Hamilton would laugh in your face. I guess he didn't know what
> the document was really about. He blathered in the Federalist Papers.
>
> "Little more can be reasonably aimed at with respect to the people at
> large than to have them properly armed and equipped. This will not only
> lessen the call for military establishments; but if circumstances should at
> any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army
> can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a
> large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline
> and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights and those of
> their fellow citizens."
Geez! YOU already presented this EXACT same BS on May 13th, and
I responded then, and YOU never refuted my response! NOR any of
the other out-of-context quotes I demolished!
YOU quote him out of context! (Besides the laughable fact that
the Fed Papers had NOTHING to do with the drafting of the BOR,
which came YEARS later, but only the Const itself! How does THIS
cite, and the Fed Papers in general, address what Madison
submitted to Congress in June of 1789?)
What a disingenuous snippet! Hamilton was calling here for a
select, NOT universal militia! He PREFERRED a standing army, as
did Washington, and had little regard for the militia's ability.
When you present the same old out-of-context snippet that
EVERYONE here does, without showing how the ENTIRE piece was
ONLY about the maintenance and control of the militia, you are
being disingenuous. He was arguing for a select militia, as
second choice to what he REALLY wanted, a standing army of
professionals.
It's easy to draw erroneous conclusions from insufficient and
selectively-edited snippets.
Again, this has nothing to do with the 2nd Amen, but with the
question of standing armies, and a select vs. "universal"
militia during the Constitution ratifications. By the time of
the 2nd Amen, this was moot and settled. Again, this is not
about individual rights, but how the select corps of militia
would be best trained and equipped.
*The words between asterisks that follow from No. 29 are the
words quoted,*
the other words have been conveniently left out. The words by
themselves seem to make one point, but in full context they
defeat it. Here, it has to be noted that in full context
Hamilton is arguing for the select militia not the
universal militia, the very opposite of what would seem to be
represented. This is the work of true belief or outright
dishonesty, not objective scholarship.
Like Patrick Henry, this is really a question of MONEY, and what
was feasible. Hamilton, who served as Washington's aide-de-camp,
saw for himself the pathetic showing of the militia in combat;
he did not believe the militia should be the backbone of the
nation's defenses, and favored a trained standing army. But a
select corps of trained militia -- and THAT'S who he's talking
about being armed -- is the second best option. As for the
militia, when you read the following, you see that he realizes
that arming and training the ENTIRE militia to HIS standards was
impractical, if not impossible: "the scheme of disciplining the
whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable";
the best HE could hope for, at least, and SARCASTICALLY, is that
they be armed, for they surely won't be trained!
"But so far from viewing the matter in the same light with those
who object to select corps as dangerous, were the Constitution
ratified and were I to deliver my sentiments to a member of the
federal legislature on the subject of a militia establishment, I
should hold to him, in the substance, the following discourse:
"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United
States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable
of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness of
military movements is a business that requires time and
practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that
will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body
of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be
under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises
and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the
degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character
of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the
people and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would
form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the
country to an amount which, calculating upon the present members
of the people, would not fall far short of a million pounds. To
attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and
industry to so considerable an extent would be unwise: and the
experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not
long be endured.
*Little more can reasonably be aimed at with respect to the
people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped;*
and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be
necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a
year.
"But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be
abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of
the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon
as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the
militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to
be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate size,
upon such principles as will really fit it for service in case
of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to
have an excellent body of well-trained militia ready to take the
field whenever the defense of the State shall require it.
*This will not only lessen the call for military establishments,
but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to
form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable
to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of
citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and
the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and
those of their fellow-citizens.*
This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a
standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it
should exist.
Thus differently from the adversaries of the proposed
Constitution should I reason on the same subject, deducing
arguments to safety from the very sources which they represent
as fraught with danger and perdition. But now the national
legislature may reason on the point is a thing which neither
they nor I can foresee.
The Second Amendment had not yet been written and Hamilton does
not mention an individual right or the sedentary militia. He
sort of suggests the possibility of a sedentary militia but only
to deny its viability.
Want to know what Hamilton REALLY thought (Federalist 25):
Here I expect we shall be told that the militia of the country
is its natural bulwark, and would be at all times equal to the
national defense. This doctrine, in substance had like to have
lost us our independence. It cost millions to the United States
that might have been saved. The facts which from our own
experience forbid any reliance of this kind are too recent to
permit us to be the dupes of such a suggestion. The steady
operations of war against a regular and disciplined army can
only be successfully conducted by a force of the same kind.
Considerations of economy, not less than of stability and vigor,
confirm this position. The American militia, in the course of
the late war, have, by their valor on numerous occasions,
erected eternal monuments to their fame; but the bravest of them
feel and know that the liberty of their country could not have
been established by their efforts alone, however great and
valuable they were. War, like most other things, is a science to
be acquire and perfected by diligence, by perseverance, by time,
and by practice.
> You and Rowland are wrong. There - that was easy.
Yes, it's always easy to state an unsubstantiated opinion
without any basis in fact and then declare victory! Why don't
you try some ACTUAL cites as proof of your claim? Why don't you
SHOW how Rowland is wrong? Did Hamilton use the phrase "bear
arms" in your quote? What did the RI/NH/Green cites MEAN by
"bear arms" if NOT militia service?
You are hilarious! There -- THAT was easy!
Steve Krulick
Well, damn, not only did the message-cancel/repost mess throw
off my unread messages folder, but a glitch in my .snm file
caused a freeze when trying to open this TPG NG; so I had to
trash the files and re-download the messages, losing some of the
expired unread posts in the process. Since the killfile listings
got overwritten, I got to see that the same old disingenuous
maroons were posting the same old disingenuous tripe, in spite
of my trying to "educate" them with the truth! It seems
citizen/Caruso/Sidel? just blithely posts his nonsense on,
whether it's true or not!
Maybe before I put him and some of the other "scholars" back
into the loony bin, I should see just how much silly stuff they
are pumping out!
> xona_...@hotmail.com (xona) wrote in message news:<4ea44f33.01052...@posting.google.com>...
> > A collection of mostly middle-age, balding, fat
>
> Too much foaming at the mouth irreverence!
>
> Please try again:>))
>
> Bamma Brian made a cliché that fit nitwitish ignoramus "Steve Krulick",to
> a,"T"
>
> If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit:>))
Perhaps some licensed psychiatrist reading these NGs can explain
what type of obsessive personality finds it necessary to bring
up, in a TOTALLY unrelated post -- indeed making a sig file out
of it and posting it over and over -- reference to a person who
hasn't anything to do with the post itself (who is probably an
unknown and irrelevant cipher to the person whose post is being
addressed), and to call that person, without any substantiation
(indeed, in spite of all evidence to the contrary) a "nitwitish
ignoramus" and then ascribe to another person credit for having
"made a cliché" that has been in general use for decades, a
claim that he can not support with any substantiation either!
Can "citizen" show where my posts were not intellectually
scintinlating? Can he show where I was bullshitting? Of course
not! He never has, and never will. When he demanded I address
Schulman's silly essay on the grammar of the 2nd Amen, I
demolished it line by line, and "citizen" NEVER was able to
refute MY argument, page after page of it. The best he could do,
pathetically, was repost the paragraph that, by my proving it
was totally false, undermined the entire credibility of Schulman
and his dupe!:
> [Copperud:] "To the best of my knowledge, there has been no
> change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the
> meaning of the amendment.
And here Copperud shows himself to be no expert on 18th Century
usage! He has undermined his entire credibility and made his
entire value to Schulman nil! See again the Madison draft, the
other contemporary examples, the OED definition, and the Aymette
ruling. Here are HUNDREDS of similar uses of "bear arms" to
Madison's that show Copperud to be ignorant of this important
point!: http://www.potomac-inc.org/emerappa.html.
No matter HOW MANY times "citizen" reposts Copperud's ignorance,
it only shows how lame is his case! Clearly, the way the words
are used HAVE changed in 200 years, and THAT "would affect the
meaning of the amendment."
Here, Scarecrow... catch!
To "keep and bear arms" is NOT identical to "own and carry
weapons."
You seem to be unaware of what the words mean AS they were
written in the 18th Century, AND what the courts have since
confirmed the "right" to be:
The best evidence for the Second Amendment meaning of "bear
arms" is in the original draft of the Amendment proposed in the
First Congress by James Madison: "The right of the people to
keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and
well regulated militia being the best security of a free
country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms,
shall be compelled to render military service in person."
In the last clause of this version (the conscientious
objector provision), Madison clearly used the phrase "bearing
arms" to refer solely to using weapons as part of military
service usage. It is implausible to contend that virtually the
same phrase "bear arms" should have a different, much broader
meaning elsewhere in the very same sentence. (David Yassky)
Madison's use of the phrase "bear arms" to refer to military
activities is echoed in other contemporary usages; these usages
were standard at the time the Second Amendment was adopted.:
New Hampshire Constitution of 1784: "No person who is
conscientiously scrupulous about the lawfulness of bearing arms,
shall be compelled thereto, provided he will pay an equivalent."
Constitutional amendment proposed by Rhode Island's 1790
ratifying convention: "That the people have a right to keep and
bear arms; ... That any person religiously scrupulous of bearing
arms ought to be exempted upon payment of an equivalent to
employ another to bear arms in his stead."
Do you think that this last one means that a wealthy Quaker
could pay to have his butler march by his side to tote his rifle
around for him on the battlefield or parade grounds?
Did Quakers have "religious scruples" about "carrying guns" out
to the woods to hunt turkeys?
Does one "bear arms" against a rabbit?
The Oxford English Dictionary defines "to bear arms" as meaning
"to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight." 1 OED 634
(J.A. Simpson & E.S.C. Weiner eds., 2nd ed. 1989) (hereinafter,
"OED"). It defines "to bear arms against" as meaning "to be
engaged in hostilities with." 2 id. at 21. As an exemplary use
of the phrase in 1769, the OED gives "An ample pardon . . . to
all who had born arms against him," and the exemplary use from
1609 is "He bare arms, and made weir against the king." Id"
These usages were standard at the time the Second Amendment was
adopted.
In the mid-19th century the original usage of "bear arms" was
still understood:
Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys 154 (Tenn. 1840)
"The 28th section of our bill of rights provides "that no
citizen of this state shall be compelled to bear arms provided
he will pay in equivalent, to be ascertained by law." Here we
know that the phrase has a military sense, and no other; and we
must infer that it is used in the same sense in the 26th
section, which secures to the citizen the right to bear arms. A
man in the pursuit of deer, elk, and buffaloes might carry his
rifle every day for forty years, and yet it would never be said
of him that he had borne arms; much less could it be said that a
private citizen bears arms because he has a dirk or pistol
concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane."
Why not look at what was said about the terms from late 19th
century through early 20th century:
"see also English v. State, 35 Tex. 473, 476 (1872)("The word
'arms' in the connection we find it in the Constitution of the
United States refers to the arms of a militiaman or soldier, and
the word is used in its military sense."); Hill v. Georgia, 53
Ga. 472, 475 (1874) ("the language of the constitution of this
state as well as that of the United States guarantees only the
right to keep and bear the 'arms' necessary for a militiaman");
State v. Workman, 35 W. Va. 367, 373 (1891) ("in regard to the
kind of arms protected by the [Second A]mendment, it must be
held to refer to weapons of warfare to be used by the militia");
City of Salina v. Blaksly, 72 Kan. 230, 233 (1905) (both U.S.
and Kansas Constitutions "appl[y] only to the right to bear arms
as a member of the state militia, or some other military
organization provided by law"); Ex parte Thomas, 21 Okla. 770
(1908) (interpreting Oklahoma Constitution) ("As the object for
which the right to keep and bear arms is secured is of general
and public nature, to be exercised by the people in a body, for
their common defense, so the arms, the right to keep which is
secured, are such as are usually employed in civilized
warfare"); In re Rameriz, 193 Cal. 633, 651-52 (1924) ("An
examination of the numerous authorities in various states will
show that the right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by a
state constitutional provision similar to the federal amendment
refers only to the bearing of arms by the citizens in defense of
a common cause"); cf. Joel Prentiss Bishop, Commentaries on the
Law of Statutory Crimes 497 (1873) (Second Amendment "protects
only the right to 'keep' such 'arms' as are used for purposes of
war . . . since such, only, are properly known by the name of
'arms;' and such, only, are adapted to promote 'the security of
a free State.' In like manner, the right to 'bear' arms refers
merely to the military way of using them. . . .); Lucilius
Emery, The Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms, 28 Harv.
L. Rev. 473, 476 (1915) ("The single individual or the
unorganized crowd, in carrying weapons, is not spoken of or
thought of as 'bearing arms.'").
The term was a verb phrase, analogous today to one like
"practice medicine." Sure, if you mistakenly break down the
phrases you can get bear=carry + arms=guns = carry guns, or
practice=keep trying + medicine=pills in a bottle = keep trying
pills in a bottle. But any literate person today knows that
"practice medicine" means to serve as a doctor, just as any
literate person of 1790 knew that "bear arms" meant to serve as
a soldier.
As for the "keep" part in this term of art verb phrase, this is
from historian Garry Wills:
Want HUNDREDS more examples of the "clear language" in the 2nd
Amen as used up to 1790? Go to:
http://www.potomac-inc.org/emerappa.html
"Bear arms" means, as Madison's original draft shows, and the
OED confirms, to "serve as a soldier" and whether one may
possess and use a weapon under 2nd Amen protection must, as US
v. Miller stated, show some "reasonable relationship to the
preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.":
UNITED STATES v. Francis J. WARIN.
No. 75-1734. United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Decided Feb. 4, 1976.
Since the Second Amendment right "to keep and bear Arms" applies
only to the RIGHT OF THE STATE to maintain a militia and not to
the individual's right to bear arms, there can be no serious
claim to any express constitutional right of an individual to
possess a firearm...
It would unduly extend this opinion to attempt to deal with
every argument made by defendant and amicus curiae, Second
Amendment Foundation, all of which are based on the erroneous
supposition that the Second Amendment is concerned with the
RIGHTS of individuals rather than THOSE OF THE STATES or that
defendant's automatic membership in the "sedentary militia" of
Ohio brings him within the reach of its guarantees.
HICKMAN v. BLOCK No. 94-55836. United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.
Decided April 5, 1996.
We follow our sister circuits in holding that the Second
Amendment is a RIGHT held by the states, and does not protect
the possession of a weapon by a private citizen.
Consulting the text and history of the amendment, the Court
found that the right to keep and bear arms is meant solely to
protect the RIGHT OF THE STATES to keep and maintain armed
militia.
Because the Second Amendment guarantees the RIGHT OF THE STATES
to maintain armed militia, the states alone stand in the
position to show legal injury when this right is infringed.
LOVE v. PEPERSACK
No. 94-1582. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Decided Feb. 3, 1995.
"The courts have consistently held that the Second Amendment
only confers a COLLECTIVE RIGHT of keeping and bearing arms
which must bear a "reasonable relationship to the preservation
or efficiency of a well-regulated militia."
UNITED STATES v. HALE.
No. 91-3830. United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Decided Oct. 20, 1992.
"The purpose of the Second Amendment is to restrain the
federal government from regulating the possession of arms where
such regulation would interfere with the preservation or
efficiency of the militia. Whether the "right to bear arms" for
militia purposes is "individual" or "collective" in nature is
irrelevant where, as here, the individual's possession of arms
is not related to the preservation or efficiency of a militia."
Mark Balcom
"Rich Travsky" <trav...@MOVEhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3B093008...@MOVEhotmail.com...
> Larry wrote:
> >
> > pray... I will pray that if in Gods plan he must one day have a victim
> > of rape or a violent crime. That he will see fit to allow you to be
> > on parole will find you an easy target to have his way with. I pray
> > that the criminal does not use a gun but instead, his bear hands will
> > be more than enough to over power the likes of a coward as yourself.
> > views on the NRA and perhaps convince him to either give up his
> > membership or not to join that terrorist group.
>
people?
>
>
He wasn't talking about "innocent people". He was talking about an extremely
foul mouthed individual who believes in stealing the earnings of working
people and giving them to non-producers while refusing people the right and
means to defend themselves from physical attack.
Mark
> On 20 May 2001 22:51:53 -0700, xona_...@hotmail.com (xona) wrote:
> >
> > >A collection of mostly middle-age, balding, fat bellied,
> > >human scum gathered in Kansas City, MO., to kiss each others
> > >terrorist assholes, as America's greatest NAZI organization,
> > >the NRA, held its annual convention for its human lumps of
citizen
> citizen wrote:
>
> Well, damn, not only did the message-cancel/repost mess throw
> off my unread messages folder, but a glitch in my .snm file
> caused a freeze when trying to open this TPG NG; so I had to
> trash the files and re-download the messages, losing some of the
> expired unread posts in the process. Since the killfile listings
> got overwritten, I got to see that the same old disingenuous
> maroons were posting the same old disingenuous tripe, in spite
> of my trying to "educate" them with the truth! It seems
> citizen/Caruso/Sidel? just blithely posts his nonsense on,
> whether it's true or not!
>
> Maybe before I put him and some of the other "scholars" back
> into the loony bin, I should see just how much silly stuff they
> are pumping out!
>
> > xona_...@hotmail.com (xona) wrote in message
news:<4ea44f33.01052...@posting.google.com>...
> > > A collection of mostly middle-age, balding, fat
> >
> > Too much foaming at the mouth irreverence!
> >
> > Please try again:>))
> >
> > Bamma Brian made a cliché that fit nitwitish ignoramus "Steve
Krulick",to
> > a,"T"
> >
> > If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit:>))
>
I wish one could explain why?
You are such a nitwit Steve Krulick?
Steve you are such a blowhard of a fool!
Steve your 20 + kb twisted bullshit won't help you!
Go ahead and blurp out the same old rant ,you have, "Lost"!
The "Second Amendment" ,is as it reads!, in
plain everyday American English!
So says Professor Roy Copperud!
[Copperud:] "The words 'A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the
security of a free state,constitutes a present participle, rather than a
clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying 'militia,' which is
followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject 'the right', verb
'shall'). The to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for
maintaining a militia.
Copperud:] "To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in
the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the
"Second Amendment" !
If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a
well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the
right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.'
From a Wise&Noble "OWL"
Re: Right to Bear Arms 4/19 TPG
To-Steve Krulick!
So to sum up:
First you wanted to appeal to a "plain reading" of the text. When that
goes against you, you want to appeal to legal scholars. But almost all of
them agree that the 2nd amendment protects an individual right. Next, you
want us to look at the statements of the framers of the Constitution. But
that also shows that they intended to protect an individual right. You've
had three strikes so far, but somehow I don't think anything anyone says
could possibly convince you.
Bamma Brian made a cliché that fit nitwitish ignoramus "Steve Krulick",to
a,"T"
If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit:>))
http://americanfreedomnews.com
http://www.libertystory.net/
citizen
>
> Well, damn, not only did the message-cancel/repost mess throw
> off my unread messages folder, but a glitch in my .snm file
> caused a freeze when trying to open this TPG NG; so I had to
> trash the files and re-download the messages, losing some of the
> expired unread posts in the process. Since the killfile listings
That's really a bite "Steve" ,maybe you should go back to "Mack" these PC's
must be to hard for you to master!
My killfile never gets deleted even if I completely delete the whole NG!
'Funny' I have been on line since 90 , and have used every OS there is and
never have I had such a problem ,you must be, "unique Steve"!:>))
"unique" Steve Krulick ,is a, "Redishgreen-socialist-liberal-Brain
Fart!",the head honcho in his county for
the "green party" :>)
Hey! Steve!
Did you know?
The "Second Amendment" ,is as it reads!, in
plain everyday American English!
So says Professor Roy Copperud!
[Copperud:] "The words 'A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the
security of a free state,constitutes a present participle, rather than a
clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying 'militia,' which is
followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject 'the right', verb
'shall'). The to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for
maintaining a militia.
Copperud:] "To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in
the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the
"Second Amendment" !
If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a
well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the
right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.'
From a Wise&Noble "OWL"
Re: Right to Bear Arms 4/19 TPG
To-Steve Krulick!
So to sum up:
First you wanted to appeal to a "plain reading" of the text. When that
goes against you, you want to appeal to legal scholars. But almost all of
them agree that the 2nd amendment protects an individual right. Next, you
want us to look at the statements of the framers of the Constitution. But
that also shows that they intended to protect an individual right. You've
had three strikes so far, but somehow I don't think anything anyone says
could possibly convince you.
Bamma Brian made a cliché that fit nitwitish ignoramus "Steve Krulick",to
a,"T"
If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit:>))
Michael Eglestone
>Steve Krulick wrote:
--- Snip the same LONG WINDED lies and half truths---
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.law.ucla.edu/faculty/volokh/common.htm
The Commonplace Second Amendment
Prof. Eugene Volokh, UCLA Law School *
(73 NYU L. Rev. 793 (1998))
The Second Amendment is widely seen as quite unusual, because it
has a justification clause as well as an operative clause. Professor
Volokh points out that this structure was actually quite commonplace in
American constitutions of the Framing era: State Bills of Rights
contained justification clauses for many of the rights they secured.
Looking at these state provisions, he suggests, can shed light on how
the similarly structured Second Amendment should be interpreted. In
particular, the provisions show that constitutional rights will often --
and for good reason -- be written in ways that are to some extent
overinclusive and to some extent underinclusive with respect to their
stated justifications.
Introduction
"The Second Amendment, unusually for constitutional
provisions, contains a statement of purpose as well as a guarantee of a
right to bear arms." 1 This unusual attribute, some argue, is reason
for courts to interpret the Second Amendment quite differently than they
interpret other constitutional provisions -- perhaps to the point of
reading it as having virtually no effect on government action. 2
My modest discovery 3 is that the Second Amendment is
actually not unusual at all: Many contemporaneous state constitutional
provisions are structured similarly. Rhode Island's 1842 constitution,
its first, provides
The liberty of the press being essential to the security of
freedom in a state, any person may publish his sentiments on any
subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty . . . . 4
Compare this to the Second Amendment's
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. 5
The 1784 New Hampshire Constitution says
In criminal prosecutions, the trial of facts in the vicinity
where they happen, is so essential to the security of the life, liberty
and estate of the citizen, that no crime or offence ought to be tried in
any other county than that in which it is committed . . . . 6
The 1780 Massachusetts Constitution -- followed closely by the 1784 New
Hampshire Constitution and the 1786 Vermont Constitution -- says
The freedom of deliberation, speech, and debate, in either house
of the legislature, is so essential to the rights of the people, that it
cannot be the foundation of any accusation or prosecution, action or
complaint, in any other court or place whatsoever. 7
I list dozens more such provisions in the Appendix.
These provisions, I believe, shed some light on the
interpretation of the Second Amendment:
1.They show that the Second Amendment should be seen as fairly
commonplace, rather than strikingly odd.
2.They rebut the claim that a right expires when courts conclude
that the justification given for the right is no longer valid or is no
longer served by the right.
3.They show that operative clauses are often both broader and
narrower than their justification clauses, thus casting doubt on the
argument that the right exists only when (in the courts' judgment) it
furthers the goals identified in the justification clause. 8
4.They point to how the two clauses might be read together, without
disregarding either.
The provisions also suggest two things about
interpretation more generally. First, they remind us that the U.S.
Constitution is just one of the at least fifty-one American
constitutions in force today, and one of the dozens of constitutions
that existed during the Framing era. 9 The legal academy's
understandable focus on federal matters can blind us to some important
details.
Second, these provisions help show the value of testing
interpretive proposals against a politically mixed range of texts. On a
topic as incendiary as gun control, it's obviously tempting for people
to reach an interpretation based largely on their policy desires. If we
want to be honest interpreters, a broad set of test cases for our
interpretive method is a good tool for checking our political biases.
I. A Normal Right
To begin with, so long as the Second Amendment seems
strikingly unusual -- so long as it appears to be the only provision
with a justification clause -- people will naturally wonder whether this
oddity is some sort of signal: Perhaps, for instance, the Framers were
themselves so hesitant about the right that they intentionally tried to
limit its force; in any event, they must have been telling us something,
or else why would they have written the Amendment so strangely?
The state provisions show that the Second Amendment is
just one of many constitutional provisions that happen to be structured
this way, and that the federal Bill of Rights is just one of many that
contain only one or a few justification clauses. 10 I have seen no
evidence of a correlation between the presence of a justification clause
and the provision's perceived importance. 11
These state provisions also remind us that early
constitutions were political documents as well as legal ones. They were
meant to capture people's allegiance, both in order to get the provision
approved, and to persuade future generations to adhere to it. In this
context, setting forth the justifications for a provision makes perfect
rhetorical sense. This observation doesn't dispose of the question of
what legal significance should be given to the clauses once they are
enacted, but it does counsel against viewing the presence of the clauses
as something deeply portentous.
-- See the URL for the complete text of this article --
Mark Balcom
John Adams; "Arms in the hands of citizens [may] be used at individual
discretion..in private self-defense."
James Madison; "[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed
which Americans possess over the people of almost every other
nation...[where] the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
Thomas Paine; "..arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe,
and preserve order in the world as well as property...Horrid mischief would
ensue were [the law abiding] deprived the use of them."
Thomas Jefferson; "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those
who are neither inclined nor determined to commitcrimes...Such laws make
things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve
rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be
attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
> For all the side-stepping over whether Quakers actually hunted
> using guns, nobody even brought up to address the irrefutable
> examples that have NO other meaning:
>
> New Hampshire Constitution of 1784: "No person who is
> conscientiously scrupulous about the lawfulness of bearing arms,
> shall be compelled thereto, provided he will pay an equivalent."
>
> Does anyone KNOW of ANY laws that compelled people to "carry
> guns"?
Yes.
Right after Morton Grove passed their famous gun ban a couple of cities
passed laws requiring all homes be armed.
> "Keep," for them, means "possess personally at home" - a lot to
> performance - the kind of "firelocks" Trenchard wanted kept "in
> every parish" (not every home). The contrast with armies was not
> to be in performance (Trenchard and others boasted of the high
> degree of efficient organization in militias). The contrast was
> in continuity. The militia was always at the ready, its arms
> "kept." Armies came and went - their "continuation" was what
Steve Krulick
What does that even mean? Do you think that snipping away ALL I
wrote, and putting a question mark where I didn't put one, and
stopping there, is an adequate response? No wonder I killfiled
your sorry butt! You, as usual, failed to answer a SINGLE point
I brought up! You are a side-stepping troll!
>
> You are such a nitwit Steve Krulick?
"?" What is the "?" in this sentence for? Can't you even write
simple English? And YOU would lecture ME on proper usage? HA!
> Steve you are such a blowhard of a fool!
Why, because YOU say so? WHO is producing facts and evidence and
WHO is merely bloviating unsubstantiated opinions? WHO is
sticking to the issues and WHO is ONLY engaging in ad hominem
name-calling?
What have I said that is foolish? Cite an example; prove it.
> Steve your 20 + kb twisted bullshit won't help you!
Your refusal to address ANY of my challenges and evidence can't
but show you to be an empty-handed, empty-headed maroon. Calling
the overwhelming evidence I've presented "twisted bullshit"
doesn't make it so! Why not show everyone WHY it is bullshit!
Prove me wrong! Is Madison BS? Are the court rulings? Is the
OED?
Why are you only capable of fact-free and unsubstantiated
opinions?
> Go ahead and blurp out the same old rant ,you have, "Lost"!
Right, because YOU say so! Lost what? If this were even just a
high-school debate, YOU'D have been laughed off the stage long
ago for your fatuous and vacuous burbling. Why can't you
address, much less refute, what I've said?
> The "Second Amendment" ,is as it reads!, in
> plain everyday American English!
Said by someone who can't even use commas correctly! YOU
wouldn't know plain everyday American English if it bit you on
the nose!
> So says Professor Roy Copperud!
Copperud is wrong! I proved it! HE claims there is NO change in
usage or meaning since 1790 of "bear arms," and that is plainly
incorrect.
But you, being a blithering loon, just keep posting the smoking
gun itself, as it were, brandishing the very instrument of your
defeat! What a Maroon!
> From a Wise&Noble "OWL"
Yeah, that bunch of misinterpretation got lost from my unread
folder; he threw up a whole bunch of straw that claimed to SAY
what *I* meant to say, when it got everything wrong, and went on
from there. He NEVER refuted anything I said. If you can find
it, and repost it, I WILL tear it apart.
> Re: Right to Bear Arms 4/19 TPG
>
> To-Steve Krulick!
>
> So to sum up:
> First you wanted to appeal to a "plain reading" of the text.
And I did, from Madison, RI, NH, Judge Green, and more than a
dozen examples of "bear arms." And from several examples of
settled case law. HE, and YOU, refuted none of them. The plain
reading IS as I presented.
> When that goes against you,
WHOA! Hold on Hoss! How did that go against me? Because YOUR
opinion differs? Because some OTHER unsubstantiated opinions
differed? No, nobody has refuted Madison's usage, or the others
I presented. Just saying it did doesn't make it so.
> you want to appeal to legal scholars.
Until 1960 ALL legal scholarship presented ONLY the collective
interpretation; since then, only a handful of the same people
have generated the bulk of the individual interpretation, and
they have been debunked for sloppy and disingenuous work, by me
and by the people I referenced.
> But almost all of
> them agree that the 2nd amendment protects an individual right.
NONSENSE! A handful of NRA hacks and pseudoscholars, posting the
identical recycled material from each other in non-peer reviewed
journals with NO historical understanding or understanding of
the language as Madison used it. They may agree, but they
haven't proven it to anyone but themselves. The courts don't
agree with them. The very fact that THEY don't even know what
"bear arms" was used by Madison to mean (or they won't admit
they know) is proof they don't know WHICH right is being
addressed. YOUR saying almost all agree doesn't make it so
either.
"A large and increasingly influential body of writing argues for
a new and very different interpretation of the Second Amendment
- different, that is, from the verdict delivered by the
Constitution's founders, history, and the courts. This emerging
discourse, which I will refer to generally as the individualist
view, shares three key traits. First, this new theory of the
Second Amendment has emerged and proliferated almost entirely
from lawyers writing in law journals. Second, this emergent body
of writing is exerting progressively more influence over Second
Amendment interpretation, writings in the public press, and
perhaps public policy. Third, this new theory of the Second
Amendment is stunningly and fatally defective...
Specifically, I argue that law journals provide a uniquely
fertile breeding ground for the development of defective
constitutional analysis, a phenomenon by no means unique to the
realm of the Second Amendment... Despite the definitive nature
of constitutional reading, historical lessons, and court
rulings, some legal writers, publishing primarily in law
journals, have sought to spin out other interpretations of the
Second Amendment.[15] These authors have succeeded in finding
legitimacy for a variety of erroneous and even nonsensical
arguments concerning the meaning of the Second Amendment through
publication in law journals." (Spitzer)
For some further grist on this point, and so as not to take up
more bandwidth here:
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/SpitzerChicago.htm
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/RakoveChicago.htm
for extra credit, read:
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Herz1.html
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/SchwoererChicago.htm
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/BogusChicago.htm
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/BellesilesChicago.htm
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/DorfChicago.htm
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/FarberChicago.htm
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/FinkelmanChicago.htm
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/HeymanChicago.htm
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/UvillerAndMerkelChicago.htm
> Next, you
> want us to look at the statements of the framers of the Constitution.
ONLY the relevant and NON-BOGUS ones! The statements constantly
puked up to me are the same HOAXS, misquotes, and out-of-context
snippets I have REPEATEDLY shown to be irrelevant to the 2nd
Amen drafting and passage debates, if not outright FRAUDS! They
show NOTHING about what Madison meant in HIS draft, something
YOU and everyone else IGNORES!
> But
> that also shows that they intended to protect an individual right.
Bull! NOT ONE of those quotes, read in its original context
shows that! NOT ONE! There is NO mention of ANY individual right
to own or use a gun independent of militia service, as almost
ALL the even semi-relevant quotes are ONLY about the militias!
NOTHING about hunting, personal self-defense in these debates
over the 2nd Amen, only the fed/state balance of control over
the militia! PERIOD! The personal right MADISON wished to
protect was the conscientious objector right to NOT serve in the
militia for religious reasons; the HOUSE passed THAT individual
right as part of the entire MILITIA AMENDMENT, but the SENATE
nixed it.
YOUR delusional belief over WHAT they intended, absent any
DIRECT connection between the quote (assuming it were even in
context) AND the 2nd Amen creation and passage, is just that:
your unsubstantiated opinion.
AS for intent itself:
Only the WORDS they WROTE in the ACTUAL process of passing
the BOR matter! Robert Bork, one of the most conservative legal
scholars, who is the leading proponent of "originalism" (and
BTW, has stated that the Second Amendment operates "to guarantee
the right of states to form militia, not for individuals to bear
arms." He believes California's assault-weapons ban is, and
indeed "probably" all state gun control measures are,
constitutional... "[T]he National Rifle Association is always
arguing that the Second Amendment determines the right to bear
arms. But I think it really is people's right to bear arms in a
militia. The NRA thinks that it protects their right to have
Teflon-coated bullets. But that's not the original
understanding.") has explained:
"The search is not for subjective intention. If someone found a
letter from George Washington to Martha telling her that what he
meant by the 'power to lay taxes' was not what other people
meant, that would not change our reading of the Constitution the
slightest. Nor would the subjective intention of all the members
of the ratifying Convention alter anything. When lawmakers use
words, the law that results is what those words ordinarily
mean." (Robert H. Bork, The Tempting of America 144 (1990)
And what the words mean was clearly described in my evidence,
particularly the cite of Madison's draft, since HE was the MAN
who wrote it... and THAT'S what he WROTE!
The best evidence for the Second Amendment meaning of "bear
Arms" is in the original draft of the Amendment proposed in the
First Congress by James Madison: "The right of the people to
keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and
well regulated militia being the best security of a free
country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms,
shall be compelled to render military service in person."
> You've had three strikes so far,
Says the blind umpire! Owl proved NOTHING, refuted NOTHING, and
so-called Citizen applauds this exercise in self-fulfilling
delusion!
> but somehow I don't think anything anyone says
> could possibly convince you.
Not if it is bogus, wrong, irrelevant, unsubstantiated, and
misinterpreted!
> Bamma Brian made a cliché that fit nitwitish ignoramus "Steve Krulick",to
> a,"T"
BB didn't make the cliché; it's been around for decades! Yet
so-called Citizen keeps hawking this nonsense, as if it
mattered. As he has obsessively kept calling me names in posts
that have NOTHING to do with me or these issues! What
psychological condition best explains his compulsive behavior?
> If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit:>))
So-called Citizen has shown no brilliance, except in
side-stepping (notice how he completely avoids ALL the substance
of my post... again!), nor is he baffling anyone, except for
those looking for any logic, but he is chin-deep in bullshit!
What a pathetic waste of electrons he is!
Anyone want to wager that his lame response will STILL avoid any
discussion of the issues themselves, but will merely repeat the
SAME exact nonsense he posted HERE, without any explanation or
substantiation? Anyone wonder why he went into my killfile? I've
seen and heard rambling weirdos in the park, muttering to nobody
in particular, who've made more cogent sense than this
dunderhead!
James Mayer
> >
> > "Steve Krulick" <kry...@ulster.net> wrote in message
> > >
> > > Maybe before I put him and some of the other "scholars" back
> > > into the loony bin, I should see just how much silly stuff they
> > > are pumping out!
> > >
> > > >
> > > > "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."
> > > > ----------------------
> > >
> > > > Linguistically, the term "bear arms" was not limited to
> > > > militia service.
> > >
> > > Why, because of YOUR mere say so?
> > >
> > > Get educated! Here's HUNDREDS of pre-1790 cites of the term
> > > "bear arms" that clearly have military reference, along with
> > > comparison to other separate uses by "carry arms" and the like.
> > > http://www.potomac-inc.org/emerappa.html
> > > Read Rowland's essay and tell me he and I are wrong!
> > >
> >
> > You really need to retire your posting bot. By any school of debate, just
> > ONE incident of 'bearing arms' will negate your entire argument.
>
> Except that nobody has produced a clearcut and irrefutable
> example of this in pre-1790 in-context usage! Oh, there may be
> one dug-up example by a semi-literate dashed off in a hurry in
> some irrelevant passage, but the VAST preponderance -- HUNDREDS!
> -- used in official and legal documents are clearly military or
> militia-oriented. You really need to provide proof and cites,
> even ONE incident.
>
> using guns, nobody even brought up to address the irrefutable
> examples that have NO other meaning:
>
http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel031601.shtml
Concerning the grammar of the Second Amendment:
http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm
Concerning lower court cases:
http://www.2ndlawlib.org/journals/quinshy.html
http://www.2ndLawLib.org/journals/dencite.html
Concerning "commas" and the official syntax of the Second Amendment:
http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/constitution/amdt2.html
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.
http://homes.acmecity.com/tv/spotlight/174/
http://www.nidlink.com/~bobhard/images/billofrt.jpg
http://www.nidlink.com/~bobhard/images/f16b1234.jpg
http://patriot.net/~tlj/xplaindp.htm
UNITED STATES v. Francis J. WARIN.
No. 75-1734. United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Decided Feb. 4, 1976.
Since the Second Amendment right "to keep and bear Arms" applies
only to the RIGHT OF THE STATE to maintain a militia and not to
the individual's right to bear arms, there can be no serious
claim to any express constitutional right of an individual to
possess a firearm...
States don’t have rights, only delegated powers.
It would unduly extend this opinion to attempt to deal with
every argument made by defendant and amicus curiae, Second
Amendment Foundation, all of which are based on the erroneous
supposition that the Second Amendment is concerned with the
RIGHTS of individuals rather than THOSE OF THE STATES or that
defendant's automatic membership in the "sedentary militia" of
Ohio brings him within the reach of its guarantees.
States don’t have rights, only delegated powers.
HICKMAN v. BLOCK No. 94-55836. United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.
Decided April 5, 1996.
Hickman Case Exposed
Cite as Hickman v. Block, 81 F.3d 98 (9th Cir. 1996)
DOUGLAS RAY HICKMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant,
> This case turns on the first constitutional standing element:
whether
>Hickman has shown injury to an interest protected by the Second
Amendment. We
>note at the outset that no individual has ever succeeded in
demonstrating such
>injury in federal court.
Then why was Miller allowed to proceed if he had no standing to do so?
If no one has had any standing then why is there a list of cases before
an examination of the footnotes where individuals have brought just such
cases to court?
The seminal authority in this area continues to be
>United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), in which the Supreme
Court upheld
>a conviction under the National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C. S 1132 (1934),
for
>transporting a sawed-off shotgun in interstate commerce.
No conviction was up held in this case. In fact there was no
conviction of Miller on these charges at all up to this point.
>The Court rejected the appellant's hypothesis that the Second Amendment
protected
>his possession of that weapon.
Miller didn't appeal the case, the government did.
> Consulting the text and history of the amendment, the Court found
that the
>right to keep and bear arms is meant solely to protect the right of the
states
>to keep and maintain armed militia.
States have no rights, only powers.
In a famous passage, the Court held that,
>
> '[i]n the absence of any evidence tending to show that the
possession or
>use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in
length" at
>this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or
efficiency of
>a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment
guarantees
>the right to keep and bear such an instrument. 307 U.S. at 178.
[footnote 5]'
Didn't say a thing about Miller's not having standing, now, did
they?
> The Court's understanding follows a plain reading of the
Amendment's text.
A court that can't even determine if someone was convicted or who the
appealant was? (see above)
>The Amendment's second clause declares that the goal is to preserve the
>security of "a free state;"
No, it is preserving "the right of the people" that is the goal.
>its first clause establishes the premise that
>well-regulated militia are necessary to this end. Thus it is only in
>furtherance of state security that "the right of the people to keep and
bear
>arms" is finally proclaimed. [footnote 6]
> Following Miller, "[i]t is clear that the Second Amendment
guarantees a
>collective rather than an individual right.
Collectives don't have rights. Would they say the same thing about the
protections declared in the first amendment? Are not "the people" in
the first the same as the ones in the Second?
" United States v. Warin, 530 F.2d
>103, 106 (6th Cir.), cert. denied 96 S.Ct. 3168 (1976); see also Thomas
v.
>Members of City Council of Portland, 730 F.2d 41, 42 (1st Cir. 1984)
(same,
>citing Warin); United States v. Johnson, 497 F.2d 548, 550 (4th Cir.
1974)
>(cited with approval in Lewis, 445 U.S. at 65 n.8) (same).
Just in case someone thinks that denial of cert. means that the Supreme
Court agrees with the lower court decision, read what the Supreme court
has to say about that themselves:
"...this [Supreme] Court has rigorously insisted that such a denial [to
hear a case] carries with it no implication whatever regarding the
Court's views on the merits of a case which it has declined to
review. The Court has said this again and again; again and again the
admonition has to be repeated."
(Justice Frankfurter, Maryland v. Broadcast Radio Show, Inc. 338 US
912, 1950)
Because the Second
>Amendment guarantees the right of the states to maintain armed militia,
the
>states alone stand in the position to show legal injury when this right
is
>infringed.
>
Again, states do not have rights, only powers granted by the people.
Foot notes:
5. The Supreme Court has not revisited the meaning of the
Second Amendment except to cite Miller for the proposition that
federal restrictions on the use of firearms by individuals do not
"trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties." Lewis v. United
States, 445 U.S. 55, 65 n.8 (1980) (upholding 18 U.S.C. App. section
1202(a)(1)).
Let's look at the whole quote, shall we?
8. These legislative restrictions on the use of firearms are
neither based upon constitutionally suspect criteria, nor do they trench
upon any constitutionally protected liberties.
Lewis was a previously convicted felon found in possession of a gun. Of
course they don't "trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties"
because those liberties hadn't been restored. by court order or by the
governor of the state where was convicted. If Lewis had persued those
avenues and was sucessful, then he would have had a better chance of
beating his case. It is amusing that the court in Hickman picked out
only this portion of a footnote to use as support for their decision.
They seemed to leave out the part that Lewis was a convicted felon.
LOVE v. PEPERSACK
No. 94-1582. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Decided Feb. 3, 1995.
"The courts have consistently held that the Second Amendment
only confers a COLLECTIVE RIGHT of keeping and bearing arms
which must bear a "reasonable relationship to the preservation
or efficiency of a well-regulated militia."
Collectives don’t have rights, only delegated powers.
UNITED STATES v. HALE.
No. 91-3830. United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Decided Oct. 20, 1992.
"The purpose of the Second Amendment is to restrain the
federal government from regulating the possession of arms where
such regulation would interfere with the preservation or
efficiency of the militia. Whether the "right to bear arms" for
militia purposes is "individual" or "collective" in nature is
irrelevant where, as here, the individual's possession of arms
is not related to the preservation or efficiency of a militia."
Yes it is but the court want’s to deny the obvious.
James Mayer
>
> Well, damn, not only did the message-cancel/repost mess throw
> off my unread messages folder, but a glitch in my .snm file
> caused a freeze when trying to open this TPG NG; so I had to
> trash the files and re-download the messages, losing some of the
> expired unread posts in the process. Since the killfile listings
> got overwritten, I got to see that the same old disingenuous
> maroons were posting the same old disingenuous tripe, in spite
> of my trying to "educate" them with the truth! It seems
> citizen/Caruso/Sidel? just blithely posts his nonsense on,
> whether it's true or not!
>
> into the loony bin, I should see just how much silly stuff they
> are pumping out!
>
> > > A collection of mostly middle-age, balding, fat
> >
> > Too much foaming at the mouth irreverence!
> >
> > Please try again:>))
> >
> > Bamma Brian made a cliché that fit nitwitish ignoramus "Steve Krulick",to
> > a,"T"
> >
> > If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit:>))
>
> what type of obsessive personality finds it necessary to bring
> up, in a TOTALLY unrelated post -- indeed making a sig file out
> of it and posting it over and over -- reference to a person who
> hasn't anything to do with the post itself (who is probably an
> unknown and irrelevant cipher to the person whose post is being
> addressed), and to call that person, without any substantiation
> (indeed, in spite of all evidence to the contrary) a "nitwitish
> ignoramus" and then ascribe to another person credit for having
> "made a cliché" that has been in general use for decades, a
> claim that he can not support with any substantiation either!
>
> Can "citizen" show where my posts were not intellectually
> scintinlating?
Yes.
Can he show where I was bullshitting? Of course
> not! He never has, and never will. When he demanded I address
> Schulman's silly essay on the grammar of the 2nd Amen, I
> demolished it line by line,
Did not.
and "citizen" NEVER was able to
> refute MY argument, page after page of it. The best he could do,
> pathetically, was repost the paragraph that, by my proving it
> was totally false, undermined the entire credibility of Schulman
> and his dupe!:
>
ro...@hotmail.com
James Mayer
> > > citizen wrote:
> > >
> > > Well, damn, not only did the message-cancel/repost mess throw
> > > off my unread messages folder, but a glitch in my .snm file
> > > caused a freeze when trying to open this TPG NG; so I had to
> > > trash the files and re-download the messages, losing some of the
> > > expired unread posts in the process. Since the killfile listings
> > > got overwritten, I got to see that the same old disingenuous
> > > maroons were posting the same old disingenuous tripe, in spite
> > > of my trying to "educate" them with the truth! It seems
> > > citizen/Caruso/Sidel? just blithely posts his nonsense on,
> > > whether it's true or not!
> > >
> > > Maybe before I put him and some of the other "scholars" back
> > > into the loony bin, I should see just how much silly stuff they
> > > are pumping out!
> > >
> > > > xona_...@hotmail.com (xona) wrote in message
> > news:<4ea44f33.01052...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > > A collection of mostly middle-age, balding, fat
> > > >
> > > > Too much foaming at the mouth irreverence!
> > > >
> > > > Please try again:>))
> > > >
> > > > Bamma Brian made a cliché that fit nitwitish ignoramus "Steve
> > Krulick",to
> > > > a,"T"
> > > >
> > > > If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit:>))
> > >
> >
> > I wish one could explain why?
>
> What does that even mean? Do you think that snipping away ALL I
> wrote, and putting a question mark where I didn't put one, and
> stopping there, is an adequate response? No wonder I killfiled
> your sorry butt! You, as usual, failed to answer a SINGLE point
> I brought up! You are a side-stepping troll!
> >
> > You are such a nitwit Steve Krulick?
>
> "?" What is the "?" in this sentence for? Can't you even write
> simple English? And YOU would lecture ME on proper usage? HA!
>
> > Steve you are such a blowhard of a fool!
>
> Why, because YOU say so? WHO is producing facts and evidence and
> WHO is merely bloviating unsubstantiated opinions? WHO is
> sticking to the issues and WHO is ONLY engaging in ad hominem
> name-calling?
>
You!!!
> What have I said that is foolish? Cite an example; prove it.
>
> > Steve your 20 + kb twisted bullshit won't help you!
>
> Your refusal to address ANY of my challenges and evidence can't
> but show you to be an empty-handed, empty-headed maroon. Calling
> the overwhelming evidence I've presented "twisted bullshit"
> doesn't make it so! Why not show everyone WHY it is bullshit!
> Prove me wrong! Is Madison BS? Are the court rulings? Is the
> OED?
>
citizen
What are you "blind" as well as "dumb"?
> > Steve you are such a blowhard of a fool!
>
> Why, because YOU say so?
Yup! "Steve Krulicks a "Blowhard"!
> name-calling?
What is it you do? "Steve"?
>
> What have I said that is foolish? Cite an example;
This whole rant ,you call "Facts,Court cases,Garry Wills,Kellermen,and you
know "Shit" about "commas"!
> Why are you only capable of fact-free and unsubstantiated
> opinions?
Maybe you should anwser that one yourself Steve,all of us would like to
know?
Go ahead and blurp out the same old rant ,you have, "Lost"!
The "Second Amendment" ,is as it reads!, in
plain everyday American English!
So says Professor Roy Copperud!
[Copperud:] "The words 'A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the
security of a free state,constitutes a present participle, rather than a
clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying 'militia,' which is
followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject 'the right', verb
'shall'). The to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for
maintaining a militia.
Copperud:] "To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in
the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the
"Second Amendment" !
If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a
well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the
right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.'
From a Wise&Noble "OWL"
Re: Right to Bear Arms 4/19 TPG
To-Steve Krulick!
So to sum up:
First you wanted to appeal to a "plain reading" of the text. When that
goes against you, you want to appeal to legal scholars. But almost all of
them agree that the 2nd amendment protects an individual right. Next, you
want us to look at the statements of the framers of the Constitution. But
that also shows that they intended to protect an individual right. You've
had three strikes so far, but somehow I don't think anything anyone says
could possibly convince you.
Bamma Brian made a cliché that fit nitwitish ignoramus "Steve Krulick",to
a,"T"
If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit:>))
http://americanfreedomnews.com
http://www.libertystory.net/
Joe
In article <eECO6.4227$r4.2...@www.newsranger.com>, ro...@hotmail.com
wrote:
Steve Krulick
And can you only answer a question with another question? The
previous sentence with the "why?" is NOT a question; it isn't
even a sentence in that context, O side-stepper. Oh, and you
snipped out THIS, you disingenuous troll:
What does that even mean? Do you think that snipping away ALL I
wrote, and putting a question mark where I didn't put one, and
stopping there, is an adequate response? No wonder I killfiled
your sorry butt! You, as usual, failed to answer a SINGLE point
I brought up! You are a side-stepping troll!
"?" What is the "?" in this sentence for? Can't you even write
simple English? And YOU would lecture ME on proper usage? HA!
> > > Steve you are such a blowhard of a fool!
> >
> > Why, because YOU say so?
>
> Yup! "Steve Krulicks a "Blowhard"!
That WOULD be, if you understood "plain English," "Steve
Krulick's a 'Blowhard'!" -- you are one illiterate cretin.
WHO is producing facts and evidence and WHO is merely bloviating
unsubstantiated opinions? WHO is sticking to the issues and WHO
is ONLY engaging in ad hominem name-calling?
What have I said that is foolish? Cite an example; prove it.
> > name-calling?
>
> What is it you do? "Steve"?
I call a spade a spade. "Citizen"?
> > What have I said that is foolish? Cite an example;
>
> This whole rant ,you call "Facts,Court cases,Garry Wills,Kellermen,and you
> know "Shit" about "commas"!
Kellerman? Who's Kellerman? Who said anything about "Kellerman"?
Ah, and facts and court cases are foolish? How so? Why is
quoting a historian or scholar as supporting evidence foolish?
What have YOU done to refute it?
As for commas, you're trying to tell ME about the plain reading
of the 2nd Amen in "plain everyday English" and you can't even
use commas in "plain everyday English! It is part of YOUR being
the nitwitish ignoramus you accuse ME of being.
Your refusal to address ANY of my challenges and evidence can't
but show you to be an empty-handed, empty-headed maroon. Calling
the overwhelming evidence I've presented "twisted bullshit"
doesn't make it so! Why not show everyone WHY it is bullshit!
Prove me wrong! Is Madison BS? Are the court rulings? Is the
OED?
> > Why are you only capable of fact-free and unsubstantiated
> > opinions?
>
> Maybe you should anwser that one yourself Steve,all of us would like to
> know?
YOU ARE King of the Side-Steppers! YOU ARE an empty-headed
troll! THAT is why YOU are only capable of fact-free and
unsubstantiated opinions! Glad I could answer that EASY one for
you!
(Anwser [sic]? There should be a semi-colon after Steve. There
is no ? after know. Sheesh!)
Now, what exactly did I end my last post with?:
Anyone want to wager that his lame response will STILL avoid any
discussion of the issues themselves, but will merely repeat the
SAME exact nonsense he posted HERE, without any explanation or
substantiation? Anyone wonder why he went into my killfile? I've
seen and heard rambling weirdos in the park, muttering to nobody
in particular, who've made more cogent sense than this
dunderhead!
And, lo and behold! THAT is exactly what he did! How lame can
one be! It wasn't even a trap; it was a open invitation to
avoid, and yet he came right in! What a Maroon!
> Go ahead and blurp out the same old rant ,you have, "Lost"!
Right, because YOU say so! Lost what? If this were even just a
high-school debate, YOU'D have been laughed off the stage long
ago for your fatuous and vacuous burbling. Why can't you
address, much less refute, what I've said?
> The "Second Amendment" ,is as it reads!, in
> plain everyday American English!
Said by someone who can't even use commas correctly! YOU
wouldn't know plain everyday American English if it bit you on
the nose!
> So says Professor Roy Copperud!
Copperud is wrong! I proved it! HE claims there is NO change in
usage or meaning since 1790 of "bear arms," and that is plainly
incorrect.
But you, being a blithering loon, just keep posting the smoking
gun itself, as it were, brandishing the very instrument of your
defeat! What a Maroon!
> From a Wise&Noble "OWL"
Yeah, that bunch of misinterpretation got lost from my unread
folder; he threw up a whole bunch of straw that claimed to SAY
what *I* meant to say, when it got everything wrong, and went on
from there. He NEVER refuted anything I said. If you can find
it, and repost it, I WILL tear it apart.
> Re: Right to Bear Arms 4/19 TPG
>
> To-Steve Krulick!
>
> So to sum up:
> First you wanted to appeal to a "plain reading" of the text.
And I did, from Madison, RI, NH, Judge Green, and more than a
dozen examples of "bear arms." And from several examples of
settled case law. HE, and YOU, refuted none of them. The plain
reading IS as I presented.
> When that goes against you,
WHOA! Hold on Hoss! How did that go against me? Because YOUR
opinion differs? Because some OTHER unsubstantiated opinions
differed? No, nobody has refuted Madison's usage, or the others
I presented. Just saying it did doesn't make it so.
> you want to appeal to legal scholars.
Until 1960 ALL legal scholarship presented ONLY the collective
interpretation; since then, only a handful of the same people
have generated the bulk of the individual interpretation, and
they have been debunked for sloppy and disingenuous work, by me
and by the people I referenced.
> But almost all of
> them agree that the 2nd amendment protects an individual right.
NONSENSE! A handful of NRA hacks and pseudoscholars, posting the
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/SpitzerChicago.htm
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/RakoveChicago.htm
for extra credit, read:
> Next, you
> want us to look at the statements of the framers of the Constitution.
ONLY the relevant and NON-BOGUS ones! The statements constantly
puked up to me are the same HOAXS, misquotes, and out-of-context
snippets I have REPEATEDLY shown to be irrelevant to the 2nd
Amen drafting and passage debates, if not outright FRAUDS! They
show NOTHING about what Madison meant in HIS draft, something
YOU and everyone else IGNORES!
> But
> that also shows that they intended to protect an individual right.
Bull! NOT ONE of those quotes, read in its original context
AS for intent itself:
> You've had three strikes so far,
Says the blind umpire! Owl proved NOTHING, refuted NOTHING, and
so-called Citizen applauds this exercise in self-fulfilling
delusion!
> but somehow I don't think anything anyone says
> could possibly convince you.
Not if it is bogus, wrong, irrelevant, unsubstantiated, and
misinterpreted!
> Bamma Brian made a cliché that fit nitwitish ignoramus "Steve Krulick",to
> a,"T"
BB didn't make the cliché; it's been around for decades! Yet
so-called Citizen keeps hawking this nonsense, as if it
mattered. As he has obsessively kept calling me names in posts
that have NOTHING to do with me or these issues! What
psychological condition best explains his compulsive behavior?
> If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit:>))
So-called Citizen has shown no brilliance, except in
side-stepping (notice how he completely avoids ALL the substance
of my post... again!), nor is he baffling anyone, except for
those looking for any logic, but he is chin-deep in bullshit!
What a pathetic waste of electrons he is!
Steve Krulick
>
> "Steve Krulick" <kry...@ulster.net> wrote in message
> news:3B0ACF9D...@ulster.net...
> > citizen wrote:
> >
> > Well, damn, not only did the message-cancel/repost mess throw
> > off my unread messages folder, but a glitch in my .snm file
> > caused a freeze when trying to open this TPG NG; so I had to
> > trash the files and re-download the messages, losing some of the
> > expired unread posts in the process. Since the killfile listings
> > got overwritten.
>
> That's really a bite "Steve" ,maybe you should go back to "Mack" these PC's
> must be to hard for you to master!
That would be "Mac," cretin; it's a computer, NOT a truck!
> My killfile never gets deleted even if I completely delete the whole NG!
I use Netscape; the message filters are encoded in the .snm
file. Replace the .snm file and all properties return to
default. Now you know.
> 'Funny' I have been on line since 90 , and have used every OS there is and
> never have I had such a problem ,you must be, "unique Steve"!:>))
You ARE funny! You are like a day in the park! Just like one of
those rambling weirdos in the park!
> "unique" Steve Krulick ,is a, "Redishgreen-socialist-liberal-Brain
> Fart!",the head honcho in his county for
> the "green party" :>)
Yawn. And this is supposed to prove what... that you are a
nitwitish ignoramus? You've succeeded!
But it STILL doesn't address a SINGLE issue I brought up
regarding the 2nd Amen!
> Hey! Steve!
>
> Did you know?
> The "Second Amendment" ,is as it reads!, in
> plain everyday American English!
Said by someone who can't even use commas correctly! YOU
wouldn't know plain everyday American English if it bit you on
the nose!
> So says Professor Roy Copperud!
Copperud is wrong! I proved it! HE claims there is NO change in
usage or meaning since 1790 of "bear arms," and that is plainly
incorrect.
But you, being a blithering loon, just keep posting the smoking
gun itself, as it were, brandishing the very instrument of your
defeat! What a Maroon!
> From a Wise&Noble "OWL"
Yeah, that bunch of misinterpretation got lost from my unread
folder; he threw up a whole bunch of straw that claimed to SAY
what *I* meant to say, when it got everything wrong, and went on
from there. He NEVER refuted anything I said. If you can find
it, and repost it, I WILL tear it apart.
> Re: Right to Bear Arms 4/19 TPG
>
> To-Steve Krulick!
>
> So to sum up:
> First you wanted to appeal to a "plain reading" of the text.
And I did, from Madison, RI, NH, Judge Green, and more than a
dozen examples of "bear arms." And from several examples of
settled case law. HE, and YOU, refuted none of them. The plain
reading IS as I presented.
> When that goes against you,
WHOA! Hold on Hoss! How did that go against me? Because YOUR
opinion differs? Because some OTHER unsubstantiated opinions
differed? No, nobody has refuted Madison's usage, or the others
I presented. Just saying it did doesn't make it so.
> you want to appeal to legal scholars.
Until 1960 ALL legal scholarship presented ONLY the collective
interpretation; since then, only a handful of the same people
have generated the bulk of the individual interpretation, and
they have been debunked for sloppy and disingenuous work, by me
and by the people I referenced.
> But almost all of
> them agree that the 2nd amendment protects an individual right.
NONSENSE! A handful of NRA hacks and pseudoscholars, posting the
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/SpitzerChicago.htm
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/RakoveChicago.htm
for extra credit, read:
> Next, you
> want us to look at the statements of the framers of the Constitution.
ONLY the relevant and NON-BOGUS ones! The statements constantly
puked up to me are the same HOAXS, misquotes, and out-of-context
snippets I have REPEATEDLY shown to be irrelevant to the 2nd
Amen drafting and passage debates, if not outright FRAUDS! They
show NOTHING about what Madison meant in HIS draft, something
YOU and everyone else IGNORES!
> But
> that also shows that they intended to protect an individual right.
Bull! NOT ONE of those quotes, read in its original context
AS for intent itself:
The best evidence for the Second Amendment meaning of "bear
Arms" is in the original draft of the Amendment proposed in the
First Congress by James Madison: "The right of the people to
keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and
well regulated militia being the best security of a free
country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms,
shall be compelled to render military service in person."
> You've had three strikes so far,
Says the blind umpire! Owl proved NOTHING, refuted NOTHING, and
so-called Citizen applauds this exercise in self-fulfilling
delusion!
> but somehow I don't think anything anyone says
> could possibly convince you.
Not if it is bogus, wrong, irrelevant, unsubstantiated, and
misinterpreted!
> Bamma Brian made a cliché that fit nitwitish ignoramus "Steve Krulick",to
> a,"T"
BB didn't make the cliché; it's been around for decades! Yet
so-called Citizen keeps hawking this nonsense, as if it
mattered. As he has obsessively kept calling me names in posts
that have NOTHING to do with me or these issues! What
psychological condition best explains his compulsive behavior?
> If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit:>))
So-called Citizen has shown no brilliance, except in
side-stepping (notice how he completely avoids ALL the substance
of my post... again!), nor is he baffling anyone, except for
those looking for any logic, but he is chin-deep in bullshit!
What a pathetic waste of electrons he is!
Anyone want to wager that his lame response will STILL avoid any
discussion of the issues themselves, but will merely repeat the
SAME exact nonsense he posted HERE, without any explanation or
substantiation? Anyone wonder why he went into my killfile? I've
seen and heard rambling weirdos in the park, muttering to nobody
in particular, who've made more cogent sense than this
dunderhead!
-------------------------------------------------
Steve Krulick
Did you just fall off a turnip truck? Do you think *I* just did?
Didn't you EVER read all the previous posts where I demolish
these out-of-context quotes? Why do ALL you guys do your cite
shopping at the SAME un-named, un-URLed "Dumb Sites R Us"?
Point #1: NONE, repeat NONE of these quotes address the meaning
of the term "bear arms"! NONE of them address the drafting and
passage of the 2nd Amen! Therefore, they are ALL irrelevant to
the previous challenge. BUT I will show you what bogus cites
they are anyway!
> John Adams; "Arms in the hands of citizens [may] be used at individual
> discretion..in private self-defense."
Couldn't even give a date and context for this one, eh?
It's BOGUS and REVERSES what Adams ACTUALLY says!
This may be the worst abuse of selective out-of-context use and
word manipulation; leave out words, put in words that weren't
said, remove the context, reverse the meaning! This is why I
have NO respect for hoplophile apologists who have to resort to
LIES and TRICKERY to justify their erroneous position!
Here's a fuller reading of this bit:
"[T]he militia then must all obey the sovereign majority, or
divide, and part follow the majority, and part the minority.
This last case is civil war; but until it comes to this, the
whole militia may be employed by the majority in any degree of
tyranny and oppression over the minority.
The constitution furnishes no resource or remedy; nothing
affords a chance of relief but rebellion and civil war: if this
terminates in favor of the minority, they will terrorize in
their turns, exasperated by revenge, in addition to ambition and
avarice; if the majority prevail, their domination becomes more
cruel, and soon ends in one despot. It must be made a sacred
maxim, that the militia obey the executive power, which
represents the whole people in the execution of laws. ***To
suppose arms in the hands of the citizens, to be used at
individual discretion, except in private self defense, or by
partial orders of towns, counties, or districts of a state, is
to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so
that liberty can be enjoyed by no man — is a dissolution of the
government.*** The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be
created, directed, and commanded by the laws, and ever for the
support of the laws."
It means just about the opposite of what is implied by the
selective quoting!
Talk about disingenuous! YOU should be spanked for posting
it; the person who fabricated it should have his fingernails
pulled out!
> James Madison; "[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed
> which Americans possess over the people of almost every other
> nation...[where] the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
What a BOGUS and disingenuous snipping of the larger context!
This is NOT what Madison SAID or MEANT; it's not even an
accurate quote, combining totally different sections as one,
adding words never said, and leaving out critical material about
WHO is armed!
And it doesn't mention "bear arms"!
This essay was in context of whether to have a standing army or
militia system; it has NOTHING to do with the 2nd Amen. Properly
read, in greater context, #46 clearly shows that Madison did not
believe in any plausible likelihood of the militias being used
to "defend the people from our own government." That he even
mentions it at all is to debunk it as a "visionary supposition"
without merit; it's all conditional and for argument's sake.
Read it IN FULL, and you see he is condescending to anyone who
believes that THE PEOPLE would ever let things get to such a
sorry state. Here's a good-sized chunk of context:
"The only refuge left to those who prophesy the downfall of the
State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal
government may previously accumulate a military force for the
projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers
must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be
necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the
people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time,
elect an uninterrupted succession of men ready to betray both;
that the traitors would, throughout this period, uniformly and
systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the
military establishment; that the governments and the people of
the States would silently and patiently behold the gathering
storm and continue to supply materials until it should be
prepared to burst on their own heads must appear to everyone
more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the
misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the
sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism.
Extravagant as the supposition is, let it, however, be made. 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 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 part 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 the 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. Those who are best acquainted with the late
successful resistance of this country against the British arms
will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it.
*Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans
possess over the people of almost every other nation,* the
existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are
attached and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms
a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more
insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form
can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments of the
several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the
public resources will bear, *the governments are afraid to trust
the people with arms.* And it is not certain that with this aid
alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were
the people to possess the additional advantages of local
governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national
will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed
out of the militia by these governments and attached both to
them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest
assurance that the throne of every tyranny of Europe would be
speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.
Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with
the suspicion that they would be less able to defend the rights
of which they would be in actual possession than the debased
subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the
hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them
with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the
necessity of making the experiment by a blind and tame
submission to the long train of insidious measures which must
precede and produce it."
First, this essay was about the establishment of the militia
during the Const ratification era; there's nothing about the 2nd
Amen or individual rights. Second, Madison was talking about the
fact that the STATES appointed the officers of the militia, so
the officers were loyal to the STATE AND THE MILITIA. It's NOT
an "armed populace" of unorganized, unauthorized individual
sovereigns acting "at individual discretion" (John Adams)
standing up to the feds, but the OFFICIAL, WELL REGULATED STATE
MILITIAS ONLY!: "... it would not be going too far to say the
State governments with the people on their side would be able to
repel the danger."
It is because the people were loyal to STATE-LED militias --
"subordinate governments, [states] to which the people are
attached and by which the militia officers are appointed" --
there would be less chance for mischief ever occurring. Which is
why he said it would never get to that point: "Let us rather no
longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever
reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment by a
blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious
measures which must precede and produce it."
Search as you will, you will find nothing in Madison's
statements personally supporting any claims of a "well armed
populace as check against the ambition of a Federal Government
and its standing army." In fact, he clearly supports the
opposite. To suppose there is some OTHER militia Madison is
referring to than the one the govt has power "to call forth...
when the laws are resisted," which the "well armed populace"
fantasy props up as a check to govt, is to misread Madison in
particular, and the founding fathers in general. It is also why
I have decreasing patience with people who drag out shreds of
out-of-context quotes to make claims that are OPPOSITE to the
general purpose and intent one may more reasonably infer from a
more complete reading of the in-context material.
Madison is SO often misquoted to appear to say the opposite.
It's that disingenuous and dishonest citing that gets me
steamed, and actually began my whole involvement in this 2nd
Amen issue. Either these guys meant what they meant in 18th
century language, and said what they said in the political and
social context they were immersed in, or its bad history and
pseudoscholarship to prop up their tattered quotes to justify
some modern day fantasy scenario of armed populace patriots
acting outside of lawful govt knowledge and authority vs.
jack-booted govt thugs.
Want to know what Madison THOUGHT about the 2nd Amen? HOW ABOUT
HIS DRAFT of it that HE submitted to Congress himself!
The best evidence for the Second Amendment meaning of "bear
arms" is in the original draft of the Amendment proposed in the
First Congress by James Madison: "The right of the people to
keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and
well regulated militia being the best security of a free
country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms,
shall be compelled to render military service in person."
In the last clause of this version (the conscientious
objector provision), Madison clearly used the phrase "bearing
arms" to refer solely to using weapons as part of military
service usage. It is implausible to contend that virtually the
same phrase "bear arms" should have a different, much broader
meaning elsewhere in the very same sentence. (David Yassky)
There is NOTHING in the drafting and debating and passage of the
2nd Amen that speaks about "individual gun ownership"
independent of militia service! It's all about state versus
federal control and arming of the militia, and the virtues of
militias versus standing armies, since it's a MILITIA amendment
and NOT a GUN amendment!
Madison's use of the phrase "bear arms" to refer to military
activities is echoed in other contemporary usages; these usages
were standard at the time the Second Amendment was adopted:
New Hampshire Constitution of 1784: "No person who is
conscientiously scrupulous about the lawfulness of bearing arms,
shall be compelled thereto, provided he will pay an equivalent."
Constitutional amendment proposed by Rhode Island's 1790
ratifying convention: "That the people have a right to keep and
bear arms; ... That any person religiously scrupulous of bearing
arms ought to be exempted upon payment of an equivalent to
employ another to bear arms in his stead."
Madison was not describing the civil rights of private
individuals. Madison knew that militia duty was conscript duty.
He expressed no reservation about the enrollment and inventory
requirements of the Militia Act of 1792, enacted a few years
later, which was in force when he was president and which he was
under oath to faithfully execute.
> Thomas Paine; "..arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe,
> and preserve order in the world as well as property...Horrid mischief would
> ensue were [the law abiding] deprived the use of them."
Said IN 1775!
Nice sentiments DURING THE REVOLUTION! It is not even a precise
quote (ellipses and parentheses have been removed, not showing
what was removed or added). Irrelevant to the 2nd Amen, which
was written FOURTEEN years later. Oh, and the term "bear arms"
is NOT mentioned.
> Thomas Jefferson; "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those
> who are neither inclined nor determined to commitcrimes...Such laws make
> things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve
> rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be
> attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
May I provide the details for you, since YOU couldn't be
bothered?
-- Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On
Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764
Quoting what someone else thinks about something doesn't mean
one even agrees with it; hell, I write down things I disagree
with all the time in order to refute later. But the 2nd Amen is
NOT about laws forbidding the carrying of arms (something that
routinely was done to blacks in Jefferson's day), but about
militia service. So this is irrelevant to the 2nd Amen, and has
nothing to do with Madison's concept of "bearing arms." Said
during revolutionary, not constitutional times. Hell, it
predates the Revolution!
Therefore, it obviously has nothing to do with what Tom had to
say about the second amendment since it was said around 15 years
earlier! And, again, the phrase "bear arms" is NOT mentioned!
NOT "carrying of arms" or "disarm" or "unarmed" but BEAR ARMS!
> > For all the side-stepping over whether Quakers actually hunted
> > using guns, nobody even brought up to address the irrefutable
> > examples that have NO other meaning:
> >
> > New Hampshire Constitution of 1784: "No person who is
> > conscientiously scrupulous about the lawfulness of bearing arms,
> > shall be compelled thereto, provided he will pay an equivalent."
> >
> > Does anyone KNOW of ANY laws that compelled people to "carry
> > guns"?
>
> Yes.
>
> Right after Morton Grove passed their famous gun ban a couple of cities
> passed laws requiring all homes be armed.
I'm talking about in the 1780's and earlier, maroon! HOW could
the authors of the New Hampshire Constitution in 1784 be
referring to events 200 YEARS LATER? Sheesh! Even then, since
when is having a weapon IN the home the same as "carrying guns"?
And that's it? Don't have any more irrelevant quotes for the
REST of the post? Don't have any answers for the rest of my
questions? No refutations?
Thanks for playing! Try again when you have something useful to
contribute!
--
citizen
Your lame excuse about killfile listings,ya sure tell another one!
It is un-wise not tyo know whats going on in ng,if you are that stupid
so-be-it!
>You, as usual, failed to answer a SINGLE point
The point is "You have lost"!
Here address these points!
Concerning Garry Wills:
http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel031601.shtml
Concerning the grammar of the Second Amendment:
http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm
Concerning lower court cases:
http://www.2ndlawlib.org/journals/quinshy.html
http://www.2ndLawLib.org/journals/dencite.html
Concerning "commas" and the official syntax of the Second Amendment:
http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/constitution/amdt2.html
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.
http://homes.acmecity.com/tv/spotlight/174/
http://www.nidlink.com/~bobhard/images/billofrt.jpg
http://www.nidlink.com/~bobhard/images/f16b1234.jpg
http://patriot.net/~tlj/xplaindp.htm
UNITED STATES v. Francis J. WARIN.
No. 75-1734. United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Decided Feb. 4, 1976.
Since the Second Amendment right "to keep and bear Arms" applies
only to the RIGHT OF THE STATE to maintain a militia and not to
the individual's right to bear arms, there can be no serious
claim to any express constitutional right of an individual to
possess a firearm...
States don't have rights, only delegated powers.
It would unduly extend this opinion to attempt to deal with
every argument made by defendant and amicus curiae, Second
Amendment Foundation, all of which are based on the erroneous
supposition that the Second Amendment is concerned with the
RIGHTS of individuals rather than THOSE OF THE STATES or that
defendant's automatic membership in the "sedentary militia" of
Ohio brings him within the reach of its guarantees.
States don't have rights, only delegated powers.
HICKMAN v. BLOCK No. 94-55836. United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.
Decided April 5, 1996.
Hickman Case Exposed
Cite as Hickman v. Block, 81 F.3d 98 (9th Cir. 1996)
DOUGLAS RAY HICKMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant,
> Krulick's a 'Blowhard'!" -- you are one illiterate cretin.
Everybody has to be something:>))
I am a "American citizen" that is proud of his Heritage!
What are you Steve Krulick???????
Go ahead and blurp out the same old rant you have "Lost"!
So read this "slowly" so it has a chance to sink in!:>))
The "Second Amendment" ,is as it reads!, in
plain everyday American English!
So says Professor Roy Copperud!
[Copperud:] "The words 'A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the
security of a free state,constitutes a present participle, rather than a
clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying 'militia,' which is
followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject 'the right', verb
'shall'). The to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for
maintaining a militia.
Copperud:] "To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in
the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the
"Second Amendment" !
If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a
well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the
right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.'
From a Wise&Noble "OWL"
Re: Right to Bear Arms 4/19 TPG
To-Steve Krulick!
So to sum up:
First you wanted to appeal to a "plain reading" of the text. When that
goes against you, you want to appeal to legal scholars. But almost all of
them agree that the 2nd amendment protects an individual right. Next, you
want us to look at the statements of the framers of the Constitution. But
that also shows that they intended to protect an individual right. You've
had three strikes so far, but somehow I don't think anything anyone says
could possibly convince you.
Bamma Brian made a cliché that fit nitwitish ignoramus "Steve Krulick",to
a,"T"
If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit:>))
http://americanfreedomnews.com
http://www.libertystory.net/
citizen
> citizen wrote:
> >
> > "Steve Krulick" <kry...@ulster.net> wrote in message
> > news:3B0ACF9D...@ulster.net...
> > > citizen wrote:
> > >
> > > Well, damn, not only did the message-cancel/repost mess throw
> > > off my unread messages folder, but a glitch in my .snm file
> > > caused a freeze when trying to open this TPG NG; so I had to
> > > trash the files and re-download the messages, losing some of the
> > > expired unread posts in the process. Since the killfile listings
> > > got overwritten.
> >
> > That's really a bite "Steve" ,maybe you should go back to "Mack" these
PC's
> > must be to hard for you to master!
>
> That would be "Mac," cretin; it's a computer, NOT a truck!
I meant"Mack" as in tough!
You can call me anything ,but to late for supper!
I am a citizen!
When it comes to you Steve!
The facts are in and everyone agrees you Lost!
Heritage a word Steve cannot define!
The "Second Amendment" is as it reads! in
plain everyday American English!
So says Professor Roy Copperud!
[Copperud:] "The words 'A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the
security of a free state,constitutes a present participle, rather than a
clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying 'militia,' which is
followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject 'the right', verb
'shall'). The to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for
maintaining a militia.
Copperud:] "To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in
the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the
"Second Amendment" !
If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a
well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the
right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.'
From a Wise&Noble "OWL"
Re: Right to Bear Arms 4/19 TPG
To-Steve Krulick!
So to sum up:
First you wanted to appeal to a "plain reading" of the text. When that
goes against you, you want to appeal to legal scholars. But almost all of
them agree that the 2nd amendment protects an individual right. Next, you
want us to look at the statements of the framers of the Constitution. But
that also shows that they intended to protect an individual right. You've
had three strikes so far, but somehow I don't think anything anyone says
could possibly convince you.
Bamma Brian made a cliché that fit nitwitish ignoramus "Steve Krulick",to
a,"T"
If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit:>))
http://americanfreedomnews.com
http://www.libertystory.net/
Steve Krulick
>
> >Steve Krulick wrote:
>
> --- Snip the same LONG WINDED lies and half truths---
Yeah, but YOU can't refute a WORD of it! And you NEVER did!
Point out the lies *I* wrote! Point out the half-truths! Don't
just hide behind what Volokh says in your whole-cloth cut&paste;
deal with the specifics *I* mentioned, line-by-line, LIKE *I*
DID with YOUR post!
Since YOU just snipped out ALL of what I said, including MY
proof that YOUR claims (or whoever you borrowed them from; I
doubt you actually did your own research!) were bogus, I'm under
no obligation to battle your surrogate. But I will do that
without being long-winded; just go to and read THESE cites. They
refute Volokh in particular and the whole pseudoscholarship of
his ilk.
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/SpitzerChicago.htm
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/RakoveChicago.htm
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Herz1.html
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/SchwoererChicago.htm
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/BogusChicago.htm
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/BellesilesChicago.htm
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/DorfChicago.htm
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/FarberChicago.htm
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/FinkelmanChicago.htm
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/HeymanChicago.htm
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/UvillerAndMerkelChicago.htm
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> http://www.law.ucla.edu/faculty/volokh/common.htm
>
> The Commonplace Second Amendment
>
> Prof. Eugene Volokh, UCLA Law School *
> (73 NYU L. Rev. 793 (1998))
>
> The Second Amendment is widely seen as quite unusual, because it
> has a justification clause as well as an operative clause.
That might be a grammatical argument (it really isn't), but it
isn't a legal, constitutional one.
The 2nd Amen, in its ENTIRETY says:
"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." FOUR clauses/phrases, THREE commas; YOU can't
just conveniently leave out the comma before SHALL that EVERY
copy of the constitution HAS.
Just because you want to ignore or minimize the first half,
doesn't make it magically disappear. The constitution has no
surplusage, as the SCOTUS has ruled (Marbury v. Madison, 1803),
and the Amen must be read and understood in it's entirety, which
refers to a military function and tells the feds to keep its
hands off the state-run militias' right to appoint officers and
train and discipline its members, while confirming the
traditional "jus militiae" or right of citizens to participate
in the military function of the nation by "bearing arms" which
means to serve as a soldier in 18th century English. Nothing
more.
The functional sentence IS and ALWAYS WAS "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 its entirety.
Because there ARE three commas, four clauses/phrases, it could
just as clearly be written:
"A well regulated militia, ... , shall not be infringed."
Further to this grammatical analysis, from
http://www.potomac-inc.org/yass.html:
At the same time the congressional drafters switched the order
of the clauses, they inserted two unusual commas that further
emphasize the framers' intention to prevent federal interference
with the militia. Under ordinary usage, the first and third
commas in the Amendment are unnecessary. If these commas had not
been inserted, it would be possible to understand the Well
Regulated Militia Clause as simply explaining the rationale for
the Bear Arms Clause (the Amendment would then read: "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."). But the commas are in fact in the text proposed
by Congress and ratified by the states, and they prevent this
reading. The first unusual comma — between "Militia" and "being"
— forces the reader to search for a verb for which "Militia" is
the subject. That verb does not appear until "shall not be
infringed" near the end of the Amendment.
The second unusual comma — between "Arms" and "shall" — sets off
the verb phrase "shall not be infringed" from the preceding
language; it suggests that the subject for this verb phrase is
not simply "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms." The
grammatical effect of these two unusual commas is to link "A
well regulated Militia" to "shall not be infringed" to
emphasize, in other words, that the goal of the Amendment is to
protect the militia against federal interference. The
Constitution was drafted with great care, and (unlike much legal
writing from the Founding period) its use of punctuation
generally conforms to modern conventions, suggesting that the
commas in the Second Amendment are not haphazard but rather
deserve scrupulous attention.
Even further, as if you will even read and understand this
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/UvillerAndMerkelChicago.htm:
"In the instance of the Second Amendment, the unadorned
linguistics are themselves informative. The right to arms is
declared by the verbs, "keep and bear," a phrase selected in
preference to alternatives such as "have," "own," "carry," or
"possess." Scholars have informed us that the chosen terms have
a distinctly military connotation, especially the verb "to
bear," which would not have been used in the eighteenth century
- as it would not be today - to connote purely private use of
arms. You do not bear a shotgun to go duck hunting. But we need
not rely entirely on that language in the announcement of the
right in the main clause. We have, as we have emphasized
throughout this paper, a clear and unequivocal expression of the
linguistic context of the primary right in the introductory
phrase that accompanies it. The mere presence of the militia
phrase sharing a single sentence with the arms clause has, as we
have argued throughout, inescapable significance.
In addition, the way the two parts of the provision are
expressed amplifies the significance of their conjunction. The
critical introductory language does not aver the relationship of
the militia to a free state in a simple declarative clause - a
form that might have established two severable propositions: the
importance of a militia and the right to arms. Rather, in the
first part, the verbal vehicle elected for the verb "to be" is a
participle, yielding a phrase known to grammarians as an
"ablative absolute construction." This construction
characterizes a phrase modifying the substance of the main
clause as an adjective would modify a noun, often expressing the
condition or circumstances of the assertion of the main clause.
It creates an indissoluble link between the two parts of the
sentence and grammatically subjects the right to arms to the
rule of the militia modifier. As a simple matter of grammar, the
participle modifier is essential for the declarative clause to
occur. Had the two statements - regarding the importance of a
militia and the right to arms - not been linked in this manner,
it might have been possible to argue that even if the first
declaration ceases to be true, the second is undiminished. And
it seems to us significant that the drafters chose the structure
they did. The linguistics were certainly understood to the
framing generation (who were more likely to know the niceties of
Latinate grammar than we are). Taken together then - as they
must be - these two components of the provision grant the people
such right to arms as will preserve or empower the militia to
assure the security of the community."
Here's another interpretation:
-------
http://patriot.net/~tlj/xplaindp.htm
The Second Amendment is split by commas into four phrases, the
last of which is a verbal phrase starting with the verb "shall":
"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 first two phrases are related to each other. The fact that
the third phrase is separated from the verbal phrase by a comma
indicates that the verbal phrase has more than the third phrase
as its subject. The abbreviated grammatical construction
actually renders the meaning of the Second Amendment as:
"Neither a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the
security of a free state, nor the right of the people to keep
and bear Arms shall be infringed."
Note also that the term "arms" then and now implies military
weapons.
-------
However, the Const wasn't written as a grammar lesson; it's a
legal document. The SCOTUS has ruled that there's NO
"surplusage" in the Const; it MUST be read and interpreted IN
ITS ENTIRETY. You can't ignore or minimize as "subordinate" the
first half as if it were "optional." And the courts have
consistently said so. The second clause does not exist in a
vacuum; you can't divorce the second half from the first half of
the Amen as if it weren't there:
UNITED STATES v. MILLER
307 U.S. 174, 59 S.Ct. 816, 83 L.Ed. 1206 (1939)
"The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress
power--"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the
Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the
Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed
in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States
respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority
of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed
by Congress."
"With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render
possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and
guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be
interpreted and applied with that end in view..."
The 2nd Amen IS the only one of the original BOR that has a
preamble that spells out its purpose and context. Putting the
militia clause up front only enhances its importance:
HICKMAN v. BLOCK No. 94-55836. United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.
Decided April 5, 1996.
We follow our sister circuits in holding that the Second
Amendment is a RIGHT held by the states, and does not protect
the possession of a weapon by a private citizen.
Consulting the text and history of the amendment, the Court
found that the right to keep and bear arms is meant solely to
protect the RIGHT OF THE STATES to keep and maintain armed
militia.
Because the Second Amendment guarantees the RIGHT OF THE STATES
to maintain armed militia, the states alone stand in the
position to show legal injury when this right is infringed.
The Court's understanding follows a plain reading of the
Amendment's text. The Amendment's second clause declares that
the goal is to preserve the security of "a free state;" its
first clause establishes the premise that a "well-regulated
militia" is necessary to this end. Thus it is only in
furtherance of state security that "the right of the people
to keep and bear arms" is finally proclaimed.
Volokh's argument is not convincing or relevant.
James Mayer
> >
> > "Steve Krulick" <kry...@ulster.net> wrote in message
> > > citizen wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Steve Krulick" <kry...@ulster.net> wrote in message
> > > > news:3B0ACF9D...@ulster.net...
> > > > > citizen wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, damn, not only did the message-cancel/repost mess throw
> > > > > off my unread messages folder, but a glitch in my .snm file
> > > > > caused a freeze when trying to open this TPG NG; so I had to
> > > > > trash the files and re-download the messages, losing some of the
> > > > > expired unread posts in the process. Since the killfile listings
> > > > > maroons were posting the same old disingenuous tripe, in spite
> > > > > of my trying to "educate" them with the truth! It seems
> > > > > citizen/Caruso/Sidel? just blithely posts his nonsense on,
> > > > > whether it's true or not!
> > > > >
> > > > > Maybe before I put him and some of the other "scholars" back
> > > > > into the loony bin, I should see just how much silly stuff they
> > > > > are pumping out!
> > > > >
> > > > > > xona_...@hotmail.com (xona) wrote in message
> > > > news:<4ea44f33.01052...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > > > > A collection of mostly middle-age, balding, fat
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Too much foaming at the mouth irreverence!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Please try again:>))
> > > > > >
> > > > Krulick",to
> > > > > > a,"T"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with
> > bullshit:>))
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I wish one could explain why?
> > >
> > > What does that even mean?
> >
> > What are you "blind" as well as "dumb"?
>
> And can you only answer a question with another question? The
> previous sentence with the "why?" is NOT a question; it isn't
> even a sentence in that context, O side-stepper. Oh, and you
> snipped out THIS, you disingenuous troll:
>
> What does that even mean? Do you think that snipping away ALL I
> wrote, and putting a question mark where I didn't put one, and
> stopping there, is an adequate response? No wonder I killfiled
> I brought up! You are a side-stepping troll!
>
> "?" What is the "?" in this sentence for? Can't you even write
> simple English? And YOU would lecture ME on proper usage? HA!
>
> > > > Steve you are such a blowhard of a fool!
> > >
> > > Why, because YOU say so?
> >
> > Yup! "Steve Krulicks a "Blowhard"!
>
> That WOULD be, if you understood "plain English," "Steve
>
> unsubstantiated opinions? WHO is sticking to the issues and WHO
> is ONLY engaging in ad hominem name-calling?
>
> What have I said that is foolish? Cite an example; prove it.
>
> > > name-calling?
> >
> > What is it you do? "Steve"?
>
> I call a spade a spade. "Citizen"?
>
> > > What have I said that is foolish? Cite an example;
> >
> > This whole rant ,you call "Facts,Court cases,Garry Wills,Kellermen,and you
> > know "Shit" about "commas"!
>
> Kellerman? Who's Kellerman? Who said anything about "Kellerman"?
>
> Ah, and facts and court cases are foolish? How so? Why is
> quoting a historian or scholar as supporting evidence foolish?
> What have YOU done to refute it?
>
> As for commas, you're trying to tell ME about the plain reading
> of the 2nd Amen in "plain everyday English" and you can't even
> use commas in "plain everyday English! It is part of YOUR being
> the nitwitish ignoramus you accuse ME of being.
>
Concerning Garry Wills:
http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel031601.shtml
Concerning the grammar of the Second Amendment:
http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm
Concerning lower court cases:
http://www.2ndlawlib.org/journals/quinshy.html
http://www.2ndLawLib.org/journals/dencite.html
Concerning "commas" and the official syntax of the Second Amendment:
http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/constitution/amdt2.html
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.
http://homes.acmecity.com/tv/spotlight/174/
http://www.nidlink.com/~bobhard/images/billofrt.jpg
http://www.nidlink.com/~bobhard/images/f16b1234.jpg
http://patriot.net/~tlj/xplaindp.htm
UNITED STATES v. Francis J. WARIN.
No. 75-1734. United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Decided Feb. 4, 1976.
Since the Second Amendment right "to keep and bear Arms" applies
only to the RIGHT OF THE STATE to maintain a militia and not to
the individual's right to bear arms, there can be no serious
claim to any express constitutional right of an individual to
possess a firearm...
States don’t have rights, only delegated powers.
It would unduly extend this opinion to attempt to deal with
every argument made by defendant and amicus curiae, Second
Amendment Foundation, all of which are based on the erroneous
supposition that the Second Amendment is concerned with the
RIGHTS of individuals rather than THOSE OF THE STATES or that
defendant's automatic membership in the "sedentary militia" of
Ohio brings him within the reach of its guarantees.
States don’t have rights, only delegated powers.
HICKMAN v. BLOCK No. 94-55836. United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.
Decided April 5, 1996.
Hickman Case Exposed
Cite as Hickman v. Block, 81 F.3d 98 (9th Cir. 1996)
DOUGLAS RAY HICKMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant,
> This case turns on the first constitutional standing element:
whether
>Hickman has shown injury to an interest protected by the Second
Amendment. We
>note at the outset that no individual has ever succeeded in
demonstrating such
>injury in federal court.
Then why was Miller allowed to proceed if he had no standing to do so?
If no one has had any standing then why is there a list of cases before
an examination of the footnotes where individuals have brought just such
cases to court?
The seminal authority in this area continues to be
>United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), in which the Supreme
Court upheld
>a conviction under the National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C. S 1132 (1934),
for
>transporting a sawed-off shotgun in interstate commerce.
No conviction was up held in this case. In fact there was no
conviction of Miller on these charges at all up to this point.
>The Court rejected the appellant's hypothesis that the Second Amendment
protected
>his possession of that weapon.
Miller didn't appeal the case, the government did.
> Consulting the text and history of the amendment, the Court found
that the
>right to keep and bear arms is meant solely to protect the right of the
states
>to keep and maintain armed militia.
States have no rights, only powers.
In a famous passage, the Court held that,
>
> '[i]n the absence of any evidence tending to show that the
possession or
>use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in
length" at
>this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or
efficiency of
>a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment
guarantees
>the right to keep and bear such an instrument. 307 U.S. at 178.
[footnote 5]'
Didn't say a thing about Miller's not having standing, now, did
they?
> The Court's understanding follows a plain reading of the
Amendment's text.
A court that can't even determine if someone was convicted or who the
appealant was? (see above)
>The Amendment's second clause declares that the goal is to preserve the
>security of "a free state;"
No, it is preserving "the right of the people" that is the goal.
>its first clause establishes the premise that
>well-regulated militia are necessary to this end. Thus it is only in
>furtherance of state security that "the right of the people to keep and
bear
Because the Second
>Amendment guarantees the right of the states to maintain armed militia,
the
>states alone stand in the position to show legal injury when this right
is
>infringed.
>
James Mayer
> >
> > "Steve Krulick" <kry...@ulster.net> wrote in message
> > > citizen wrote:
> > >
> > > Well, damn, not only did the message-cancel/repost mess throw
> > > off my unread messages folder, but a glitch in my .snm file
> > > caused a freeze when trying to open this TPG NG; so I had to
> > > trash the files and re-download the messages, losing some of the
> > > expired unread posts in the process. Since the killfile listings
> >
> > That's really a bite "Steve" ,maybe you should go back to "Mack" these PC's
> > must be to hard for you to master!
>
> That would be "Mac," cretin; it's a computer, NOT a truck!
>
>
> I use Netscape; the message filters are encoded in the .snm
> file. Replace the .snm file and all properties return to
> default. Now you know.
>
> > 'Funny' I have been on line since 90 , and have used every OS there is and
> > never have I had such a problem ,you must be, "unique Steve"!:>))
>
> You ARE funny! You are like a day in the park! Just like one of
> those rambling weirdos in the park!
>
> > "unique" Steve Krulick ,is a, "Redishgreen-socialist-liberal-Brain
> > Fart!",the head honcho in his county for
> > the "green party" :>)
>
> Yawn. And this is supposed to prove what... that you are a
> nitwitish ignoramus? You've succeeded!
>
> But it STILL doesn't address a SINGLE issue I brought up
> regarding the 2nd Amen!
>
> > Hey! Steve!
> >
> > Did you know?
>
> > plain everyday American English!
>
> wouldn't know plain everyday American English if it bit you on
> the nose!
>
>
> usage or meaning since 1790 of "bear arms," and that is plainly
> incorrect.
>
James Mayer
> >
> > "Steve Krulick" <kry...@ulster.net> wrote in message
> > > "BD (Dave) Thompson" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Steve Krulick" <kry...@ulster.net> wrote in message
> > > > >
> > > > > Maybe before I put him and some of the other "scholars" back
> > > > > into the loony bin, I should see just how much silly stuff they
> > > > > are pumping out!
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall
> > > > > > not be infringed."
James Mayer
> >
> > >Steve Krulick wrote:
> >
> > --- Snip the same LONG WINDED lies and half truths---
>
> Yeah, but YOU can't refute a WORD of it! And you NEVER did!
>
tHewHiz
Chickens-Eggs?
J
Lone Haranguer
Steve Krulick wrote: his usual propaganda.
Hey Steve! How does it grab you that the new AG has just sent a letter
REAFFIRMING that the 2nd Amendment DOES INDEED provide an INDIVIDUAL
right? This cancels Muttly Reno's pronouncement that the 2nd deals ONLY
with the right to arm militias.
A sharp stick in the eye to you and your HCI gun grabbers. Yuk yuk.
LZ
>
> SMsgt Mike wrote:
>
> Well, damn, not only did the message-cancel/repost mess throw
> off my unread messages folder, but a glitch in my .snm file
> caused a freeze when trying to open this TPG NG; so I had to
> trash the files and re-download the messages, losing some of the
> expired unread posts in the process. Since the killfile listings
> got overwritten, I got to see that the same old disingenuous
> maroons were posting the same old disingenuous tripe, in spite
> of my trying to "educate" them with the truth! It seems
> Mike/Stone/Eglestone just blithely posts his nonsense on,
Rich Travsky
>
> Steve Krulick wrote: his usual propaganda.
>
> Hey Steve! How does it grab you that the new AG has just sent a letter
> REAFFIRMING that the 2nd Amendment DOES INDEED provide an INDIVIDUAL
> right? This cancels Muttly Reno's pronouncement that the 2nd deals ONLY
> with the right to arm militias.
>
> A sharp stick in the eye to you and your HCI gun grabbers. Yuk yuk.
Ashcroft's opinion is not legally binding. There are several decades of
court rulings stating otherwise.
Panhead
>
> Lone Haranguer wrote:
> >
> > Steve Krulick wrote: his usual propaganda.
> >
> > Hey Steve! How does it grab you that the new AG has just sent a letter
> > REAFFIRMING that the 2nd Amendment DOES INDEED provide an INDIVIDUAL
> > right? This cancels Muttly Reno's pronouncement that the 2nd deals ONLY
> > with the right to arm militias.
> >
> > A sharp stick in the eye to you and your HCI gun grabbers. Yuk yuk.
>
> Ashcroft's opinion is not legally binding. There are several decades of
> court rulings stating otherwise.
Then you obviously knew that Reno's opinion didn't mean squat
either, right?
But you knew that.
Hey? Are you gonna vote for that shaky wench if she runs for
Gov?
Lord knows I will!
Steve Krulick
Ah, long time no see! And what brilliant insight and input does
this loony bin escapee have to say after over two months?:
> Steve Krulick wrote: his usual propaganda.
So easy to say! So nice to be lazy and avoid having to actually
SUBSTANTIATE any claims! And not a moment spent trying to
address, much less refute, any of the points I made! Why do you
even bother posting at all?
BZZZT: whether in a formal debate or in a courtroom, providing
hard evidence (statistics, history, etymology, cites), or the
RELEVANT opinions of knowledgeable authorities, is always given
more weight than the empty-headed and unsupported musings of
ninnies like you.
> Hey Steve! How does it grab you that the new AG has just sent a letter
> REAFFIRMING that the 2nd Amendment DOES INDEED provide an INDIVIDUAL
> right?
Reaffirming? I wasn't aware that Ashcroft's big ass was big
enough to cover ALL nine seats of the Supreme Court!
Ashcroft is an arrogant, reactionary, bigoted asshole; what HE
says is his own, erroneous and unsubstantiated opinion. And
opinions are like assholes; everyone has one. HIS opinion is NO
MORE constitutionally valid than anyone else's, except, of
course for the justices and judges sitting in session deciding
on particular cases of constitutional law! A letter of
kow-towing to the NRA is hardly a legal document!
Ashcroft, a bought-and-paid-for tool of the NRA and the rest of
the gun lobby, will say whatever shit they shovel for him.
Ashcroft, who couldn't even beat a DEAD man to retain his Senate
seat, was GIVEN his AG post as a consolation prize, and wouldn't
have even had that, except the spineless Dems caved in and
refused to oppose him on legitimate grounds that he has shown no
respect for the law or truth when political opportunism was at
stake.
He could say anything he wants, but it doesn't change what
MADISON said, or what the COURTS have consistently said:
HICKMAN v. BLOCK No. 94-55836. United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.
Decided April 5, 1996.
We follow our sister circuits in holding that the Second
Amendment is a RIGHT held by the states, and does not protect
the possession of a weapon by a private citizen.
Consulting the text and history of the amendment, the Court
found that the right to keep and bear arms is meant solely to
protect the RIGHT OF THE STATES to keep and maintain armed
militia.
Because the Second Amendment guarantees the RIGHT OF THE STATES
to maintain armed militia, the states alone stand in the
position to show legal injury when this right is infringed.
UNITED STATES v. Francis J. WARIN.
No. 75-1734. United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Decided Feb. 4, 1976.
Since the Second Amendment right "to keep and bear Arms" applies
only to the RIGHT OF THE STATE to maintain a militia and not to
the individual's right to bear arms, there can be no serious
claim to any express constitutional right of an individual to
possess a firearm...
It would unduly extend this opinion to attempt to deal with
every argument made by defendant and amicus curiae, Second
Amendment Foundation, all of which are based on the erroneous
supposition that the Second Amendment is concerned with the
RIGHTS of individuals rather than THOSE OF THE STATES or that
defendant's automatic membership in the "sedentary militia" of
Ohio brings him within the reach of its guarantees.
LOVE v. PEPERSACK
No. 94-1582. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Decided Feb. 3, 1995.
"The courts have consistently held that the Second Amendment
only confers a COLLECTIVE RIGHT of keeping and bearing arms
which must bear a "reasonable relationship to the preservation
or efficiency of a well-regulated militia."
But, in the end, debating "individual vs. collective" is just a
red herring anyway:
UNITED STATES v. HALE.
No. 91-3830. United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Decided Oct. 20, 1992.
"The purpose of the Second Amendment is to restrain the
federal government from regulating the possession of arms where
such regulation would interfere with the preservation or
efficiency of the militia. Whether the "right to bear arms" for
militia purposes is "individual" or "collective" in nature is
irrelevant where, as here, the individual's possession of arms
is not related to the preservation or efficiency of a militia."
> This cancels Muttly Reno's pronouncement that the 2nd deals ONLY
> with the right to arm militias.
Cancels? Pronouncement? Are you totally unable to distinguish
between the opinion of an AG and SETTLED CASE LAW? Ashcroft's
"pronouncement" has ZERO legal status! Oh sure, he may affect
how the DOJ chooses to prosecute certain cases, and with what
zealousness, but his opinion, of itself, changes and "reaffirms"
and "cancels" NOTHING!
> A sharp stick in the eye to you and your HCI gun grabbers.
MY HCI gun grabbers? *I* have NO connection or involvement with
HCI or similar-goaled organizations, nor would I call myself a
gun-grabber, nor can YOU show any statement of mine that would
so characterize me except in your febrile imagination!
AND, this changes NOTHING in the law, or the courts! Just a fart
in a hurricane!
> Yuk yuk.
Yeah, you're a laugh riot, chuckles!
Jeffrey C. Dege
>Lone Haranguer wrote:
>>
>> Steve Krulick wrote: his usual propaganda.
>>
>> Hey Steve! How does it grab you that the new AG has just sent a letter
>> REAFFIRMING that the 2nd Amendment DOES INDEED provide an INDIVIDUAL
>> right? This cancels Muttly Reno's pronouncement that the 2nd deals ONLY
>> with the right to arm militias.
>>
>> A sharp stick in the eye to you and your HCI gun grabbers. Yuk yuk.
>
>Ashcroft's opinion is not legally binding. There are several decades of
>court rulings stating otherwise.
So there are, at District and Appeals levels, tracing back to Tots and
Cases, both of which directly contradict the relevent Supreme Court
decisions.
So I wouldn't count on them for much.
--
A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a
simple system that worked ...A complex system designed from scratch never
works and cannot be patched up to make it work. You have to start over,
beginning with a working simple system.
-- Grady Booch
Lone Haranguer
scam PROVES you are spouting HCI propaganda.
The material is ALL composed of HCI researched and heavily edited
material. Give us a break.
LZ
Lone Haranguer
*Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans
possess over the people of almost every other nation,* the
existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are
Steve Krulick wrote the above which shows his entire tirade to be
worthless. Hamilton OBVIOUSLY TAKES FOR GRANTED THAT THE PEOPLE WILL BE
ARMED. Without their PRIVATE arms how would a state militia be formed?
All the feds would have to do is seize the state armories (as the Brits
tried to do at Lexington) and the citizens AND the states would be
powerless.
You blew it again Stevo.
LZ
James Mayer
> >
> > Steve Krulick wrote: his usual propaganda.
> >
> > Hey Steve! How does it grab you that the new AG has just sent a letter
> > REAFFIRMING that the 2nd Amendment DOES INDEED provide an INDIVIDUAL
> > right? This cancels Muttly Reno's pronouncement that the 2nd deals ONLY
> > with the right to arm militias.
> >
> > A sharp stick in the eye to you and your HCI gun grabbers. Yuk yuk.
>
> Ashcroft's opinion is not legally binding. There are several decades of
> court rulings stating otherwise.
>
Concerning lower court cases:
http://www.2ndlawlib.org/journals/quinshy.html
http://www.2ndLawLib.org/journals/dencite.html
UNITED STATES v. Francis J. WARIN.
No. 75-1734. United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Decided Feb. 4, 1976.
Since the Second Amendment right "to keep and bear Arms" applies
only to the RIGHT OF THE STATE to maintain a militia and not to
the individual's right to bear arms, there can be no serious
claim to any express constitutional right of an individual to
possess a firearm...
States don’t have rights, only delegated powers.
It would unduly extend this opinion to attempt to deal with
every argument made by defendant and amicus curiae, Second
Amendment Foundation, all of which are based on the erroneous
supposition that the Second Amendment is concerned with the
RIGHTS of individuals rather than THOSE OF THE STATES or that
defendant's automatic membership in the "sedentary militia" of
Ohio brings him within the reach of its guarantees.
States don’t have rights, only delegated powers.
HICKMAN v. BLOCK No. 94-55836. United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.
Decided April 5, 1996.
Hickman Case Exposed
> Consulting the text and history of the amendment, the Court found
that the
>right to keep and bear arms is meant solely to protect the right of the
states
>to keep and maintain armed militia.
States have no rights, only powers.
In a famous passage, the Court held that,
>
> '[i]n the absence of any evidence tending to show that the
possession or
>use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in
length" at
>this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or
efficiency of
>a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment
guarantees
>the right to keep and bear such an instrument. 307 U.S. at 178.
[footnote 5]'
Didn't say a thing about Miller's not having standing, now, did
they?
> The Court's understanding follows a plain reading of the
Amendment's text.
A court that can't even determine if someone was convicted or who the
appealant was? (see above)
>The Amendment's second clause declares that the goal is to preserve the
>security of "a free state;"
No, it is preserving "the right of the people" that is the goal.
>its first clause establishes the premise that
>well-regulated militia are necessary to this end. Thus it is only in
>furtherance of state security that "the right of the people to keep and
bear
Because the Second
>Amendment guarantees the right of the states to maintain armed militia,
the
>states alone stand in the position to show legal injury when this right
is
>infringed.
>
Again, states do not have rights, only powers granted by the people.
Foot notes:
5. The Supreme Court has not revisited the meaning of the
Second Amendment except to cite Miller for the proposition that
federal restrictions on the use of firearms by individuals do not
"trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties." Lewis v. United
States, 445 U.S. 55, 65 n.8 (1980) (upholding 18 U.S.C. App. section
1202(a)(1)).
Let's look at the whole quote, shall we?
8. These legislative restrictions on the use of firearms are
neither based upon constitutionally suspect criteria, nor do they trench
upon any constitutionally protected liberties.
Lewis was a previously convicted felon found in possession of a gun. Of
course they don't "trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties"
because those liberties hadn't been restored. by court order or by the
governor of the state where was convicted. If Lewis had persued those
avenues and was sucessful, then he would have had a better chance of
beating his case. It is amusing that the court in Hickman picked out
only this portion of a footnote to use as support for their decision.
They seemed to leave out the part that Lewis was a convicted felon.
LOVE v. PEPERSACK
No. 94-1582. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Decided Feb. 3, 1995.
"The courts have consistently held that the Second Amendment
only confers a COLLECTIVE RIGHT of keeping and bearing arms
which must bear a "reasonable relationship to the preservation
or efficiency of a well-regulated militia."
Collectives don’t have rights, only delegated powers.
UNITED STATES v. HALE.
No. 91-3830. United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Decided Oct. 20, 1992.
"The purpose of the Second Amendment is to restrain the
federal government from regulating the possession of arms where
such regulation would interfere with the preservation or
efficiency of the militia. Whether the "right to bear arms" for
militia purposes is "individual" or "collective" in nature is
irrelevant where, as here, the individual's possession of arms
is not related to the preservation or efficiency of a militia."
Yes it is but the court want’s to deny the obvious.
James Mayer
>
> Ah, long time no see! And what brilliant insight and input does
> this loony bin escapee have to say after over two months?:
>
>
> SUBSTANTIATE any claims! And not a moment spent trying to
> address, much less refute, any of the points I made! Why do you
> even bother posting at all?
>
> BZZZT: whether in a formal debate or in a courtroom, providing
> hard evidence (statistics, history, etymology, cites), or the
> RELEVANT opinions of knowledgeable authorities, is always given
> more weight than the empty-headed and unsupported musings of
> ninnies like you.
>
> > REAFFIRMING that the 2nd Amendment DOES INDEED provide an INDIVIDUAL
> > right?
>
> enough to cover ALL nine seats of the Supreme Court!
>
> Ashcroft is an arrogant, reactionary, bigoted asshole; what HE
> says is his own, erroneous and unsubstantiated opinion. And
> opinions are like assholes; everyone has one. HIS opinion is NO
> MORE constitutionally valid than anyone else's, except, of
> course for the justices and judges sitting in session deciding
> on particular cases of constitutional law! A letter of
> kow-towing to the NRA is hardly a legal document!
>
> Ashcroft, a bought-and-paid-for tool of the NRA and the rest of
> the gun lobby, will say whatever shit they shovel for him.
> Ashcroft, who couldn't even beat a DEAD man to retain his Senate
> seat, was GIVEN his AG post as a consolation prize, and wouldn't
> have even had that, except the spineless Dems caved in and
> refused to oppose him on legitimate grounds that he has shown no
> respect for the law or truth when political opportunism was at
> stake.
>
> He could say anything he wants, but it doesn't change what
> MADISON said, or what the COURTS have consistently said:
>
http://www.2ndlawlib.org/journals/quinshy.html
http://www.2ndLawLib.org/journals/dencite.html
> HICKMAN v. BLOCK No. 94-55836. United States Court of Appeals,
Rich Travsky
Pleae show how Ashcroft has suddenly thrown out decades of SC rulings.
RT
Rich Travsky
>
> On Wed, 23 May 2001 09:43:23 -0600, Rich Travsky <trav...@MOVEhotmail.com> wrote:
> >Lone Haranguer wrote:
> >>
> >> Steve Krulick wrote: his usual propaganda.
> >>
> >> Hey Steve! How does it grab you that the new AG has just sent a letter
> >> REAFFIRMING that the 2nd Amendment DOES INDEED provide an INDIVIDUAL
> >> right? This cancels Muttly Reno's pronouncement that the 2nd deals ONLY
> >> with the right to arm militias.
> >>
> >> A sharp stick in the eye to you and your HCI gun grabbers. Yuk yuk.
> >
> >Ashcroft's opinion is not legally binding. There are several decades of
> >court rulings stating otherwise.
>
> So there are, at District and Appeals levels, tracing back to Tots and
> Cases, both of which directly contradict the relevent Supreme Court
> decisions.
>
> So I wouldn't count on them for much.
SC overrules District and Appeals court levels. It has to make it
to the SC.
RT
James Mayer
> >Lone Haranguer wrote:
> >>
> >> Steve Krulick wrote: his usual propaganda.
> >>
> >> Hey Steve! How does it grab you that the new AG has just sent a letter
> >> REAFFIRMING that the 2nd Amendment DOES INDEED provide an INDIVIDUAL
> >> right? This cancels Muttly Reno's pronouncement that the 2nd deals ONLY
> >> with the right to arm militias.
> >>
> >> A sharp stick in the eye to you and your HCI gun grabbers. Yuk yuk.
> >
> >Ashcroft's opinion is not legally binding. There are several decades of
> >court rulings stating otherwise.
>
> So there are, at District and Appeals levels, tracing back to Tots and
> Cases, both of which directly contradict the relevent Supreme Court
> decisions.
>
> So I wouldn't count on them for much.
>
Concerning lower court cases:
http://www.2ndlawlib.org/journals/quinshy.html
http://www.2ndLawLib.org/journals/dencite.html
> --
James Mayer
> >
> > Rich Travsky wrote:
> > >
> > > Lone Haranguer wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Steve Krulick wrote: his usual propaganda.
> > > >
> > > > Hey Steve! How does it grab you that the new AG has just sent a letter
> > > > REAFFIRMING that the 2nd Amendment DOES INDEED provide an INDIVIDUAL
> > > > right? This cancels Muttly Reno's pronouncement that the 2nd deals ONLY
> > > > with the right to arm militias.
> > > >
> > > > A sharp stick in the eye to you and your HCI gun grabbers. Yuk yuk.
> > >
> > > Ashcroft's opinion is not legally binding. There are several decades of
> > > court rulings stating otherwise.
> >
> > either, right?
> >
> > But you knew that.
> >
> > Hey? Are you gonna vote for that shaky wench if she runs for
> > Gov?
> > Lord knows I will!
>
> Pleae show how Ashcroft has suddenly thrown out decades of SC rulings.
>
> RT
Post those SC rulings that he hasn't thrown out.
James Mayer
> >
> > On Wed, 23 May 2001 09:43:23 -0600, Rich Travsky <trav...@MOVEhotmail.com> wrote:
> > >Lone Haranguer wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Steve Krulick wrote: his usual propaganda.
> > >>
> > >> Hey Steve! How does it grab you that the new AG has just sent a letter
> > >> REAFFIRMING that the 2nd Amendment DOES INDEED provide an INDIVIDUAL
> > >> right? This cancels Muttly Reno's pronouncement that the 2nd deals ONLY
> > >> with the right to arm militias.
> > >>
> > >> A sharp stick in the eye to you and your HCI gun grabbers. Yuk yuk.
> > >
> > >Ashcroft's opinion is not legally binding. There are several decades of
> > >court rulings stating otherwise.
> >
> > Cases, both of which directly contradict the relevent Supreme Court
> > decisions.
> >
> > So I wouldn't count on them for much.
>
> to the SC.
>
> RT
Then tell that to the lower courts that seem to think they can over
rule the SC.
Lone Haranguer
Rich Travsky wrote:
>
> Lone Haranguer wrote:
> >
> > Steve Krulick wrote: his usual propaganda.
> >
> > Hey Steve! How does it grab you that the new AG has just sent a letter
> > REAFFIRMING that the 2nd Amendment DOES INDEED provide an INDIVIDUAL
> > right? This cancels Muttly Reno's pronouncement that the 2nd deals ONLY
> > with the right to arm militias.
> >
> > A sharp stick in the eye to you and your HCI gun grabbers. Yuk yuk.
>
> Ashcroft's opinion is not legally binding. There are several decades of
> court rulings stating otherwise.
>
We know that Richey. It's just that Reno sent her stooge down to argue
in U.S. vs Emerson and NOW the Justice Dept is saying her argument had
no validity. I sure hope the 3 judges at the 5th circuit take that into
account. I wish Ashcroft would have them reopen the hearing and gut the
government's old argument.
Should hear something soon. It's been nearly a year.
LZ
Rich Travsky
>
> Rich Travsky <trav...@MOVEhotmail.com> writes: > "Jeffrey C. Dege" wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 23 May 2001 09:43:23 -0600, Rich Travsky <trav...@MOVEhotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >Lone Haranguer wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Steve Krulick wrote: his usual propaganda.
> > > >>
> > > >> Hey Steve! How does it grab you that the new AG has just sent a letter
> > > >> REAFFIRMING that the 2nd Amendment DOES INDEED provide an INDIVIDUAL
> > > >> right? This cancels Muttly Reno's pronouncement that the 2nd deals ONLY
> > > >> with the right to arm militias.
> > > >>
> > > >> A sharp stick in the eye to you and your HCI gun grabbers. Yuk yuk.
> > > >
> > > >Ashcroft's opinion is not legally binding. There are several decades of
> > > >court rulings stating otherwise.
> > >
> > > So there are, at District and Appeals levels, tracing back to Tots and
> > > Cases, both of which directly contradict the relevent Supreme Court
> > > decisions.
> > >
> > > So I wouldn't count on them for much.
> >
> > SC overrules District and Appeals court levels. It has to make it
> > to the SC.
> >
> > RT
>
> Then tell that to the lower courts that seem to think they can over
> rule the SC.
HICKMAN v. BLOCK, LOVE v. PEPERSACK, UNITED STATES v. HALE - all the
way back to Miller.
Rich Travsky
Miller, among others:
UNITED STATES v. HALE, HICKMAN v. BLOCK,LOVE v. PEPERSACK,
UNITED STATES v. Francis J. WARIN
Michael Dix
>
> On Wed, 23 May 2001 09:43:23 -0600, Rich Travsky <trav...@MOVEhotmail.com> wrote:
> >Lone Haranguer wrote:
> >>
> >> Steve Krulick wrote: his usual propaganda.
> >>
> >> Hey Steve! How does it grab you that the new AG has just sent a letter
> >> REAFFIRMING that the 2nd Amendment DOES INDEED provide an INDIVIDUAL
> >> right? This cancels Muttly Reno's pronouncement that the 2nd deals ONLY
> >> with the right to arm militias.
> >>
> >> A sharp stick in the eye to you and your HCI gun grabbers. Yuk yuk.
> >
> >Ashcroft's opinion is not legally binding. There are several decades of
> >court rulings stating otherwise.
>
> So there are, at District and Appeals levels, tracing back to Tots and
> Cases, both of which directly contradict the relevent Supreme Court
> decisions.
>
> So I wouldn't count on them for much.
>
I read Cases (Velasquez) to be pretty supportive of the
individual rights view - merely unsupportive of the
"rights" of a felon to shoot up a ginmill.
Jeffrey C. Dege
United States v. Cases:
The right to keep and bear arms is not a right conferred upon the
people by the federal constitution. Whatever rights in this respect
the people may have depend upon local legislation; the only function
of the Second Amendment being to prevent the federal government and
the federal government only from infringing that right. (p.922)United
States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553, 23 L.Ed. 588; Presser v.
Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 265, 6 S.Ct. 580, 29 L.Ed. 615. But the
Supreme Court in a dictum in Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275, 282,
17 S.Ct. 326, 41 L.Ed. 715, indicated that the limitation imposed upon
the federal government by the Second Amendment was not absolute and
this dictum received the sanction of the court in the recent case of
United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 182, 59 S.Ct. 816, 83 L.Ed.
1206.
In the case last cited the Supreme Court, after discussing the history
of militia organizations in the United States, upheld the validity
under the Second Amendment of the National Firearms Act of June 26,
1934, 48 Stat. 1236, in so far as it imposed limitations upon the use
of a shotgun having a barrel less than eighteen inches long. It stated
the reason for its result on page 178 of the opinion in 307 U.S., on
page 818 of 59 S.Ct., 83 L.Ed. 1206, as follows: "In the absence of
any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun
having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time
has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of
a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment
guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it
is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the
ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the
common defense."
Apparently, then, under the Second Amendment, the federal government
can limit the keeping and bearing of arms by a single individual as
well as by a group of individuals, but it cannot prohibit the
possession or use of any weapon which has any reasonable relationship
to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.
However, we do not feel that the Supreme Court in this case was
attempting to formulate a general rule applicable to all cases. The
rule which it laid down was adequate to dispose of the case before it
and that we think was as far as the Supreme Court intended to go. At
any rate the rule of the Miller case, if intended to be comprehensive
and complete would seem to be already outdated, in spite of the fact
that it was formulated only three and a half years ago, because of the
well known fact that in the so called "Commando Units" some sort of
military use seems to have been found for almost any modern lethal
weapon. In view of this, if the rule of the Miller case is general and
complete, the result would follow that, under present day conditions,
the federal government would be empowered only to regulate the
possession or use of weapons such as a flintlock musket or a matchlock
harquebus. But to hold that the Second Amendment limits the federal
government to regulations concerning only weapons which can be classed
as antiques or curiosities,--almost any other might bear some
reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well
regulated militia unit of the present day,--is in effect to hold that
the limitation of the Second Amendment is absolute. Another objection
to the rule of the Miller case as a full and general statement is that
according to it Congress would be prevented by the Second Amendment
from regulating the possession or use by private persons not present
or prospective members of any military unit, of distinctly military
arms, such as machine guns, trench mortars, anti-tank or anti-aircraft
guns, even though under the circumstances surrounding such possession
or use it would be inconceivable that a private person could have any
legitimate reason for having such a weapon. It seems to us unlikely
that the framers of the Amendment intended any such result.
Considering the many variable factors bearing upon the question it
seems to us impossible to formulate any general test by which to
determine the limits imposed by the Second Amendment but that each
case under it, like cases under the due process clause, must be
decided on its own facts and the line between what is and what is not
a valid federal restriction pricked out by decided cases falling on
one side or the other of the line.
In other words, Miller couldn't possibly have meant what it said,
Why, if that were true, then we wouldn't be able to regulate firearms.
So therefore, we're going to completely ignore the Second Amendment,
_and_ the Supreme Court, and make up whatever law we feel like.
--
Je suis l'Eggman.
Vous etes les eggmen.
Je suis le walrus.
Goo goo ga joob.
Michael Dix
To which SC rulings do you refer?
Steve Krulick
>
> On Wed, 23 May 2001 09:43:23 -0600, Rich Travsky <trav...@MOVEhotmail.com> wrote:
> >Lone Haranguer wrote:
> >>
> >> Steve Krulick wrote: his usual propaganda.
> >>
> >> Hey Steve! How does it grab you that the new AG has just sent a letter
> >> REAFFIRMING that the 2nd Amendment DOES INDEED provide an INDIVIDUAL
> >> right? This cancels Muttly Reno's pronouncement that the 2nd deals ONLY
> >> with the right to arm militias.
> >>
> >> A sharp stick in the eye to you and your HCI gun grabbers. Yuk yuk.
> >
> >Ashcroft's opinion is not legally binding. There are several decades of
> >court rulings stating otherwise.
>
> So there are, at District and Appeals levels, tracing back to Tots and
> Cases, both of which directly contradict the relevent Supreme Court
> decisions.
You just love to make things up without ANY substantiation,
don't you!
Please show where these two rulings "directly contradict the
relevent Supreme Court decisions!
===================================
UNITED STATES v. TOT.
No. 7961. Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Decided Oct. 28, 1942.
The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
provides: "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 appellant's contention is that if the statute under which
this prosecution was brought is to be applied to a weapon of the
type he had in his possession, then the statute violates the
Second Amendment.
It is abundantly clear both from the discussions of this
amendment contemporaneous with its proposal and adoption and
those of learned writers since[13] that this amendment, unlike
those providing for protection of free speech and freedom of
religion, was not adopted with individual rights in mind, but as
a protection for the States in the maintenance of their militia
organizations against possible encroachments by the federal
power.[14] The experiences in England under James II of an armed
royal force quartered upon a defenseless citizenry[15] was fresh
in the minds of the Colonists. They wanted no repetition of that
experience in their newly formed government. The almost uniform
course of decision in this country,[16] where provisions similar
in language are found in many of the State Constitutions, bears
out this concept of the constitutional guarantee. A notable
instance is the refusal to extend its application to weapons
thought incapable of military use.
The contention of the appellant in this case could, we think, be
denied without more under the authority of United States v.
Miller, 1939, 307 U.S. 174, 59 S. Ct. 816, 83 L.Ed. 1206. This
was a prosecution under the National Firearms Act of 1934 and
the weapon, the possession of which had occasioned the
prosecution of the accused, was a shotgun of less than 18 inch
barrel. The Court said that in the absence of evidence tending
to show that possession of such a gun at the time has some
reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a
well regulated militia, it could not be said that the Second
Amendment guarantees the right to keep such an instrument. The
appellant here having failed to show such a relationship, the
same thing may be said as applied to the pistol found in his
possession. It is not material on this point that the 1934
statute was bottomed on the taxing power while the statute in
question here was based on a regulation of interstate commerce.
But, further, the same result is definitely indicated on a
broader ground and on this we should prefer to rest the matter.
Weapon bearing was never treated as anything like an absolute
right by the common law.
It was regulated by statute as to time and place as far back as
the Statute of Northampton in 1328 and on many occasions
since.[17] The decisions under the State Constitutions show the
upholding of regulations prohibiting the carrying of concealed
weapons, prohibiting persons from going armed in certain public
places and other restrictions, in the nature of police
regulations, but which do not go so far as substantially to
interfere with the public interest protected by the
constitutional mandates.[18] The Federal statute here involved
is one of that general type. One could hardly argue seriously
that a limitation upon the privilege of possessing weapons was
unconstitutional when applied to a mental patient of the maniac
type. The same would be true if the possessor were a child of
immature years. In the situation at bar Congress has prohibited
the receipt of weapons from interstate transactions by persons
who have previously, by due process of law, been shown to be
aggressors against society.[19] Such a classification is
entirely reasonable and does not (p.267)infringe upon the
preservation of the well regulated militia protected by the
Second Amendment.
(complete ruling at
http://www.2ndlawlib.org/court/fed/131f2d261.html)
-----------
Key points:
1. Second Amendment "was not adopted with individual rights in
mind, but as a protection for the States in the maintenance of
their militia organizations..."
2. Under authority of US v. Miller: "in the absence of evidence
tending to show that possession of such a gun at the time has
some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency
of a well regulated militia, it could not be said that the
Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep such an
instrument."
3. "Weapon bearing was never treated as anything like an
absolute right by the common law."
4. "One could hardly argue seriously that a limitation upon the
privilege of possessing weapons was unconstitutional when
applied to a mental patient of the maniac type... a child of
immature years... aggressors against society. Such a
classification is entirely reasonable and does not infringe upon
the preservation of the well regulated militia protected by the
Second Amendment."
===================================
CASES v. UNITED STATES.
No. 3756. Circuit Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
Nov. 27, 1942.
The Federal Firearms Act undoubtedly curtails to some extent the
right of individuals to keep and bear arms but it does not
follow from this as a necessary consequence that it is bad under
the Second Amendment which reads "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 right to keep and bear arms is not a right conferred upon
We therefore turn to the record in the case at bar. From it it
appears that on or about August 27, 1941, the appellant received
into his possession and carried away ten rounds of ammunition,
and that on the evening of August 30 of the same year he went to
Annadale's Beach Club on Isla Verde in the municipality of
Carolina, Puerto Rico, equipped with a .38 caliber Colt type
revolver of Spanish make which, when some one turned out the
lights, he used, apparently not wholly without effect, upon
another patron of the place who in some way seems to have
incurred his displeasure. While the weapon may be capable of
military use, or while at least (p.923)familiarity with it might
be regarded as of value in training a person to use a comparable
weapon of military type and caliber, still there is no evidence
that the appellant was or ever had been a member of any military
organization or that his use of the weapon under the
circumstances disclosed was in preparation for a military
career. In fact, the only inference possible is that the
appellant at the time charged in the indictment was in
possession of, transporting,[3] and using the firearm and
ammunition purely and simply on a frolic of his own and without
any thought or intention of contributing to the efficiency of
the well regulated militia which the Second Amendment was
designed to foster as necessary to the security of a free state.
We are of the view that, as applied to the appellant, the
Federal Firearms Act does not conflict with the Second Amendment
to the Constitution of the United States.
(complete ruling at
http://www.2ndlawlib.org/court/fed/131f2d916.html)
-----------
Key points:
1. "The right to keep and bear arms is not a right conferred
upon the people by the federal constitution.
Whatever rights in this respect the people may have depend upon
local legislation; the only function of the Second Amendment
being to prevent the federal government and the federal
government only from infringing that right. But the Supreme
Court... indicated that the limitation imposed upon the federal
government by the Second Amendment was not absolute."
2. "to hold that the Second Amendment limits the federal
government to regulations concerning only weapons which can be
classed as antiques or curiosities... is in effect to hold that
the limitation of the Second Amendment is absolute.
3. "there is no evidence that the appellant was or ever had been
a member of any military organization or that his use of the
weapon under the circumstances disclosed was in preparation for
a military career... and using the firearm and ammunition purely
and simply on a frolic of his own and without any thought or
intention of contributing to the efficiency of the well
regulated militia which the Second Amendment was designed to
foster as necessary to the security of a free state. We are of
the view that, as
applied to the appellant, the Federal Firearms Act does not
conflict with the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the
United States."
> So I wouldn't count on them for much.
Nor *I* on YOUR unsubstantiated opinion.
Steve Krulick
>
> Just the fact that you are STILL blathering that old "teflon bullet"
> scam PROVES you are spouting HCI propaganda.
What a side-stepping loon! Avoid ALL I said, snip it all away,
BUT claim that *I* am "STILL blathering" about teflon bullets, a
mere mention IN A QUOTE BY BORK! Blame Bork, loon; it's HIS
quote!
>
> The material is ALL composed of HCI researched and heavily edited
> material. Give us a break.
All? Every little bit, huh! That's why all the URLs from SAF,
and ccrkba, right?
Instead of lame ad hominems without any substantiation, how
about actually addressing WHAT I said?
Steve Krulick
>
> *Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans
> possess over the people of almost every other nation,* the
> existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are
>
> Steve Krulick wrote the above which shows his entire tirade to be
> worthless.
Oh? And why should we believe YOUR totally worthless
unsubstantiated opinion? HOW does IT show that everything that
follows is "worthless"? Besides, *I* didn't write the above;
it's a quote from Federalist #46. Do you have a problem with
Federalist #46?
> Hamilton OBVIOUSLY TAKES FOR GRANTED THAT THE PEOPLE WILL BE
> ARMED.
Hamilton? HAMILTON? The above quote from Fed #46 was by MADISON!
What a maroon!
> Without their PRIVATE arms how would a state militia be formed?
As Patrick Henry stated, if not by the Fed govt, the state would
provide arms, indeed he hoped EVERY militia man might be armed
by the state! Besides, ARMS includes ALL the equipage of war:
cannon, tents, flags, siege apparatus, engineering equipment,
wagons. Who else BUT the govt would provide those?
> All the feds would have to do is seize the state armories (as the Brits
> tried to do at Lexington) and the citizens AND the states would be
> powerless.
You obviously know NOTHING about how the militias are
established and maintained! OR what their purpose is!
I dare say you didn't even READ what is below, or you wouldn't
be making these dumb remarks!
> You blew it again Stevo.
Yeah, merely because YOU said so! Why don't you actually TRY to
address what is presented here! Could it be because you lack the
intellectual firepower and intestinal fortitude to deal with it?
Try again when you have something of value to contribute. I'm
not holding my breath!
> > Mark Balcom wrote:
> > >
> > > "Steve Krulick" <kry...@ulster.net> wrote in message
> > > news:3B0AC61D...@ulster.net...
> > > > "BD (Dave) Thompson" wrote:
> > > > > > > ----------------------
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Linguistically, the term "bear arms" was not limited to
> > > > > > > militia service.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why, because of YOUR mere say so?
> > > > > >
James Mayer
> >
> > Rich Travsky <trav...@MOVEhotmail.com> writes: > "Jeffrey C. Dege" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 23 May 2001 09:43:23 -0600, Rich Travsky <trav...@MOVEhotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >Lone Haranguer wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Steve Krulick wrote: his usual propaganda.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Hey Steve! How does it grab you that the new AG has just sent a letter
> > > > >> REAFFIRMING that the 2nd Amendment DOES INDEED provide an INDIVIDUAL
> > > > >> right? This cancels Muttly Reno's pronouncement that the 2nd deals ONLY
> > > > >> with the right to arm militias.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> A sharp stick in the eye to you and your HCI gun grabbers. Yuk yuk.
> > > > >
> > > > >Ashcroft's opinion is not legally binding. There are several decades of
> > > > >court rulings stating otherwise.
> > > >
> > > > So there are, at District and Appeals levels, tracing back to Tots and
> > > > Cases, both of which directly contradict the relevent Supreme Court
> > > > decisions.
> > > >
> > >
> > > to the SC.
> > >
> > > RT
> >
> > Then tell that to the lower courts that seem to think they can over
> > rule the SC.
>
> "think" is correct. It doesn't hold up at the SC level.
>
> HICKMAN v. BLOCK, LOVE v. PEPERSACK, UNITED STATES v. HALE - all the
> way back to Miller.
>
"...this [Supreme] Court has rigorously insisted that such a denial [to
hear a case] carries with it no implication whatever regarding the
Court's views on the merits of a case which it has declined to
review. The Court has said this again and again; again and again the
admonition has to be repeated."
(Justice Frankfurter, Maryland v. Broadcast Radio Show, Inc. 338 US
912, 1950)
>
>
> > Concerning lower court cases:
> >
> > http://www.2ndlawlib.org/journals/quinshy.html
> >
> > http://www.2ndLawLib.org/journals/dencite.html
I see that you didn't have any comment on the supporting
documentation.
James Mayer
> >
> > > >
> > > > Rich Travsky wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Lone Haranguer wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Steve Krulick wrote: his usual propaganda.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hey Steve! How does it grab you that the new AG has just sent a letter
> > > > > > REAFFIRMING that the 2nd Amendment DOES INDEED provide an INDIVIDUAL
> > > > > > right? This cancels Muttly Reno's pronouncement that the 2nd deals ONLY
> > > > > > with the right to arm militias.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A sharp stick in the eye to you and your HCI gun grabbers. Yuk yuk.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ashcroft's opinion is not legally binding. There are several decades of
> > > > > court rulings stating otherwise.
> > > >
> > > > either, right?
> > > >
> > > > But you knew that.
> > > >
> > > > Hey? Are you gonna vote for that shaky wench if she runs for
> > > > Gov?
> > > > Lord knows I will!
> > >
> > > Pleae show how Ashcroft has suddenly thrown out decades of SC rulings.
> > >
> >
> > Post those SC rulings that he hasn't thrown out.
>
> Miller, among others:
>
> UNITED STATES v. Francis J. WARIN
Those are NOT SC rulings. Denial of cert means nothing at the SC
level.
James Mayer
> >
> > On Wed, 23 May 2001 09:43:23 -0600, Rich Travsky <trav...@MOVEhotmail.com> wrote:
> > >Lone Haranguer wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Steve Krulick wrote: his usual propaganda.
> > >>
> > >> Hey Steve! How does it grab you that the new AG has just sent a letter
> > >> REAFFIRMING that the 2nd Amendment DOES INDEED provide an INDIVIDUAL
> > >> right? This cancels Muttly Reno's pronouncement that the 2nd deals ONLY
> > >> with the right to arm militias.
> > >>
> > >> A sharp stick in the eye to you and your HCI gun grabbers. Yuk yuk.
> > >
> > >Ashcroft's opinion is not legally binding. There are several decades of
> > >court rulings stating otherwise.
> >
> > Cases, both of which directly contradict the relevent Supreme Court
> > decisions.
>
> don't you!
>
> relevent Supreme Court decisions!
>
>
Try reading these:
James Mayer
> >
> > Just the fact that you are STILL blathering that old "teflon bullet"
> > scam PROVES you are spouting HCI propaganda.
>
> What a side-stepping loon! Avoid ALL I said, snip it all away,
> BUT claim that *I* am "STILL blathering" about teflon bullets, a
> mere mention IN A QUOTE BY BORK! Blame Bork, loon; it's HIS
> quote!
> >
> > The material is ALL composed of HCI researched and heavily edited
> > material. Give us a break.
>
> All? Every little bit, huh! That's why all the URLs from SAF,
> and ccrkba, right?
>
> Instead of lame ad hominems without any substantiation, how
> about actually addressing WHAT I said?
>
How about you quiting being a pawn of the Potomac Institute?
How about refuting what I post?
James Mayer
Why don't you address the counters to your posts rather than dismissing
all of it out of hand because you think that every one that counters your
assertions is a pseuduscholor or tainted by the NRA. All of your assertions
are tainted by the Potomac Institute or the gun control lobby.
Jeffrey C. Dege
>"Jeffrey C. Dege" wrote:
>>
>> Cases, both of which directly contradict the relevent Supreme Court
>> decisions.
>
>You just love to make things up without ANY substantiation,
>don't you!
>
>Please show where these two rulings "directly contradict the
>relevent Supreme Court decisions!
>
>===================================
>No. 3756. Circuit Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
>Nov. 27, 1942.
>
>attempting to formulate a general rule applicable to all cases.
>The rule which it laid down was adequate to dispose of the case
>before it and that we think was as far as the Supreme Court
>intended to go. At any rate the rule of the Miller case, if
>intended to be comprehensive and complete would seem to be
>already outdated, in spite of the fact that it was formulated
>only three and a half years ago, because of the well known fact
>that in the so called "Commando Units" some sort of military use
>seems to have been found for almost any modern lethal weapon. In
>view of this, if the rule of the Miller case is general and
>complete, the result would follow that, under present day
>conditions, the federal government would be empowered only to
>regulate the possession or use of weapons such as a flintlock
>musket or a matchlock harquebus. But to hold that the Second
>Amendment limits the federal government to regulations
>concerning only weapons which can be classed as antiques or
>curiosities,--almost any other might bear some reasonable
>relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well
>regulated militia unit of the present day,--is in effect to hold
>that the limitation of the Second Amendment is absolute.
In other words, the 1st Circuit is saying that it is going to ignore
Miller, because if it followed Miller, it wouldn't be able to regulate
guns.
--
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better
than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We
ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which
feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget
that ye were our countrymen.
- Samuel Adams
no one of consequence
James Mayer <jf...@mindnospamspring.com> wrote:
Judging from his rantings about "looney bins", I'd say he killfiles those counters and
then pretends they never exist.
]All of your assertions
]are tainted by the Potomac Institute or the gun control lobby.
--
|Patrick Chester wol...@io.com |
|"...could you and your associates arrange that for me, Mr. Morden?" |
|Wittier remarks always come to mind just after sending your article.|
Lone Haranguer
Steve Krulick wrote:
>
> Lone Haranguer wrote:
>
> Ah, long time no see! And what brilliant insight and input does
> this loony bin escapee have to say after over two months?:
>
I was traveling as I frequently do.
> > Steve Krulick wrote: his usual propaganda.
>
> So easy to say! So nice to be lazy and avoid having to actually
> SUBSTANTIATE any claims!
BOGUS claims are not worth responding to.
And not a moment spent trying to
> address, much less refute, any of the points I made! Why do you
> even bother posting at all?
To jerk your chain of course.
>
> BZZZT: whether in a formal debate or in a courtroom, providing
> hard evidence (statistics, history, etymology, cites), or the
> RELEVANT opinions of knowledgeable authorities, is always given
> more weight than the empty-headed and unsupported musings of
> ninnies like you.
>
My thoughts exactly.
> > Hey Steve! How does it grab you that the new AG has just sent a letter
> > REAFFIRMING that the 2nd Amendment DOES INDEED provide an INDIVIDUAL
> > right?
>
> Reaffirming? I wasn't aware that Ashcroft's big ass was big
> enough to cover ALL nine seats of the Supreme Court!
>
> Ashcroft is an arrogant, reactionary, bigoted asshole; what HE
> says is his own, erroneous and unsubstantiated opinion. And
> opinions are like assholes; everyone has one. HIS opinion is NO
> MORE constitutionally valid than anyone else's, except, of
> course for the justices and judges sitting in session deciding
> on particular cases of constitutional law! A letter of
> kow-towing to the NRA is hardly a legal document!
Reno had her solicitor general write the very same type of letter and
sent her minions to argue the same in court. She tried to use her
opinion as a club on judges who were looking for a step up. Two can
play that game.
>
> Ashcroft, a bought-and-paid-for tool of the NRA and the rest of
> the gun lobby, will say whatever shit they shovel for him.
> Ashcroft, who couldn't even beat a DEAD man to retain his Senate
> seat, was GIVEN his AG post as a consolation prize, and wouldn't
> have even had that, except the spineless Dems caved in and
> refused to oppose him on legitimate grounds that he has shown no
> respect for the law or truth when political opportunism was at
> stake.
Reno was a bought and paid for shill for HCI. She should have been put
in jail for negligent homicide.
>
> He could say anything he wants, but it doesn't change what
> MADISON said, or what the COURTS have consistently said:
Courts have been known to be wrong. Slaves are no longer property and
we have paid $20,000 each for locking up our Japanese-American citizens
in WWII.
Spare us the cut and paste from HCI. It's getting frayed around the
edges from too much handling.
LZ
>
> HICKMAN v. BLOCK No. 94-55836. United States Court of Appeals,
> Ninth Circuit.
> Decided April 5, 1996.
>
> We follow our sister circuits in holding that the Second
> Amendment is a RIGHT held by the states, and does not protect
> the possession of a weapon by a private citizen.
>
> Consulting the text and history of the amendment, the Court
> found that the right to keep and bear arms is meant solely to
> protect the RIGHT OF THE STATES to keep and maintain armed
> militia.
>
> Because the Second Amendment guarantees the RIGHT OF THE STATES
> to maintain armed militia, the states alone stand in the
> position to show legal injury when this right is infringed.
>
> UNITED STATES v. Francis J. WARIN.
> No. 75-1734. United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
> Decided Feb. 4, 1976.
>
> Since the Second Amendment right "to keep and bear Arms" applies
> only to the RIGHT OF THE STATE to maintain a militia and not to
> the individual's right to bear arms, there can be no serious
> claim to any express constitutional right of an individual to
> possess a firearm...
>
> It would unduly extend this opinion to attempt to deal with
> every argument made by defendant and amicus curiae, Second
> Amendment Foundation, all of which are based on the erroneous
> supposition that the Second Amendment is concerned with the
> RIGHTS of individuals rather than THOSE OF THE STATES or that
> defendant's automatic membership in the "sedentary militia" of
> Ohio brings him within the reach of its guarantees.
>
> LOVE v. PEPERSACK
> No. 94-1582. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
> Decided Feb. 3, 1995.
>
> "The courts have consistently held that the Second Amendment
> only confers a COLLECTIVE RIGHT of keeping and bearing arms
> which must bear a "reasonable relationship to the preservation
> or efficiency of a well-regulated militia."
>
> But, in the end, debating "individual vs. collective" is just a
> red herring anyway:
>
> UNITED STATES v. HALE.
> No. 91-3830. United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
> Decided Oct. 20, 1992.
>
> "The purpose of the Second Amendment is to restrain the
> federal government from regulating the possession of arms where
> such regulation would interfere with the preservation or
> efficiency of the militia. Whether the "right to bear arms" for
> militia purposes is "individual" or "collective" in nature is
> irrelevant where, as here, the individual's possession of arms
> is not related to the preservation or efficiency of a militia."
>
> > This cancels Muttly Reno's pronouncement that the 2nd deals ONLY
> > with the right to arm militias.
>
> Cancels? Pronouncement? Are you totally unable to distinguish
> between the opinion of an AG and SETTLED CASE LAW? Ashcroft's
> "pronouncement" has ZERO legal status! Oh sure, he may affect
> how the DOJ chooses to prosecute certain cases, and with what
> zealousness, but his opinion, of itself, changes and "reaffirms"
> and "cancels" NOTHING!
>
> > A sharp stick in the eye to you and your HCI gun grabbers.
>
> MY HCI gun grabbers? *I* have NO connection or involvement with
> HCI or similar-goaled organizations, nor would I call myself a
> gun-grabber, nor can YOU show any statement of mine that would
> so characterize me except in your febrile imagination!
>
> AND, this changes NOTHING in the law, or the courts! Just a fart
> in a hurricane!
>
> > Yuk yuk.
>
> Yeah, you're a laugh riot, chuckles!
Michael Eglestone
>
>
> You obviously know NOTHING about how the militias are
> established and maintained! OR what their purpose is!
Totally irrelevant, Steve. The 2nd Amendment doesn't require a person
to be a "Member" of a Militia of any kind to enjoy the RIGHT to keep and
bear Arms in this country; it never has.
Let is deal with TODAY, and the people in POWER TODAY. The chief Law
Enforcement Officer of the United States is the person who will set the
examples for the Federal Courts and the Federal Prosecutors for the next
4 years. His views will be taken very seriously, and he has strong views
about the people's "Individual" RIGHT to keep and bear Arms. Let us look
at a few of the things this Chief U.S. Law Enforcement Officer has to
say!
Keep in mind that he doesn't care about YOUR opinions in this matter!
---
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20010523-70615251.htm
Ashcroft to protect private ownership of firearms
By Jerry Seper THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Excerpts from the original story:
Attorney General John Ashcroft has reversed a Clinton
administration policy on the Second Amendment, saying the Justice
Department has "reaffirmed a long-held opinion" that all
law-abiding citizens have the individual right to keep and bear
firearms.
In a decision likely to inflame liberals and anti-gun lobbies,
Mr. Ashcroft said in a letter last week to the National Rifle
Association that the Justice Department has taken the position
that the amendment "protects the private ownership of firearms
for lawful purposes."
"As I was reminded during my confirmation hearing, some hold a
different view and would, in effect, read the Second Amendment
out of the Constitution," Mr. Ashcroft said in the letter
Thursday to NRA Executive Director James Jay Baker. "I must
respectfully disagree with this view, for when I was sworn in as
Attorney General of the United States, I took an oath to uphold
and defend the Constitution.
"That responsibility applies to all parts of the Constitution,
including the Second Amendment," he said.
In the letter, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington
Times, Mr. Ashcroft argued that "the text and the original intent
of the Second Amendment clearly protects the right of individuals
to keep and bear firearms" and that early Supreme Court decisions
"routinely" reaffirmed that position.
Mark Levin, former chief of staff to Attorney General Edwin Meese
III, praised the Ashcroft decision. He said the purpose of the
Bill of Rights was to "protect the liberty of individuals and
groups of individuals against the power of the central
government."
"The right to bear arms is no less of a right than the right of
free speech," he said. "The problem with liberals is that they
wish to pick and chose between individual liberties and scuttle
those with which they don愒 agree. John Ashcroft愀 decision is in
the finest tradition of James Madison."
Mr. Ashcroft has long been a supporter of a Second Amendment
right to keep and bear arms, and Justice Department officials
noted yesterday that attorneys general of both parties have taken
similar positions, dating back to 1934 when Homer Cummings
testified before Congress that the first federal gun-control
statute was unconstitutional.
The officials said the current Justice Department position was
not partisan, noting that the view of the Second Amendment was
shared by Sen. Russell D. Feingold, Wisconsin Democrat and member
of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and noted liberal
constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe.
-----
Mike Eglestone (Democrat) (NRA - GOA)
Senior Master Sergeant (E-8)
United States Air Force, Retired
Lone Haranguer
The founding fathers wanted people to have their own guns. Without that
provision there was little possibility of arming a militia. All the
federal government need do is seize the armory and the militia would be
powerless. Did you forget that King George's troops were on their way
to do just that when "the shots heard 'round the world" were fired?
Read about the fight at Lexington/Concord sometime.
LZ
Lone Haranguer
Steve Krulick wrote:
>
> Lone Haranguer wrote:
> >
> > Just the fact that you are STILL blathering that old "teflon bullet"
> > scam PROVES you are spouting HCI propaganda.
>
> What a side-stepping loon! Avoid ALL I said, snip it all away,
> BUT claim that *I* am "STILL blathering" about teflon bullets, a
> mere mention IN A QUOTE BY BORK! Blame Bork, loon; it's HIS
> quote!
> >
Since you KNOW it is bogus, WHY are you still using it then? Are you
admitting you use phony material?
> > The material is ALL composed of HCI researched and heavily edited
> > material. Give us a break.
>
> All? Every little bit, huh! That's why all the URLs from SAF,
> and ccrkba, right?
Selective editing.
>
> Instead of lame ad hominems without any substantiation, how
> about actually addressing WHAT I said?
>
No point in addressing bogus material. Raise your standards.
LZ
Lone Haranguer
Steve Krulick wrote:
>
> Lone Haranguer wrote:
> >
> > *Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans
> > possess over the people of almost every other nation,* the
> > existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are
> >
> > Steve Krulick wrote the above which shows his entire tirade to be
> > worthless.
>
> Oh? And why should we believe YOUR totally worthless
> unsubstantiated opinion? HOW does IT show that everything that
> follows is "worthless"? Besides, *I* didn't write the above;
> it's a quote from Federalist #46. Do you have a problem with
> Federalist #46?
>
It shows your whole argument is spurious. The writer takes for granted
that the PEOPLE will be armed. He TAKES IT FOR GRANTED.
> > Hamilton OBVIOUSLY TAKES FOR GRANTED THAT THE PEOPLE WILL BE
> > ARMED.
>
> Hamilton? HAMILTON? The above quote from Fed #46 was by MADISON!
>
> What a maroon!
>
Okay the WRITER takes it for granted. Does that change the context?
> > Without their PRIVATE arms how would a state militia be formed?
>
> As Patrick Henry stated, if not by the Fed govt, the state would
> provide arms, indeed he hoped EVERY militia man might be armed
> by the state! Besides, ARMS includes ALL the equipage of war:
> cannon, tents, flags, siege apparatus, engineering equipment,
> wagons. Who else BUT the govt would provide those?
Did the Indians have them when they made war?
>
> > All the feds would have to do is seize the state armories (as the Brits
> > tried to do at Lexington) and the citizens AND the states would be
> > powerless.
>
> You obviously know NOTHING about how the militias are
> established and maintained! OR what their purpose is!
>
Whose militia are you talking about? There seem to be various
categories depending on who is writing the rules.
> I dare say you didn't even READ what is below, or you wouldn't
> be making these dumb remarks!
Stevo, your cut and pastes are notorious throughout usenet. Your checks
come from HCI. What else need we know?
>
> > You blew it again Stevo.
>
> Yeah, merely because YOU said so! Why don't you actually TRY to
> address what is presented here! Could it be because you lack the
> intellectual firepower and intestinal fortitude to deal with it?
> Try again when you have something of value to contribute. I'm
> not holding my breath!
Too bad. Your HCI material is worn and frazzled. Try to come up with
new stuff.
LZ
James Mayer
> James Mayer <jf...@mindnospamspring.com> wrote:
> ]Steve Krulick <kry...@ulster.net> writes: > Lone Haranguer wrote:
> ]> >
> ]> > *Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans
> ]> > possess over the people of almost every other nation,* the
> ]> > existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are
> ]> >
> ]> > Steve Krulick wrote the above which shows his entire tirade to be
> ]> > worthless.
> ]>
> ]> Oh? And why should we believe YOUR totally worthless
> ]> unsubstantiated opinion? HOW does IT show that everything that
> ]> follows is "worthless"? Besides, *I* didn't write the above;
> ]> it's a quote from Federalist #46. Do you have a problem with
> ]> Federalist #46?
> ]> > Hamilton OBVIOUSLY TAKES FOR GRANTED THAT THE PEOPLE WILL BE
> ]> > ARMED.
> ]>
> ]> Hamilton? HAMILTON? The above quote from Fed #46 was by MADISON!
> ]>
> ]> What a maroon!
> ]> > Without their PRIVATE arms how would a state militia be formed?
> ]>
> ]> As Patrick Henry stated, if not by the Fed govt, the state would
> ]> provide arms, indeed he hoped EVERY militia man might be armed
> ]> by the state! Besides, ARMS includes ALL the equipage of war:
> ]> cannon, tents, flags, siege apparatus, engineering equipment,
> ]> wagons. Who else BUT the govt would provide those?
> ]> > All the feds would have to do is seize the state armories (as the Brits
> ]> > tried to do at Lexington) and the citizens AND the states would be
> ]> > powerless.
> ]>
> ]> You obviously know NOTHING about how the militias are
> ]> established and maintained! OR what their purpose is!
> ]> I dare say you didn't even READ what is below, or you wouldn't
> ]> be making these dumb remarks!
> ]> > You blew it again Stevo.
> ]>
> ]> Yeah, merely because YOU said so! Why don't you actually TRY to
> ]> address what is presented here! Could it be because you lack the
> ]> intellectual firepower and intestinal fortitude to deal with it?
> ]> Try again when you have something of value to contribute. I'm
> ]> not holding my breath!
> ]> >
> ]
> ] Why don't you address the counters to your posts rather than dismissing
> ]all of it out of hand because you think that every one that counters your
> ]assertions is a pseuduscholor or tainted by the NRA.
>
> Judging from his rantings about "looney bins", I'd say he killfiles those counters and
> then pretends they never exist.
>
Just like some other persons that we know of that adhere to the Potomac
Institute party line.
Rich Travsky
Correct! They affirm the SC. Thanks.
James Mayer
run off on their own tangent.
> > "...this [Supreme] Court has rigorously insisted that such a denial [to
> > hear a case] carries with it no implication whatever regarding the
> > Court's views on the merits of a case which it has declined to
> > review. The Court has said this again and again; again and again the
> > admonition has to be repeated."
> > (Justice Frankfurter, Maryland v. Broadcast Radio Show, Inc. 338 US
> > 912, 1950)
Warin argues that the necessary implication of the quoted language is
that a member of the "sedentary militia" may possess any weapon having
military capability and that application of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d)[2] to
such a person violates the Second Amendment. We disagree. In Miller the
Supreme Court did not reach the question of the extent to which a
(p.106)weapon which is "part of the ordinary military equipment" or
whose "use could contribute to the common defense" may be regulated. In
holding that the absence of evidence placing the weapon involved in the
charges against Miller in one of these categories precluded the trial
court from quashing the indictment on Second Amendment grounds, the
Court did not hold the converse--that the Second Amendment is an
absolute prohibition against all regulation of the manufacture, transfer
and possession of any instrument capable of being used in military
action.
Within a few years after Miller v. United States was announced the First
Circuit dealt with arguments similar to those made by Warin in the
present case. In Cases v. United States, 131 F.2d 916 (1st Cir. 1942),
cert. denied sub nom., Velazquez v. United States, 319 U.S. 770, 63
S.Ct. 1431, 87 L.Ed. 1718 (1943), the court held that the Supreme Court
did not intend to formulate a general rule in Miller, but merely dealt
with the facts of that case. The court of appeals noted the development
of new weaponry during the early years of World War II and concluded
that it was not the intention of the Supreme Court to hold that the
Second Amendment prohibits Congress from regulating any weapons except
antiques "such as a flintlock musket or a matchlock harquebus." 131 F.2d
at 922. If the logical extension of the defendant's argument for the
holding of Miller was inconceivable in 1942, it is completely irrational
in this time of nuclear weapons.
Michael Eglestone
> > James Mayer wrote:
> > Those are NOT SC rulings. Denial of cert means nothing at the SC
> > level.
------------------------------
> Rich Travsky wrote:
> Correct! They affirm the SC. Thanks.
----------------------------------------
No, Rich, they don't..
Let is deal with TODAY, and the people in POWER TODAY. The chief Law
Enforcement Officer of the United States is the person who will set the
examples for the Federal Courts and the Federal Prosecutors for the next
4 years. His views will be taken very seriously, and he has strong views
about the people's "Individual" RIGHT to keep and bear Arms. Let us look
at a few of the things this Chief U.S. Law Enforcement Officer has to
say!
Keep in mind that he doesn't care about YOUR opinions in this matter!
-----
Excerpts from the original article;
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20010523-70615251.htm
groups of individuals against the power of the central
government."
"The right to bear arms is no less of a right than the right of