Which part of "the right secured by the Second Amendment is *not unlimited*" is unclear?

[Carol Kinsey Goman]

The gun nutz keep using this same tired expression, "Which part of
'shall not be infringed' is unclear?", thereby demonstrating their utter
lack of understanding of the issue. Yes, indeed, the constitutional
prescription is that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed. But what *is* that right? What's in it? The underlying
assumption on the part of the people posing the question above - the one
in the text, not the subject line - is that the right is unlimited,
meaning anyone has the right - moral, legal, political - to own any arms
he might wish, with no legitimate power of the state to restrict what
those arms might be.

But this is wrong. The right secured by the second amendment *is* a
limited right, and was always seen to be by the founders and by all
competent constitutional scholars. Because the right to keep and bear
arms is intimately tied to the right to self defense, arms seen as
within the scope of the right are those that are seen as reasonable for
defending oneself, one's family and one's domicile. Larger arms of the
era intended for use in pitched battle by troops - mortars, howitzers,
cannons, mines - were not intended to be among those to which individual
citizens had a right. The arms were those that a militiaman was
expected to bring with him when mustered: a musket, a bayonet.

Look at pictures of today's National Guard troops carrying weapons
domestically (not deployed to war zones.) They carry some version of an
AR-15 and a sidearm. You don't see them with 50+ round magazines, you
don't see them with grenade launchers or bazookas, you don't see them
with .50 caliber handguns. None of those, nor their 18th century
equivalents, are what the founders had in mind when *they* thought of
the right to keep and bear arms. The right does not protect a citizens
acquisition and use of just *any* arms he might wish to have.

The gun nutz are asking the wrong question. I asked the right one in
the subject line: Which part of "the right secured by the Second
Amendment is *not unlimited*" is unclear to the gun nutz?

[Snag]

My understanding of the 2nd amendment is that we should be allowed to own
the SAME WEAPONS THAT OUR MILITARY USES - they had muskets , civilians had
muskets . They have selective fire rifles , so should we ! That was the
intent when it was written , and I don't see that anything has changed - we
still need the means to keep a government gone bad in check , and that's
what the 2nd is all about .
--
Snag
Learning keeps
you young !

[Poor Repressed, Deprived, Victimized Republic-Loons]

On 3/12/2013 3:00 PM, Carol Kinsey Goman wrote:
> The gun nutz keep using this same tired expression, "Which part of
> 'shall not be infringed' is unclear?", thereby demonstrating their utter
> lack of understanding of the issue.

These morons are still living in fear that the Red Coats
are returning.. you can't reason with simpletons.

--
-- ---
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_NUZ_fM-TQKQ/Sf9PJCiSbLI/AAAAAAAANYI/wzO53XgcCrM/s400/cry_baby.jpg

Conservatives remind me of Yosemite Sam, Wile E. Coyote, and Elmer Fudd.
They bring the guns, the stupidity, and of course, the failure. SAVE
AMERICA!! Spay or neuter your Republican!!

[Ray Keller]

"Snag" <snag...@att.net> wrote in message
news:ghM%s.67869$I12....@newsfe16.iad...

"And that the said constitution be never construed to authorize congress...to
prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from
keeping their own arms.."-Philadelphia Gazetteer, Aug 20 1789

"I entirely concur in the propriety of restoring to the sense in which the
Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation. In that sense alone it
is a legitimate constitution. And, if that be not the guide in expounding it,
there can be no security for consistent and stable government." - James
Madison

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the
American peoples liberty teeth and keystone under independence...From the
hour the pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and
tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security, and happiness, the rifle and
pistol are equally indispensable...The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere
restrains evil interference-they deserve a place of honor with all that is
good." - George Washington

"On every question of construction (of the constitution) let us carry
ourselves back to the time when the constitution was adopted, recollect the
spirit of 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

"The constitution shall never be construed...to prevent the people of the
United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own
arms."-Alexander Hamilton

"The whole of the Bill (of rights) is a declaration of the right of the
people at large and considered as individuals....It establishes some rights
of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has the
right to deprive them of."
Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society Oct. 7, 1789

"arms in the hands of citizens [may] be used at individual discretion...in
private self-defence." - John Adams

"The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a
gun."
- Patrick Henry

"No free man shall ever be disbarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson


"The best that we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be
properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens
of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with
arms."
- James Madison

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to bear arms is, as
a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
- Thomas Jefferson

"The constitution of most of the states (and of the United States) assert
that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by
themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed and that
they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of
property, and freedom of the press."
- Thomas Jefferson

"Last Monday a string of amendments were presented to the lower house; these
altogether respect personal liberty..."
Sen. William Greyson of Virginia in a letter to Patrick Henry

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in
almost every kingdom of europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce
unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and
constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops...."
- Noah Webster

"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." - Tench Cox in Remarks on the
First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution"

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms has been recognized by the
general government; but the best security of that right is... the military
spirit, which has always distinguished the free citizens of these
States....Such men form the best barrier to the Liberties of America."
Gazette of the United States, Oct. 14, 1789

[Ray Keller]

"Snag" <snag...@att.net> wrote in message
news:ghM%s.67869$I12....@newsfe16.iad...

"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords,
and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the
birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword
is not in the hands of either the federal or state government,
but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of
the people" (Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788)

[Ray Keller]

"Snag" <snag...@att.net> wrote in message
news:ghM%s.67869$I12....@newsfe16.iad...

The second amendment states: "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."

"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 William Johnson, June
12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p.322)

"The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be
infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of
the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural
defense of a free country..." (James Madison, I Annals of
Congress 434, June 8, 1789)

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people,
except for a few public officials." (George Mason, 3 Elliott,
Debates at 425-426)

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people
themselves... and include all men capable of bearing arms."
(Richard Henry Lee, Senator, First Congress, Additional Letters
from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169)

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the
establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. ...
Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of
the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in
order to raise an army upon their ruins." (Rep. Elbridge Gerry
of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second
Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789)

"...to disarm the people (is) the best and most effective way
to enslave them..." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380)

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed;

as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme

power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword;
because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute

a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on
any pretense, raised in the United States" (Noah Webster in a
phamphlet aimed at swaying Pennsylvania toward ratification)[2]

"if raised, whether they could subdue a Nation of freemen, who
know how to prize liberty, and who have arms in their hands?"
(Delegate Sedgwick, during the Massachusetts Convention,
rhetorically asking if an oppressive standing army could
prevail)[3]

"...but if circumstances should at any time oblige the
government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can
never be formitable to the liberties of the people, while there
is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them
in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their
rights..." (Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in
Federalist 29.)

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans
possess over the people of almost every other nation. ...
Notwithstanding the military establishments in 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." (James Madison, author of the Bill of
Rights, in Federalist Paper No. 46. at 243-244)

"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords,
and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the
birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword
is not in the hands of either the federal or state government,
but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of
the people" (Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788)

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms has been

recognized by the General Government; but the best security of
that right after all is, the military spirit, that taste for
martial exercises, which has always distinguished the free
citizens of these states...Such men form the best barrier to
the liberties of America." (Gazette of the United States,
October 14, 1789)

"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 article in their
right to keep and bear their private arms." (Tench Cox in

"Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal

Constitution." Under the pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian" in the
Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18,1789 at 2 col. 1)

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian;
while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the
invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the
world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved
were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike;
but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside...
Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived
the use of them..." (Thomas Paine, I writings of Thomas Paine
at 56 (1894))

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of
people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially
when young, how to use them..." (Richard Henery Lee, 1788,
Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the
first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights.)[5]

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are
left in full possession of them." (Zachariah Johnson, 3 Elliot,
Debates at 646)

"A free people ought...to be armed..." (George Washington,
speech of January 7, 1790 in the Boston Independent Chronicle,
January 14, 1790)

"The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is

able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia
Convention on the ratification of the Constitution.)[1]

"...the people have a right to keep and bear arms." (Patrick
Henery and George Mason, Elliot, Debates at 185)

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing
degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our
defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in
possession and under our direction, and having them under the
management of Congress? If our defense be the _real_ object of
having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more
propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
(Patrick Henery)[8]

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is
that they be properly armed." (Alexander Hamilton, The
Federalist Papers at 184-8)

"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to
authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or
the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The

United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own

arms..." (Samuel Adams)[4]

"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are
not warned from time to time that this people preserve the
spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of
liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of
patriots and tyrants" (Thomas Jefferson)[6]

"No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
(Thomas Jefferson, proposal Virginia Constitution, June 1776,
1 T. Jeferson Papers,334 (C.J. Boyd, Ed.,1950))

"Arms in the hands of citizens [may] be used at individual
discretion... in private self-defense..." (John Adams, A
Defense of the Constitutions of the Government of the UAS, 471
(1788))

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to
keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves
agianst tyrany in government." (Thomas Jefferson)

"the ultimate authority ... resids in the people alone,"
(James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist
Paper No. 46.)

"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 occassionally raised to defend our
country, might pervert their powers to the injury of their
fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article
[the Second Amendment] in their right to keep and bear their
private arms." (from article in the Philadelphia Federal
by Tench Cox ten days after the introduction of the Bill of
Rights)[7]

"Last Monday a string of amendments were presented to the lower

house; these altogether respect personal liberty..." (Senator
William Grayson of Virginia in a letter to Patrick Henry)

"The whole of the Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the
right of the people at large or considered as individuals...

It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and

which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them
of." (Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society,
October 7, 1789)

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect
everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing
will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up
that force, you are inevitably ruined" (Patrick Henry)[8]


...............................................................................

[1] Debates and other Proceedings of the Convention of
Virginia,...taken in shorthand by David Robertson of
Petersburg, at 271, 275 (2d ed. Richmond, 1805). Also 3
Elliot, Debates at 386.

[2] Noah Webster, "An Examination into the Leading Principals
of the Federal Constitution.", in Paul Ford, ed., Phamplets
on the Constitution of the United States, at 56(New York,
1888).

[3] Johnathan Elliot, ed., Debates in the Several State
Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, Vol.2
at 97 (2d ed., 1888).

[4] Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Peirce & Hale, eds.,
Boston, 1850)

[5] Walter Bennett, ed., Letters from the Federal Farmer to the
Republican, at 21,22,124(Univ. of Alabama Press,1975).

[6] A quote from Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S.
Smith in 1787. Taken from Jefferson, On Democracy 20, S.
Padover ed., 1939

[7] Philadelphia Federal Gazette June 18, 1789 at 2, col. 1

[8] 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45,
2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836

[Ray Keller]

"Snag" <snag...@att.net> wrote in message
news:ghM%s.67869$I12....@newsfe16.iad...

"The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A
well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms,

is the best and most natural defense of a free country..." -- James Madison,

I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few

public officials." -- George Mason, 3 Elliott, Debates at 425-426

"A militia, when properly formed, Are in fact the people themselves... and
include all men capable of bearing arms." -- Richard Henry Lee, Senator,

First Congress, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a
standing army, the bane of liberty. ... Whenever Governments mean to invade
the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the

militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." -- Rep. Elbridge Gerry

of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I
Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789

"...to disarm the people (is) the best and most effective way to enslave

them..." -- George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380

"...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 use of arms, who stand ready to defend

their rights..." -- Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in
Federalist 29.

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the
people of almost every other nation. ... Notwithstanding the military
establishments in 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." -- James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in

Federalist Paper No. 46. at 243-244

"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other

terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American ... The

unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or
state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands

of the people" -- Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms has been recognized by the
General Government; but the best security of that right after all is, the
military spirit, that taste for martial exercises, which has always
distinguished the free citizens of these states...Such men form the best

barrier to the liberties of America." -- Gazette of the United States,
October 14, 1789

"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 article in their right
to keep and bear their private arms." -- Tench Cox in "Remarks on the First

Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution." Under the pseudonym "A
Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other
hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in
awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance
would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be
alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside...Horrid

mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived the use of them..." --

Thomas Paine, I writings of Thomas Paine at 56 (1894)

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always
possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use

them..." -- Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of

Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights

... Walter Bennett, ed., Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican,

at 21, 22, 124 (Univ. of Alabama Press, 1975)

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full

possession of them." -- Zachariah Johnson, 3 Elliot, Debates at 646

"A free people ought...to be armed..." -- George Washington, speech of

January 7, 1790 in the Boston Independent Chronicle, January 14, 1790

"The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a

gun." -- Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the
Constitution ... Debates and other Proceedings of the Convention of Virginia,

...taken in shorthand by David Robertson of Petersburg, at 271, 275 (2d ed.
Richmond, 1805). Also 3 Elliot, Debates at 386.

"...the people have a right to keep and bear arms." -- Patrick Henry and

George Mason, Elliot, Debates at 185

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we
cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between
having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under
the management of Congress? If our defense be the _real_ object of having
those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal

safety to us, as in our own hands?" -- Patrick Henry ... 3 J. Elliot, Debates

in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be

properly armed." -- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8

"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to
infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to
prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from

keeping their own arms..." -- Samuel Adams ... Debates and Proceedings in the

Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Peirce & Hale,
eds., Boston, 1850)

"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned
from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let
them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time,

with the blood of patriots and tyrants" -- Thomas Jefferson ... A quote from

Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787. Taken from
Jefferson, On Democracy 20, S. Padover ed., 1939

"No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms. -- Thomas Jefferson,
Proposal Virginia Constitution, June 1776,

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms
is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in
government." -- 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950)

"Arms in the hands of citizens [may] be used at individual discretion...in

private self-defense..." -- John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of the

Government of the UAS, 471 (1788)

"the ultimate authority ... resides in the people alone," -- James Madison,

author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper No. 46.

"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 powers to the injury of
their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article [the

Second Amendment] in their right to keep and bear their private arms." --

from article in the Philadelphia Federal by Tench Cox ten days after the

introduction of the Bill of Rights ... Philadelphia Federal Gazette June 18,

1789 at 2, col. 1

"Last Monday a string of amendments were presented to the lower house; these

altogether respect personal liberty..." -- Senator William Grayson of

Virginia in a letter to Patrick Henry

"The whole of the Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the

people at large or considered as individuals...It establishes some rights of

the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right

to deprive them of." -- Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society,

October 7, 1789)

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who
approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright

force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined" -- Patrick
Henry) ... 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed.
Philadelphia, 1836

"...the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and
bear their private arms" -- from article in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette
ten days after the introduction of the Bill of Rights ... Philadelphia
Federal Gazette June 18, 1789 at 2, col.2

"There are going to be situations where people are going to go without
assistance. That's just the facts of life." --LA Chief of Police, Gates.

"The battle, Sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the
active, the brave. Besides, Sir, we have no election. If we were base enough
to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no
retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking
may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable; and let it come!
I repeat, Sir, let it come!" -- Patrick Henry (1736-1799) in his famous "The
War Inevitable" speech, March, 1775

"It is in vain, Sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace,
Peace! -- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale
that sweeps from the North will bring to our ears the clash of resounding
arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is
it that Gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so
sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it,
Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me
liberty or give me death!" -- Patrick Henry (1736-1799) in his famous "The
War Inevitable" speech, March, 1775

"The constitutions of most of our states [and of the United States] assert

that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by
themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed and that
they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of

property, and freedom of press." -- Thomas Jefferson

"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned
from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let

them take arms ... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time,
with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson in a letter to

William S. Smith in 1787. Taken from Jefferson, On Democracy 20, S. Padover

ed., 1939.

"No man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the

people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to

protect themselves against the tyranny in government. -- Thomas Jefferson,
June 1776

"The God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time." --Thomas
Jefferson (1774)

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I
advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives
boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the
ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no
character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of
your walk." -- Encyclopedia of Thomas Jefferson, 318 (Foley, Ed., reissued
1967)

"...for it is a truth, which the experience of all ages has attested, that
the people are commonly most in danger when the means of insuring their
rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least
suspicion." -- Alexander Hamilton

"The best that we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be
properly armed." -- Alexander Hamilton (The Federalist Papers at 184-8)

"Arms in the hands of citizens [may] be used at individual discretion... in

private self-defense..." -- John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of the
Government of the USA, 471 (1788).

"Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be
unfurled, there will be America's heart, her benedictions and prayers, but
she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher
to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator of
her own." -- John Quincy Adams, 1821.

"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to
infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to

prevent *the people* of the United States who are peaceable citizens from
keeping their own arms ..." -- Samuel Adams in arguing for a Bill of Rights,
from the book "Massachusetts," published by Pierce & Hale, Boston, 1850, pg.
86-87.

"To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always
possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use
them..." -- Richard Henry Lee writing in "Letters from the Federal Farmer to
the Republic", 1787-1788

"The militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, ..
[T]he Constitution ought to secure a genuine [militia] and guard against a
select militia, by providing that the militia shall always be kept well
organized, armed, and disciplined, and include ... all men capable of bearing
arms;..." -- Richard Henry Lee writing in "Letters from the Federal Farmer to
the Republic", 1788, page 169.

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a

standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever Governments mean to invade

the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the

militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." -- Rep. Eldridge Gerry
of Massachusetts (spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment [I
Annals of Congress at 750 {August 17, 1789}])

"This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people
against the maladministration of the Government, if we could suppose that, in
all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for
guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this
clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the
Constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous,
and prevent them from bearing arms." -- Eldridge Gerry, speaking on the 2nd
Amendment (1 Annals of Cong. Aug. 17, 1789)

[The American Colonies are] "all democratic governments, where the power is
in the hands of the people and where there is not the least difficulty or
jealousy about putting arms into the hands of every man in the country.
[European countries should not] be ignorant of the strength and the force of
such a form of government and how strenuously and almost wonderfully people
living under one have sometimes exerted themselves in defence of their rights
and liberties and how fatally it has ended with many a man and many a state
who have entered into quarrels, wars and contests with them." -- George Mason
from "Remarks on Annual Elections for the Fairfax Independent Company" quoted
from The Papers of George Mason, 1725-1792 edited by Robert A. Rutland
[Chapel Hill, 1970]

"That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to
arms, is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free state; that standing
armies in time of peace should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that
in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and
governed by, the civil power." -- George Mason, Article 13 of The Virginia
Declaration of Rights of 1776

"Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except for a few
public officials." -- George Mason, Framer of the Declaration of Rights,
Virginia, 1776, which became the basis for the U.S. Bill of Rights; 3 Elliot,
Debates at 425-426.

"What the subcommittee on the Constitution uncovered was clear - and long
lost - proof that the Second Amendment to our Constitution was intended as an
individual right of the American citizen to keep and carry arms in a peaceful
manner, for protection of himself, his family, and his freedoms." -- Senator
Orrin Hatch, Chairman, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Preface, "The Right
To Keep And Bear Arms"

"The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by rule of
construction be conceived to give the Congress the power to disarm the
people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general
pretense by a state legislature. But if in blind pursuit of inordinate power,
either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on
both." -- William Rawle, 1825; considered academically to be an expert
commentator on the Constitution. He was offered the position of the first
Attorney General of the United States, by President Washington.

"Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. It is a force, like fire a
dangerous servant and a terrible master." -- George Washington

[Carol Kinsey Goman]

Not all of them. The military has nuclear weapons. Civilians may not.

[Snag]

Well damn , there goes my plan to clean up the 'hood with some tactical
nukes !!

But seriously , as far as small arms , I think we should be allowed the
same as our military . And with that comes the responsibility to use them
properly . One strike and you're out , use a gun illegally <as in a robbery
or murder , not some politically motivated/manufactured "infraction"> and
you never see daylight again . And since there'll be a spike in population
until the message becomes clear , put 'em on a farm-type facility and make
'em grow their own food . Plus enough to sell to pay the overhead ... I'm
not a big fan of paying for their care and feeding .

[Ed Huntress]

If you're interested in the state of the law, rather than what you
want it to be, you'll want to read D.C. v. Heller. Except for
incorporation, that's where it stands now. Here's the part relevant to
what you're saying:

"It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military
service柚-16 rifles and the like洋ay be banned, then the Second
Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But
as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the
Second Amendment 痴 ratification was the body of all citizens capable
of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that
they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that
a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would
require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at
large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be
useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern
developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory
clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the
right."

The Court did, effectively, detach the right from the prefatory clause
-- to a grammarian, the nominative phrase.

The right as it stands now is for individual ownership of guns for
self-defense. Specifically, those "in common use" for the protection
of one's person and home. At this moment, it's handguns. We'll see
what else is added by case law.

No select-fire guns, in other words. ARs are up in the air; they
represent less than 1.3% of the guns owned by citizens in the United
States, and it's not clear whether the courts would accept the idea
that they're "in common use for [individual, civilian] self-defense."
Defensive use by military or police would not, probably, apply.

BTW, all of this applies only to domestically manufactured guns. There
is no protection for imported guns. They fall under the Commerce
Clause.

--
Ed Huntress

[Why are people so cruel]

"Snag" <snag...@att.net> wrote in message
news:ghM%s.67869$I12....@newsfe16.iad...

So it should be legal for a US citizen to own a nuclear weapon or
chemical/biological
weapons?

[Snag]

Do you feel the need for such ? Yanno , there is such a thing as "common
sense" . But I do think it would be a good idea to be prepared for our
leaders to use at least the chem/biologics against us ... I mean hey , why
do we need to feed all those worker drones , we sent all the jobs to China .
But we will let the farmers <well , the big corporate ones> live - for now .

[SaPeIsMa]

"Snag" <snag...@att.net> wrote in message
news:ghM%s.67869$I12....@newsfe16.iad...

BINGO !
Direct and to the point
The problem with ckg is that she has fixated on the strawman that the 2nd is
unlimited in the arms
The USSC Miller decision clearly pointed at which arms are the most
protected.

It should also be noted that many firearms were developed for civilian use
and then adopted by the military
The Barrett 50BMG rifle is one such.
Would the military have developed this rifle if Barrett had not been able to
using ckg argument that access to such should not be allowed ?
Other notes are that the Thompson sub-machine gun, was usually issued with a
30-round magazine, but also was issued with a 50-round drum.
The Beta C-mag for the M4 has a 100-round capacity. The stock number for it
is 1005-01-363-6670.

[Carol Kinsey Goman]

It's not a straw man (two words, idiot.) When you gun nut douchebags
keep squealing, "Which part of 'shall not be infringed' is unclear?",
you are doing so pretending that the right is unlimited. But the right
does not protect *any* firearm of *any* capacity whatever, so if
Congress were to pass a law limiting, say, the capacity of detachable
magazines, then that would not be an infringement of the right /per se/.

> The USSC Miller decision clearly pointed at which arms are the most
> protected.

It did not specify an exhaustive list.

[George Plimpton]

On 3/12/2013 5:54 PM, SpamƁusteᴙ wrote:
> On 3/12/2013 1:40 PM, Poor Repressed, Deprived, Victimized
> Republic-Loons wrote:
> -
>
> =====================================================================
> SPAMMED INTO NON-RELEVANT GROUPS / COUNTRIES
> =====================================================================

No, it wasn't.

[Ed Huntress]

Pffhhht. That was Samuel Adams, who proposed it in 1788 for inclusion
in the Constitution. It was rejected.

>
>"I entirely concur in the propriety of restoring to the sense in which the
>Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation. In that sense alone it
>is a legitimate constitution. And, if that be not the guide in expounding it,
>there can be no security for consistent and stable government." - James
>Madison
>
>"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the
>American peoples liberty teeth and keystone under independence...From the
>hour the pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and
>tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security, and happiness, the rifle and
>pistol are equally indispensable...The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere
>restrains evil interference-they deserve a place of honor with all that is
>good." - George Washington

Spurious. It first showed up in print in the late 1980s, and there is
no record that Washington ever said anything remotely like it.

He would not have said "rifle," in any case. If you know the history
of guns in America, you would know why.

"Every officer and soldier shall appear at his respective muster-field
on the day appointed, by eleven o'clock in the forenoon, armed,
equipped, and accoutred, as follows: . . . every non-commissioned
officer and private with a good, clean musket carrying an ounce ball,
and three feet eight inches long in the barrel... Provided, That the
militia of the counties westward of the Blue Ridge, and the counties
below adjoining thereto, shall not be obliged to be armed with
muskets, but may have good rifles with proper accoutrements, in lieu
thereof." -- General Assembly of Virginia, October, 1785

Rifles were mostly a frontier thing, and there were relatively few of
them. Regardless, this was cooked up by one of the gun nutz.

>
>"On every question of construction (of the constitution) let us carry
>ourselves back to the time when the constitution was adopted, recollect the
>spirit of 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
>
>"The constitution shall never be construed...to prevent the people of the
>United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own
>arms."-Alexander Hamilton

Uh, Ray, ..that's the same quote you listed above, and which you
attributed to the Philadelphia Gazetteer. Now you're attributing it to
Hamilton. But it came from Sam Adams. AND IT WAS REJECTED BY THE
CONGRESS!

>
>"The whole of the Bill (of rights) is a declaration of the right of the
>people at large and considered as individuals....It establishes some rights
>of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has the
>right to deprive them of."
>Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society Oct. 7, 1789

Gallatin's opinion was overruled. The declarative statement overruling
the "individual" application of the BofR, which was a distinctly
minority opinion to begin with, is contained in the Supreme Court
ruling in Barron v. Baltimore.

>
>"arms in the hands of citizens [may] be used at individual discretion...in
>private self-defence." - John Adams

Hahaha! What idiot edited that? Here's the actual statement by Adams:

"To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual
discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of
towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every
constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be
enjoyed by no man; it 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." (John
Adams, "A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States")

Adams' statement was that the "unorganized militia" didn't exist.
Government must rule the militia, said Adams.

>
>"The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a
>gun."
>- Patrick Henry

Hey, you got one right! Congratulations!

>
>"No free man shall ever be disbarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson

Actually, it was this: [full statement, final draft]: "No freeman
shall be debarred the use of arms within his own lands or tenements"

He proposed it for the Virginia Constitution. It was rejected.

>
>
>"The best that we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be
>properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton

Hamilton never said it. I know, it's all over the Web, but Hamilton
never said those words. You'll see attributions at some of the Web
sites. They are all specious. Try tracking down any of the supposed
attributed sources; you'll just chase your tail, because none of them
are real.

The gun nutz had to lie about what Hamilton actually said, because if
they posted the real statement they'd have everyone scratching their
heads. And if they posted the full context, they'd be exposing that
Hamilton was saying that the "unorganized militia" isn't worth a damn.
He wanted a "select corps," not an undisciplined pickup team.

If anyone is interested, I'll post a link to Hamilton's actual
statement. You'll have to read the whole thing to make sense of it,
but it's an important document, and worth reading.

That's it for me, Ray. Tracking down your word dumps is entertaining,
if only to confirm what Richard and I were talking about, which is
that you righties are so credulous you'll believe anything that sounds
good. You don't care about the truth in any way. You only care about
propagandizing by cut-and-paste dumps of bullshit.

--
Ed Huntress

[SaPeIsMa]

"Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@f�rbes.com> wrote in message
news:36ade$513f8890$414e828e$85...@EVERESTKC.NET...

> The gun nutz keep using this same tired expression, "Which part of 'shall
> not be infringed' is unclear?", thereby demonstrating their utter lack of
> understanding of the issue.

ONLY if you make the stupid presumption (that you keep making) that by
asking the question they are implying that the 2nd is unlimited
Since it's YOUR stupid presumption, maybe you should stop projecting it on
others.

>Yes, indeed, the constitutional prescription is that the right to keep and
>bear arms shall not be infringed. But what *is* that right? What's in it?
>The underlying assumption on the part of the people posing the question
>above - the one in the text, not the subject line - is that the right is
>unlimited, meaning anyone has the right - moral, legal, political - to own
>any arms he might wish, with no legitimate power of the state to restrict
>what those arms might be.
>

NOPE !
That's YOUR stupid presumption that you project on others.

> But this is wrong. The right secured by the second amendment *is* a
> limited right, and was always seen to be by the founders and by all
> competent constitutional scholars. Because the right to keep and bear
> arms is intimately tied to the right to self defense, arms seen as within
> the scope of the right are those that are seen as reasonable for defending
> oneself, one's family and one's domicile. Larger arms of the era intended
> for use in pitched battle by troops - mortars, howitzers, cannons, mines -
> were not intended to be among those to which individual citizens had a
> right. The arms were those that a militiaman was expected to bring with
> him when mustered: a musket, a bayonet.
>

This is that stupid strawman that gun-controllers like to trot out
BUT it's nonetheless a stupid strawman that is used to distract from the
real discussion..

> Look at pictures of today's National Guard troops carrying weapons
> domestically (not deployed to war zones.) They carry some version of an
> AR-15 and a sidearm. You don't see them with 50+ round magazines, you
> don't see them with grenade launchers or bazookas, you don't see them with
> .50 caliber handguns. None of those, nor their 18th century equivalents,
> are what the founders had in mind when *they* thought of the right to keep
> and bear arms. The right does not protect a citizens acquisition and use
> of just *any* arms he might wish to have.
>

Again with the false claim..

The USSC Miller decision clearly pointed at which arms are the most
protected.

It should also be noted that many firearms were developped for civilian use
and then adopted by the militrary
The Barret 50BMG rifle is one such.
Would the military have developped this rifle if Barrett had not been able

to using ckg argument that access to such should not be allowed ?

With regards to large magazines, the Thompson sub-machine gun, was usually
issued with a 30-round "stick:" magazine, but was also issued with a
50-round drums.

The Beta C-mag for the M4 has a 100-round capacity. The stock number for it
is 1005-01-363-6670.

Also, the M249 SAW is usually belt-fed and therefore comes with an ammo box
containing far more tha 30-round magazines
It should also be noted that the m249 and it's replacement, the M27, are
issued to indiviudal infantry.
Which by your definition would be a protected arm that civilians should have
the right to own

> The gun nutz are asking the wrong question. I asked the right one in the
> subject line: Which part of "the right secured by the Second Amendment is
> *not unlimited*" is unclear to the gun nutz?

Clearly you are not addressing those who know what the 2nd Amendment means
and intends
But hey if you want to keep hanging with ignorant "gun nutz", then we also
have no problem categorizing you as one of them "gun nutz"..
:-)

[SaPeIsMa]

"Why are people so cruel" <noon...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:X8O%s.4290$1k5....@viwinnwfe01.internal.bigpond.com...

BZZZT
One ckg "gun nutz" just surfaced

Nuclear and bio weapons are NOT standard-issue weapons that regular troops
carry..

[SaPeIsMa]

"Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@f�rbes.com> wrote in message

news:385b7$513fcc61$414e828e$77...@EVERESTKC.NET...

Try again, dummy.
It's perfectly OK to make it into one word..
E.g "Gunman"...

> When you gun nut douchebags keep squealing, "Which part of 'shall not be
> infringed' is unclear?", you are doing so pretending that the right is
> unlimited.

NOPE !
That's JUST YOUR STUPID PRESUMPTION and IGNORANT PROJECTION

Your strawman, you feed it.

> But the right does not protect *any* firearm of *any* capacity whatever,
> so if Congress were to pass a law limiting, say, the capacity of
> detachable magazines, then that would not be an infringement of the right
> /per se/.
>

And that's where you spin out into la-la-land
When the military issue 30- round magazines to their assault rifles, then
those 30-round mages become protected under the 2nd Amendment as per
Miller..
So restricting civllians to 5 rounders would effectively be an infringement.

>
>> The USSC Miller decision clearly pointed at which arms are the most
>> protected.
>
> It did not specify an exhaustive list.

You're right
But I presume that they expected some judgment
Too bad you're not showing much..

[Carol Kinsey Goman]

On 3/12/2013 7:19 PM, SaPeIsMa wrote:
> "Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@f�rbes.com> wrote in message
> news:36ade$513f8890$414e828e$85...@EVERESTKC.NET...
>> The gun nutz keep using this same tired expression, "Which part of
>> 'shall not be infringed' is unclear?", thereby demonstrating their
>> utter lack of understanding of the issue.
>
> ONLY if you make the stupid presumption (that you keep making) that by
> asking the question they are implying that the 2nd is unlimited

They *are*, of course, pretending that the right is unlimited. That's
what their silly question means: the right is unlimited, and so any
limitation on guns is an "infringement" of the right. But that's false.

>
>> Yes, indeed, the constitutional prescription is that the right to keep
>> and bear arms shall not be infringed. But what *is* that right?
>> What's in it? The underlying assumption on the part of the people
>> posing the question above - the one in the text, not the subject line
>> - is that the right is unlimited, meaning anyone has the right -
>> moral, legal, political - to own any arms he might wish, with no
>> legitimate power of the state to restrict what those arms might be.
>>
>
> NOPE !

Yep: that's *exactly* what the gun nutz mean when they plaintively
whine, "What part of 'shall not be infringed' is unclear?" They mean
that *any* legislatively imposed limit on guns is an "infringement" of
their right - that's what they mean. And they are wrong.

>> But this is wrong. The right secured by the second amendment *is* a
>> limited right, and was always seen to be by the founders and by all
>> competent constitutional scholars. Because the right to keep and bear
>> arms is intimately tied to the right to self defense, arms seen as
>> within the scope of the right are those that are seen as reasonable
>> for defending oneself, one's family and one's domicile. Larger arms
>> of the era intended for use in pitched battle by troops - mortars,
>> howitzers, cannons, mines - were not intended to be among those to
>> which individual citizens had a right. The arms were those that a
>> militiaman was expected to bring with him when mustered: a musket, a
>> bayonet.
>>
>
> This is that stupid strawman

No, it isn't.

>> Look at pictures of today's National Guard troops carrying weapons
>> domestically (not deployed to war zones.) They carry some version of
>> an AR-15 and a sidearm. You don't see them with 50+ round magazines,
>> you don't see them with grenade launchers or bazookas, you don't see
>> them with .50 caliber handguns. None of those, nor their 18th century
>> equivalents, are what the founders had in mind when *they* thought of
>> the right to keep and bear arms. The right does not protect a
>> citizens acquisition and use of just *any* arms he might wish to have.
>>
>
> Again with the false claim.

No.

> The USSC Miller decision clearly pointed at which arms are the most
> protected.

No, it didn't. It didn't say *anything* about which arms are protected.
It mentioned some that aren't.

>> The gun nutz are asking the wrong question. I asked the right one in
>> the subject line: Which part of "the right secured by the Second
>> Amendment is *not unlimited*" is unclear to the gun nutz?
>
> Clearly you are not addressing those who know what the 2nd Amendment
> means and intends

You're right. I'm addressing the gun nutz, like you, who *DON'T* know
what the second amendment means and intends.

[Carol Kinsey Goman]

It isn't. Doing so is ignorant. It's two words.

I didn't employ a straw man. You gun nutz *are* saying that any limit
on guns is an "infringement" of your right to have guns. You're wrong.

>
>> When you gun nut douchebags keep squealing, "Which part of 'shall not
>> be infringed' is unclear?", you are doing so pretending that the right
>> is unlimited.
>
>
> NOPE !

Yep.

>> But the right does not protect *any* firearm of *any* capacity
>> whatever, so if Congress were to pass a law limiting, say, the
>> capacity of detachable magazines, then that would not be an
>> infringement of the right /per se/.
>>
>
> And that's where you spin out into la-la-land
> When the military issue 30- round magazines to their assault rifles,
> then those 30-round mages become protected under the 2nd Amendment as
> per Miller..

No, that is not so clear cut at all. Miller does not - *cannot* - say
that citizens may have any and all weapons allowed to standing-army
military personnel. It didn't even pretend to say that. What Miller
said was that certain arms are *not* within the notice of the court as
being standard issue arms for military personnel, and therefore may be
highly regulated and restricted, or even banned, by Congress with no
ensuing violation of the second amendment.

Miller says that a weapon X, not in common use by the military, may be
highly regulated and restricted, or even banned, by Congress. It does
*NOT* say that another weapon Y, in regular use by the military, may
*not* be regulated/restricted/banned for civilian possession by Congress.

You are simply far too stupid for this: not learned in the law, and
illogical.

>>
>>> The USSC Miller decision clearly pointed at which arms are the most
>>> protected.
>>
>> It did not specify an exhaustive list.
>
> You're right

So you're fucked.

[Scout]

"Why are people so cruel" <noon...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:X8O%s.4290$1k5....@viwinnwfe01.internal.bigpond.com...
>

We accept your surrender that the People can and should be able to own
selective fire rifles.

[Scout]

Returned to Sender

"SpamƁusteᴙ" <Spam Buste r...@notto.can> wrote in message
news:c7Q%s.115057$LX2....@newsfe31.iad...

> On 3/12/2013 5:18 PM, SaPeIsMa wrote:

[Scout]

Returned to Sender

"SpamƁusteᴙ" <Spam Buste r...@notto.can> wrote in message

news:fQP%s.235593$411.1...@newsfe02.iad...

[Scout]

Returned to Sender

"SpamƁusteᴙ" <Spam Buste r...@notto.can> wrote in message

news:TQP%s.235594$411.1...@newsfe02.iad...

> On 3/12/2013 3:39 PM, Why are people so cruel wrote:
>>
>> "Snag" <snag...@att.net> wrote in message
>> news:ghM%s.67869$I12....@newsfe16.iad...
>>> Carol Kinsey Goman wrote:
>>>> The gun nutz keep using this same tired expression, "Which part of
>>>> 'shall not be infringed' is unclear?", thereby demonstrating their
>>>> utter lack of understanding of the issue. Yes, indeed, the
>>>> constitutional prescription is that the right to keep and bear arms
>>>> shall not be infringed. But what *is* that right? What's in it? The
>>>> underlying assumption on the part of the people posing the
>>>> question above - the one in the text, not the subject line - is that
>>>> the right is unlimited, meaning anyone has the right - moral, legal,
>>>> political - to own any arms he might wish, with no legitimate power
>>>> of the state to restrict what those arms might be.
>>>>
>>>> But this is wrong. The right secured by the second amendment *is* a
>>>> limited right, and was always seen to be by the founders and by all
>>>> competent constitutional scholars. Because the right to keep and bear
>>>> arms is intimately tied to the right to self defense, arms seen as
>>>> within the scope of the right are those that are seen as reasonable
>>>> for defending oneself, one's family and one's domicile. Larger arms
>>>> of the era intended for use in pitched battle by troops - mortars,
>>

>>> My understanding of the 2nd amendment is that we should be allowed to
>>> own the SAME WEAPONS THAT OUR MILITARY USES - they had muskets ,
>>> civilians had muskets . They have selective fire rifles , so should we
>>> ! That was the intent when it was written , and I don't see that
>>> anything has changed - we still need the means to keep a government
>>> gone bad in check , and that's what the 2nd is all about .
>
>
> --
>

[Scout]

Returned to Sender

"SpamƁusteᴙ" <Spam Buste r...@notto.can> wrote in message

news:57Q%s.115054$LX2....@newsfe31.iad...

> On 3/12/2013 1:32 PM, Snag wrote:
>
>

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

>"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in talk.politics.guns :

I think he's trying to say that he's perfectly OK with free speech as
long as it's less than 100 words per year, and they are all used to
praise the Dear Leader.

After all, there is no unlimited right to free speech, is there?

[Scout]

Returned to Sender

"SpamƁusteᴙ" <Spam Buste r...@notto.can> wrote in message

news:X6Q%s.115051$LX2.1...@newsfe31.iad...

> On 3/12/2013 1:40 PM, Poor Repressed, Deprived, Victimized Republic-Loons
> wrote:
> -
>

[SaPeIsMa]

"Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@f�rbes.com> wrote in message

news:24c09$51401130$414e828e$19...@EVERESTKC.NET...

> On 3/12/2013 7:19 PM, SaPeIsMa wrote:
>> "Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@f�rbes.com> wrote in message
>> news:36ade$513f8890$414e828e$85...@EVERESTKC.NET...
>>> The gun nutz keep using this same tired expression, "Which part of
>>> 'shall not be infringed' is unclear?", thereby demonstrating their
>>> utter lack of understanding of the issue.
>>
>> ONLY if you make the stupid presumption (that you keep making) that by
>> asking the question they are implying that the 2nd is unlimited
>
> They *are*, of course, pretending that the right is unlimited. That's
> what their silly question means: the right is unlimited, and so any
> limitation on guns is an "infringement" of the right. But that's false.
>

Thank you for proving my point..

>
>>
>>> Yes, indeed, the constitutional prescription is that the right to keep
>>> and bear arms shall not be infringed. But what *is* that right?
>>> What's in it? The underlying assumption on the part of the people
>>> posing the question above - the one in the text, not the subject line
>>> - is that the right is unlimited, meaning anyone has the right -
>>> moral, legal, political - to own any arms he might wish, with no
>>> legitimate power of the state to restrict what those arms might be.
>>>
>>
>> NOPE !

++ START UNSNIP ++
++
++ That's JUST YOUR STUPID PRESUMPTION and IGNORANT PROJECTION
++
++ Your strawman, you feed it.
++
++ STOP UNSNIP ++

>
> Yep: that's *exactly* what the gun nutz mean when they plaintively whine,
> "What part of 'shall not be infringed' is unclear?" They mean that *any*
> legislatively imposed limit on guns is an "infringement" of their right -
> that's what they mean. And they are wrong.
>

Not only are you stupid, but dishonest too..
No wonder you're stuck repeating yourself silly strawman and projecting it
on others.

You need to go back and READ Miller, and maybe have an adult along to
explain to you the difficult parts

>
>>> The gun nutz are asking the wrong question. I asked the right one in
>>> the subject line: Which part of "the right secured by the Second
>>> Amendment is *not unlimited*" is unclear to the gun nutz?
>>
>> Clearly you are not addressing those who know what the 2nd Amendment
>> means and intends
>
> You're right. I'm addressing the gun nutz, like you, who *DON'T* know
> what the second amendment means and intends.
>

I'll leave you to your parroting

[Carol Kinsey Goman]

On 3/13/2013 7:22 AM, SaPeIsMa wrote:
> "Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@f�rbes.com> wrote in message
> news:24c09$51401130$414e828e$19...@EVERESTKC.NET...
>> On 3/12/2013 7:19 PM, SaPeIsMa wrote:
>>> "Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@f�rbes.com> wrote in message
>>> news:36ade$513f8890$414e828e$85...@EVERESTKC.NET...
>>>> The gun nutz keep using this same tired expression, "Which part of
>>>> 'shall not be infringed' is unclear?", thereby demonstrating their
>>>> utter lack of understanding of the issue.
>>>
>>> ONLY if you make the stupid presumption (that you keep making) that by
>>> asking the question they are implying that the 2nd is unlimited
>>
>> They *are*, of course, pretending that the right is unlimited. That's
>> what their silly question means: the right is unlimited, and so any
>> limitation on guns is an "infringement" of the right. But that's false.
>>
>
>
> Thank you for proving my point..

Ha ha ha! I disproved your "point", of course.

>>>
>>>> Yes, indeed, the constitutional prescription is that the right to keep
>>>> and bear arms shall not be infringed. But what *is* that right?
>>>> What's in it? The underlying assumption on the part of the people
>>>> posing the question above - the one in the text, not the subject line
>>>> - is that the right is unlimited, meaning anyone has the right -
>>>> moral, legal, political - to own any arms he might wish, with no
>>>> legitimate power of the state to restrict what those arms might be.
>>>>
>> > >
>>> NOPE !
>>

>> Yep: that's *exactly* what the gun nutz mean when they plaintively whine,
>> "What part of 'shall not be infringed' is unclear?" They mean that *any*
>> legislatively imposed limit on guns is an "infringement" of their right -
>> that's what they mean. And they are wrong.
>>
>
> Not only are you stupid, but dishonest too..

Neither.

You first, not that it would do you any good. You're simply far too
stupid for this. You're not a lawyer, and you're not even an educated
layman.

[SaPeIsMa]

"Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@f�rbes.com> wrote in message

news:803cf$51401364$414e828e$56...@EVERESTKC.NET...

++ START UNSNIP
++
++ E.g "Gunman"...
++
++ STOP UNSNIP

>
> It isn't. Doing so is ignorant. It's two words.
>

Funny how you cut my example that proves you the ignorant one.
Why is that ?\
Afraid of the truth ?
Or so full of yourself you can't admit to being wrong ?

> I didn't employ a straw man. You gun nutz *are* saying that any limit on
> guns is an "infringement" of your right to have guns. You're wrong.
>

There you go projecting again

>
>>
>>> When you gun nut douchebags keep squealing, "Which part of 'shall not
>>> be infringed' is unclear?", you are doing so pretending that the right
>>> is unlimited.
>>
>>
>> NOPE !

++ START UNSNIP
++
++ That's JUST YOUR STUPID PRESUMPTION and IGNORANT PROJECTION
++
++ Your strawman, you feed it.
++
++ STOP UNSNIP

>
> Yep.
>



Still cutting text
Well, instellectual dishonesty is your problem. Along with stupidity.
But hey..
Thanks for demonstrating it repeatedly.

>
>>> But the right does not protect *any* firearm of *any* capacity
>>> whatever, so if Congress were to pass a law limiting, say, the
>>> capacity of detachable magazines, then that would not be an
>>> infringement of the right /per se/.
>>>
>>
>> And that's where you spin out into la-la-land
>> When the military issue 30- round magazines to their assault rifles,
>> then those 30-round mages become protected under the 2nd Amendment as
>> per Miller..
>
> No, that is not so clear cut at all. Miller does not - *cannot* - say
> that citizens may have any and all weapons allowed to standing-army
> military personnel.

Back to repeating your stupid strawman about "ALL" weapons..
Clearly you are unable to stay on track

> It didn't even pretend to say that. What Miller said was that certain
> arms are *not* within the notice of the court as being standard issue arms
> for military personnel, and therefore may be highly regulated and
> restricted, or even banned, by Congress with no ensuing violation of the
> second amendment.
>

Now why don't you have an adult explain the meaning of that to you.

> Miller says that a weapon X, not in common use by the military, may be
> highly regulated and restricted, or even banned, by Congress. It does
> *NOT* say that another weapon Y, in regular use by the military, may *not*
> be regulated/restricted/banned for civilian possession by Congress.
>

NOPE
Miller said that there was NO EVIDENCE PRESENTED to support the claim that
the saw-off shotgun was used by the military and thus protected by the 2nd
Therefore the case was remanded to a lowet court for retrial.
But Miller clearly implies that had such evidence been presented in a lower
court, the USSC would have had to take that into consideration,
And the reason for that is quite simple
Madison in Federalist 46 clearly stated one of the purposes of the 2nd. To
wit, to insure that citizens had access to the same arms as the military,
specifically to insure that they would not be at a disadvantage if the
government uyrned to tiranny.

> You are simply far too stupid for this: not learned in the law, and
> illogical.
>

I'm willing to be that I'm not only far smarter than you, but probably
better read about the 2nd Amendment than you as well.
But hey, considering your overall attitude or short-sighted, bigoted
arrogance, it's not surprise that you need to trim text that goes against
your pet belief that you so delight in repeating like a stupid parrot.
Too bad you're stuck in that groove.

>
>>>
>>>> The USSC Miller decision clearly pointed at which arms are the most
>>>> protected.
>>>
>>> It did not specify an exhaustive list.
>>
>> You're right

++ START UNSNIP
++
++ But I presume that they expected some judgment
++ Too bad you're not showing much..
++
++ STOP UNSNIP
>
> So you're fucked.
>

Keep hoping
But then since you're stupid and dishonest, that should keep you occupied.

It's no surprise that you would be one of the idiots that would expect the
Supremes to provide you with an "exhaustive list", when the 2nd and the
writings of it's authors and other commentators at the time defined quite
clearly which arms would be the most protected.
But then small minds like yours need to be spoon-fed lists of objects
because you are unable to work with more complex notions like sets of
objects
So sad..

[SaPeIsMa]

"Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@f�rbes.com> wrote in message

news:a834b$5140912c$414e828e$29...@EVERESTKC.NET...

> On 3/13/2013 7:22 AM, SaPeIsMa wrote:
>> "Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@f�rbes.com> wrote in message
>> news:24c09$51401130$414e828e$19...@EVERESTKC.NET...
>>> On 3/12/2013 7:19 PM, SaPeIsMa wrote:
>>>> "Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@f�rbes.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:36ade$513f8890$414e828e$85...@EVERESTKC.NET...
>>>>> The gun nutz keep using this same tired expression, "Which part of
>>>>> 'shall not be infringed' is unclear?", thereby demonstrating their
>>>>> utter lack of understanding of the issue.
>>>>
>>>> ONLY if you make the stupid presumption (that you keep making) that by
>>>> asking the question they are implying that the 2nd is unlimited
>>>
>>> They *are*, of course, pretending that the right is unlimited. That's
>>> what their silly question means: the right is unlimited, and so any
>>> limitation on guns is an "infringement" of the right. But that's false.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you for proving my point..
>
> Ha ha ha! I disproved your "point", of course.
>

Whoosh !
Tell us carol, what is the sound of a notion entering by one of your ears,
exiting by the other, and never being slowed down in-between sound like ?
Oh wait.
There is NO SOUND in a vacuum....

>
>>>>
>>>>> Yes, indeed, the constitutional prescription is that the right to keep
>>>>> and bear arms shall not be infringed. But what *is* that right?
>>>>> What's in it? The underlying assumption on the part of the people
>>>>> posing the question above - the one in the text, not the subject line
>>>>> - is that the right is unlimited, meaning anyone has the right -
>>>>> moral, legal, political - to own any arms he might wish, with no
>>>>> legitimate power of the state to restrict what those arms might be.
>>>>>
>>> > >
>>>> NOPE !
>>>
>>> Yep: that's *exactly* what the gun nutz mean when they plaintively
>>> whine,
>>> "What part of 'shall not be infringed' is unclear?" They mean that
>>> *any*
>>> legislatively imposed limit on guns is an "infringement" of their
>>> right -
>>> that's what they mean. And they are wrong.
>>>
>>
>> Not only are you stupid, but dishonest too..
>
> Neither.
>

And yet you keep proving it by cutting text that proves otherwise.

Been there, done that.
Are you a lawyer ?
If so who did you fuck to graduate law school and pass the bar ?
If not, you just prove you're an arrogant dolt.

[SaPeIsMa]

"Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@f�rbes.com> wrote in message

news:803cf$51401364$414e828e$56...@EVERESTKC.NET...

There you go repeating yoru strawman.
You really are stupid

[Carol Kinsey Goman]

>> It isn't. Doing so is ignorant. It's two words.
>>
>
> Funny how you cut my example

It was inapplicable.

I don't know if there's a rule for when two words are combined to form a
single word, and when they're kept separate as in "straw man"; I just
know that the term is "straw man", not "strawman". You not only don't
know about a rule, but you don't know the correct term - "straw man" -
and you don't know your flabby doughy scabby ass from your florid
scrofulous face.

>> I didn't employ a straw man. You gun nutz *are* saying that any limit
>> on guns is an "infringement" of your right to have guns. You're wrong.
>>
>
> There you go projecting again

No. You *really are* claiming, when you write that stupid question,
that the right is unlimited. You're wrong, of course,

>>>
>>>> When you gun nut douchebags keep squealing, "Which part of 'shall not
>>>> be infringed' is unclear?", you are doing so pretending that the right
>>>> is unlimited.
>>>
>>>
>>> NOPE !
>>

>> Yep.
>>
>
>
>
> Still cutting text

Always, when it's just chaff.

>>
>>>> But the right does not protect *any* firearm of *any* capacity
>>>> whatever, so if Congress were to pass a law limiting, say, the
>>>> capacity of detachable magazines, then that would not be an
>>>> infringement of the right /per se/.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And that's where you spin out into la-la-land
>>> When the military issue 30- round magazines to their assault rifles,
>>> then those 30-round mages become protected under the 2nd Amendment as
>>> per Miller..
>>
>> No, that is not so clear cut at all. Miller does not - *cannot* - say
>> that citizens may have any and all weapons allowed to standing-army
>> military personnel.
>
>
> Back to repeating your stupid strawman

The expression is "straw man." And I didn't state one, so I can't
repeat one.

>> It didn't even pretend to say that. What Miller said was that certain
>> arms are *not* within the notice of the court as being standard issue
>> arms for military personnel, and therefore may be highly regulated and
>> restricted, or even banned, by Congress with no ensuing violation of
>> the second amendment.
>>
>
> Now why don't you

You don't know what Miller said. You really are *far* too stupid for this.

>
>> Miller says that a weapon X, not in common use by the military, may be
>> highly regulated and restricted, or even banned, by Congress. It does
>> *NOT* say that another weapon Y, in regular use by the military, may
>> *not* be regulated/restricted/banned for civilian possession by Congress.
>>
>
> NOPE

Yep. It says what I claimed above.

>> You are simply far too stupid for this: not learned in the law, and
>> illogical.
>>
>
> I'm willing to be that I'm not only far smarter than you, but

You're not smart at all, and you're *COMPLETELY* unlearned about the
second amendment.

>
>>
>>>>
>>>>> The USSC Miller decision clearly pointed at which arms are the most
>>>>> protected.
>>>>
>>>> It did not specify an exhaustive list.
>>>
>>> You're right
>>

>> So you're fucked.
>>
>
> Keep hoping

No need for mere hope - it is established that you're fucked and that
you gun nutz who believe the right (to keep and bear arms) is unlimited
are wrong.

[Carol Kinsey Goman]

On 3/13/2013 8:03 AM, SaPeIsMa wrote:

> "Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@förbes.com> wrote in message

> news:a834b$5140912c$414e828e$29...@EVERESTKC.NET...
>> On 3/13/2013 7:22 AM, SaPeIsMa wrote:

>>> "Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@förbes.com> wrote in message

>>> news:24c09$51401130$414e828e$19...@EVERESTKC.NET...
>>>> On 3/12/2013 7:19 PM, SaPeIsMa wrote:

>>>>> "Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@förbes.com> wrote in message

>>>>> news:36ade$513f8890$414e828e$85...@EVERESTKC.NET...
>>>>>> The gun nutz keep using this same tired expression, "Which part of
>>>>>> 'shall not be infringed' is unclear?", thereby demonstrating their
>>>>>> utter lack of understanding of the issue.
>>>>>
>>>>> ONLY if you make the stupid presumption (that you keep making) that by
>>>>> asking the question they are implying that the 2nd is unlimited
>>>>
>>>> They *are*, of course, pretending that the right is unlimited. That's
>>>> what their silly question means: the right is unlimited, and so any
>>>> limitation on guns is an "infringement" of the right. But that's
>>>> false.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you for proving my point..
>>
>> Ha ha ha! I disproved your "point", of course.
>>
>
> Whoosh !

Yes, it flew right over your head. Most things do.

>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, indeed, the constitutional prescription is that the right to
>>>>>> keep
>>>>>> and bear arms shall not be infringed. But what *is* that right?
>>>>>> What's in it? The underlying assumption on the part of the people
>>>>>> posing the question above - the one in the text, not the subject line
>>>>>> - is that the right is unlimited, meaning anyone has the right -
>>>>>> moral, legal, political - to own any arms he might wish, with no
>>>>>> legitimate power of the state to restrict what those arms might be.
>>>>>>
>>>> > >
>>>>> NOPE !
>>>>
>>>> Yep: that's *exactly* what the gun nutz mean when they plaintively
>>>> whine,
>>>> "What part of 'shall not be infringed' is unclear?" They mean that
>>>> *any*
>>>> legislatively imposed limit on guns is an "infringement" of their
>>>> right -
>>>> that's what they mean. And they are wrong.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not only are you stupid, but dishonest too..
>>
>> Neither.
>>
>
> And yet

No.

No, you haven't.

[Carol Kinsey Goman]

The term is "straw man", and I didn't employ one, so I can't repeat one.

[Snag]

Carol Kinsey Goman wrote:

A bunch of personal attacks , since she obviously cannot convince anyone
that her position is defensible .
Carol , you've obviously got an agenda , and it just won't fly . Too many
people have guns , and there's no way they're giving them up to Obammy . As
cited elsewhere in this thread , it was the intent of the framers of the 2nd
Amendment that we be allowed weaponry similar to the standing army , in
order that we may defend our other rights . Citizens without weapons are
SUBJECTS . If I hadn't been robbed of meaningful employment by political
actions of our leaders , I'd be a candidate for the purchase of an AR15 or
similar firearm .
But I'm limited to the shotgun I got for my 12th birthday and a 7.7mm
Arisaka rifle my dad brought home from Japan after WWII .

[Carol Kinsey Goman]

On 3/13/2013 10:35 AM, Snag wrote:
> Carol Kinsey Goman wrote:
>
> A bunch of personal attacks , since she obviously cannot convince anyone
> that her position is defensible .

Ha ha ha ha! Not defensible? My position is the law of the land, you
idiot.

There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and
history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right
to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was *not unlimited*,
just as the First Amendment �s right of free speech was not, see,
e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we
do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens
to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not
read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to
speak for any purpose.
[...]
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is
*not unlimited*. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases,
commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was
not a right to keep and carry *any weapon whatsoever* in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.
[emphasis added]

That's from the majority opinion - the *court's* opinion - in Heller.
It is the law: the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited.

[Val Halla]

In article <36ade$513f8890$414e828e$85...@EVERESTKC.NET>

Carol Kinsey Goman <ckg@f�rbes.com> wrote:
>
> The gun nutz keep using this same tired expression, "Which

liberal nutcase is going to go crazy and shoot innocent people
today?"

[Rob Clinton]

In article <a834b$5140912c$414e828e$29...@EVERESTKC.NET>

Carol Kinsey Goman <ckg@förbes.com> wrote:
>
> On 3/13/2013 7:22 AM, SaPeIsMa wrote:

> > "Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@förbes.com> wrote in message

> > news:24c09$51401130$414e828e$19...@EVERESTKC.NET...
> >> On 3/12/2013 7:19 PM, SaPeIsMa wrote:

> >>> "Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@förbes.com> wrote in message

> >>> news:36ade$513f8890$414e828e$85...@EVERESTKC.NET...
> >>>> The gun nutz keep using this same tired expression, "Which part of
> >>>> 'shall not be infringed' is unclear?", thereby demonstrating their
> >>>> utter lack of understanding of the issue.
> >>>
> >>> ONLY if you make the stupid presumption (that you keep making) that by
> >>> asking the question they are implying that the 2nd is unlimited
> >>
> >> They *are*, of course, pretending that the right is unlimited. That's
> >> what their silly question means: the right is unlimited, and so any
> >> limitation on guns is an "infringement" of the right. But that's false.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Thank you for proving my point..
>
> Ha ha ha! I disproved your "point", of course.

What's your position on negroes owning guns for the purpose of
committing crimes against whites?

[Stormin Mormon]

Same as whites owning guns for the purpose of committing crimes against
negros.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

"Rob Clinton" <robcl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:12e660974f21092b...@msgid.frell.theremailer.net...

[RD Sandman]

"Rob Clinton" <robcl...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:12e660974f21092b...@msgid.frell.theremailer.net:

Nobody should own guns for the purpose of committing crimes against
anybody else.


--
Sleep well, tonight.....

RD (The Sandman

Those who can laugh without cause have either
found the true meaning of happiness.....
Or have gone stark raving mad.

[Stormin Mormon]

Even government goons?

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA1845C38F...@216.196.121.131...

[RD Sandman]

"Stormin Mormon" <cayoung61***scam...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:%
nI0t.102735$Iw4....@fed10.iad:

> Even government goons?

Especially them.

[Ray Keller]

"Rob Clinton" <robcl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:12e660974f21092b...@msgid.frell.theremailer.net...

If They Come for Your Guns, Do You Have a Responsibility to Fight?
Posted on January 3, 2013by Dean Garrison

I feel a tremendous responsibility to write this article though I am
a little apprehensive. Thinking about the possibility of rising up against
our own government is a frightening thing for many of us. I am not Johnny
Rambo and I will be the first to admit that I do not want to die. The reason
I feel compelled to write this, however, is simply because I don't think the
average American is equipped with the facts. I feel that a lot of American
citizens feel like they have no choice but to surrender their guns if the
government comes for them. I blame traditional media sources for this mass
brainwash and I carry the responsibility of all small independent bloggers to
tell the truth. So my focus today is to lay out your constitutional rights as
an American, and let you decide what to do with those rights.

About a month ago I let the "democracy" word slip in a discussion
with a fellow blogger. I know better. Americans have been conditioned to use
this term. It's not an accurate term and it never has been a correct term to
describe our form of government. The truth is that the United States of
America is a constitutional republic. This is similar to a democracy because
our representatives are selected by democratic elections, but ultimately our
representatives are required to work within the framework of our
constitution. In other words, even if 90% of Americans want something that
goes against our founding principles, they have no right to call for a
violation of constitutional rights.

If you are religious you might choose to think of it this way. Say
that members of your congregation decide that mass fornication is a good
thing. Do they have the right to change the teachings of your God? The truth
is the truth. It doesn't matter how many people try to stray from it. Did I
just compare our founders to God? In a way I did, but please note that I am
not trying to insult anyone. For the purpose of the American Government our
constitution and founders who wrote it are much like God is to believers. It
is the law. It is indisputable.

Our founders did not want a "democracy" for they feared a true
democracy was just as dangerous as a monarchy. The founders were highly
educated people who were experienced in defending themselves against tyranny.
They understood that the constitution could protect the people by limiting
the power of anyone to work outside of it much better than a pure system of
popularity. A system of checks and balances was set up to help limit
corruption of government and also the potential for an "immoral majority"
developing within the American People. We have forgotten in this country that
we are ultimately ruled by a constitution.

Why is a democracy potentially just as dangerous as a monarchy? Let's
look at something that Benjamin Franklin said because it answers that
question more fully and succinctly than I can.

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for
lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. -Benjamin Franklin

Even 230+ years ago our founders were perceptive enough to realize
that democracy was a dangerous form of government. How so? Because the
citizens of a country can become just as corrupt as any government. We have
seen evidence of this throughout history. Ask Native Americans and
African-Americans if this population can become corrupt.

I think in 2012 we are seeing evidence of what Franklin was trying to
tell us. Just because a majority of people may support certain ideas it does
not mean that those ideas are just. In simple terms, just because most
Americans love our president and voted for him, it does not mean that he has
the power to go against our constitutional rights.

Next I'd like to review the text of the second amendment. It is very
clear. This is the law of this land. So when Senator Feinstein orPresident
Obama talk about taking your guns, you need to think about something. Are
they honoring their sworn oath to uphold the constitution?

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.

This is a pretty clear statement. The fact is that it took 232 years
for the Supreme Court to even rule on this amendment because it has never
been successfully challenged. In 2008 a case of Columbia v. Heller the
Supreme Court ruled that a handgun ban in Washington D.C. was
unconstitutional. One also has to take this into consideration. The Supreme
Court supports your right to own guns. If you want to research this decision
further you can start here.

For those who try to debate the spirit of the 2nd amendment, they are
truly no different from people who will try to take Biblical quotes out of
context to try to support their immoral decisions. The founders were very
clear on the intent of the 2nd amendment. Let me share a few quick quotes
here:

The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and
bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in
government. -Thomas Jefferson

Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They
are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence .
From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences,
and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle
and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms
everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with
all that is good. -George Washington

The Constitution shall never be construed..to prevent the people of
the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own
arms. -Samuel Adams

I could find hundreds of quotes like these. This country was built on
the right to bear arms. It was built on the rights of an individual to bear
arms, regardless of what his government or neighbor happened to think. This
is crystal clear. Ironically the people who voice their opinions against this
right have their free speech protected by your guns. Without guns in this
country, all other amendments become null and void, simply because "We the
People" will lose our power of enforcement.

We need to keep this in mind as our "representatives" try to push gun
bans. I don't care if 99% of people are in support of gun bans (which is far
from the case), it is a violation of our constitutional rights, plain and
simple.

A constitutional republic protects the rights of the individual even
when their ideas are very much in the minority. If I were the only person in
America who believed in the 2nd amendment, I would still be within my rights
to call upon it. You would all think I was insane and possibly celebrate if I
was gunned down, but in the end I would be the only true American among us.

Our framers were very clear on this. If my government comes to take
my guns, they are violating one of my constitutional rights that is covered
by the 2nd amendment.

It is not my right, at that point, but my responsibility to respond
in the name of liberty. What I am telling you is something that many are
trying to soft sell, and many others have tried to avoid putting into print,
but I am going to say it. The time for speaking in code is over.

If they come for our guns then it is our constitutional right to put
them six feet under. You have the right to kill any representative of this
government who tries to tread on your liberty. I am thinking about
self-defense and not talking about inciting a revolution. Re-read Jefferson's
quote. He talks about a "last resort." I am not trying to start a Revolt, I
am talking about self-defense. If the day for Revolution comes, when no
peaceful options exist, we may have to talk about that as well. None of us
wants to think about that, but please understand that a majority can not take
away your rights as an American citizen. Only you can choose to give up your
rights.

Congress could pass gun ban legislation by a 90%+ margin and it just
would not matter. I think some people are very unclear on this. This is the
reason we have a Supreme Court, and though I do not doubt that the Supreme
Court can also become corrupt, in 2008 they got it right. They supported the
constitution. It does not matter what the majority supports because America
is not a democracy. A constitutional republic protects the rights of every
single citizen, no matter what their "elected servants" say. A majority in
America only matters when the constitution is not in play.

I just wrote what every believer in the constitution wants to say,
and what every constitutional blogger needs to write. The truth of the matter
is that this type of speech is viewed as dangerous and radical or subversive,
and it could gain me a world of trouble that I do not want. It is also the
truth. To make myself clear I will tell you again. If they come for your guns
it is your right to use those guns against them and to kill them. You are
protected by our constitution.

Most of the articles I am reading on the subject are trying to give
you clues without just coming out and saying it. I understand that because
certain things in this country will get you on a list that you don't want to
be on. I may well be on that list. This blog is small and growing so I may
not be there yet, but I have dreams. I also have my own list of subversives
and anyone who attempts to deny my constitutional rights is on that list.

I am not the "subversive" here, it is the political representatives
who are threatening to take away my inalienable rights. If they come to take
my guns and I leave a few of them wounded or dead, and I somehow survive, I
have zero doubt that I will spend a long time in prison and may face an
execution. But I would much rather be a political prisoner than a slave.

If I go down fighting then I was not fighting to harm these human
beings. I was simply defending my liberty and yours. It is self-defense and
it is what our country was built on. We won our freedom in self-defense. We
would not be ruled by a tyrannical government in the 1770's and we will not
be ruled in 2012 by a tyrannical government. There is no difference.

This is a case of right and wrong. As of now the 2nd amendment
stands. It has never been repealed. If Feinstein or Barack have a problem
with the constitution then they should be removed from office. They are not
defending the constitution which they have sworn an oath to protect. It is
treasonous to say the least. They would likely say the same about me, but I
have the constitution, the founders, and the supreme court on my side. They
only have their inflated egos.

I am not writing this to incite people. I am writing this in hopes
that somehow I can make a tiny difference. I have no idea how many of my
neighbors have the will to defend their constitutional rights. 2%? 20%? I am
afraid that 20% is a high number, unfortunately.When push comes to shove many
people may give up and submit to being ruled. I believe that our government
is banking on this.

What I do know is that this country was founded by people who had
balls the size of Texas and Patriotic Americans take shit off of no one,
especially our own government. For evidence of that, you might research the
Revolutionary War. My question is how many Patriots are left?

I would hope that our officials come to realize that, regardless of
our numbers, we still exist because they are calling Patriotic Americans to
action. They are making us decide if we want to die free or submit to their
rule. I can not tell you where you should stand on that. I do know that it
may make the difference between living a life of freedom or slavery.

You must start thinking about this because I believe that the day is
coming soon and I personally believe it has already been planned. Not all
conspiracy theories are hogwash. They may throw down the gauntlet soon and my
suggestion is that you prepare yourself to react.

I mean no disrespect to our elected officials but they need to
understand that "We the People" will not be disarmed. If they proceed then it
is they that are provoking us and we will act accordingly. We are within our
rights to do so.

For those who are in support of taking the guns, you need to ask
yourself a very important question, and I am not just talking about the
politicians, because if you support them, you have chosen your side.

Are you willing to die to take my guns?

Click Here to Follow The D.C. Clothesline on Facebook

[Michael A. Terrell]

Stormin Mormon wrote:
>
> Even government goons?


A Goon is a Goon the world round!


--
Politicians should only get paid if the budget is balanced, and there is
enough left over to pay them.

[RD Sandman]

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote in news:Wq-
dnYyH18t28t7Mn...@earthlink.com:

Bingo on both comments.

[Stormin Mormon]

So, negro government goons should not own guns, to commit crimes against
whites?

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:XnsA1846F441...@216.196.121.131...

[Stormin Mormon]

A goon is a goon, from dusk to noon?

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Wq-dnYyH18t28t7M...@earthlink.com...

[Lisa Lisa]

> committing crimes against whites?- Hide quoted text -


Negroes went entirely undiscussed during the drafting of the Second
Amendment. What later became the Second Amendment addressed the
matter of state-run militias, whether or not a person could hire a
substitute if they didn't want to fight, quartering soldiers, etc.

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=390

Examine pp. 778-781, and you get some idea about the debate.

There is no mention of personal rights to arms, either limited or
unlimited. Of course, the framers did assume that Americans had a
personal right to guns, because some of them owned guns themselves.
It was simply a cultural given, like blue skies and hot weather in
July.

The Second says nothing at all about personal rights to arms. Is
there any reason that it should?

Lisa

[RD Sandman]

"Stormin Mormon" <cayoung61***scam...@hotmail.com> wrote in

news:3CK0t.104327$%K3.2...@fed01.iad:

> So, negro government goons should not own guns, to commit crimes
against
> whites?

I answered that a couple of days ago. You should pay more attention.

> Christopher A. Young
> Learn more about Jesus
> www.lds.org
> .
>
> "RD Sandman" <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:XnsA1846F441...@216.196.121.131...
> "Stormin Mormon" <cayoung61***scam...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:%
> nI0t.102735$Iw4....@fed10.iad:
>
>> Even government goons?
>
> Especially them.
>
>
>
>

[RD Sandman]

Lisa Lisa <harryh...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:adfe293c-ceff-46bc...@he10g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:

> On Mar 15, 3:59�am, "Rob Clinton" <robclin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> In article <a834b$5140912c$414e828e$29...@EVERESTKC.NET>

>> Carol Kinsey Goman <ckg@f�rbes.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On 3/13/2013 7:22 AM, SaPeIsMa wrote:

>> > > "Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@f�rbes.com> wrote in message

>> > >news:24c09$51401130$414e828e$19...@EVERESTKC.NET...
>> > >> On 3/12/2013 7:19 PM, SaPeIsMa wrote:

>> > >>> "Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@f�rbes.com> wrote in message

>> > >>>news:36ade$513f8890$414e828e$85...@EVERESTKC.NET...
>> > >>>> The gun nutz keep using this same tired expression, "Which
>> > >>>> part of 'shall not be infringed' is unclear?", thereby
>> > >>>> demonstrating their utter lack of understanding of the issue.
>>
>> > >>> ONLY if you make the stupid presumption (that you keep making)
>> > >>> that
> by
>> > >>> asking the question they are implying that the 2nd is unlimited
>>
>> > >> They *are*, of course, pretending that the right is unlimited.

>> > >> �Th

> at's
>> > >> what their silly question means: �the right is unlimited, and so
>> > >> a
> ny
>> > >> limitation on guns is an "infringement" of the right. �But
>> > >> that's
> false.
>>
>> > > Thank you for proving my point..
>>
>> > Ha ha ha! �I disproved your "point", of course.
>>
>> What's your position on negroes owning guns for the purpose of
>> committing crimes against whites?- Hide quoted text -
>
>
> Negroes went entirely undiscussed during the drafting of the Second
> Amendment. What later became the Second Amendment addressed the
> matter of state-run militias, whether or not a person could hire a
> substitute if they didn't want to fight, quartering soldiers, etc.
>
> http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.d
> b&recNum=390
>
> Examine pp. 778-781, and you get some idea about the debate.
>
> There is no mention of personal rights to arms, either limited or
> unlimited.

The purpose of the Second Amendment was to protect that right to keep and
bear arms from infringement by the central government. State militias
were manned from a pool of armed citizenry. Those militias of the
several states were composed of citizen-soldiers and when called to duty
they were expected to bring guns provided by themselves and of a type in
common use at the time, where do you think those guns came from? A local
gun shop?

Of course, the framers did assume that Americans had a
> personal right to guns, because some of them owned guns themselves.

Most of them did.

> It was simply a cultural given, like blue skies and hot weather in
> July.
>
> The Second says nothing at all about personal rights to arms. Is
> there any reason that it should?

See above. You need to look at some history of why there is a Second
Amendment.

[Michael A. Terrell]

Stormin Mormon wrote:
>
> A goon is a goon, from dusk to noon?

Those are only part time goons. They are drugged out of their
microscopic minds the rest of the time.

[Michael A. Terrell]

RD Sandman wrote:

>
> "Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>
> > Stormin Mormon wrote:
> >>
> >> Even government goons?
> >
> > A Goon is a Goon the world round!
> >
> --
> Politicians should only get paid if the budget is balanced, and there is
> enough left over to pay them.
>
> Bingo on both comments.

Thanks, but I don't have time for Bingo. ;-)

[Lisa Lisa]

On Mar 15, 5:43 pm, RD Sandman <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote:

> Lisa Lisa <harryharr...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:adfe293c-ceff-46bc...@he10g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 15, 3:59 am, "Rob Clinton" <robclin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> In article <a834b$5140912c$414e828e$29...@EVERESTKC.NET>

> >> Carol Kinsey Goman <ckg@förbes.com> wrote:
>
> >> > On 3/13/2013 7:22 AM, SaPeIsMa wrote:

> >> > > "Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@förbes.com> wrote in message

> >> > >news:24c09$51401130$414e828e$19...@EVERESTKC.NET...
> >> > >> On 3/12/2013 7:19 PM, SaPeIsMa wrote:

> >> > >>> "Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@förbes.com> wrote in message

Maybe you should reread what you just wrote. Especially the second
sentence.

I've read "a lot" of literature from that era about the right to bear
arms, and 98% of the time neither pro- nor anti-Federalists discussed
a personal right to arms. The subject came up very, very rarely.
To me that rarity indicates that the personal right was on very few
people's radar screens. It just wasn't an important issue.

No one need take my word for it, though. Just read the link I
provided. (The Annals of Congress.) You'll notice that not only
didn't the Second Amendment protect a personal right, but that it was
relatively briefly discussed, which meant that the Framers didn't
consider it all that controversial or important. And if you read
James Madison's Notes on the Debates in the Federal Convention, you'll
notice they give short shrift to militias there too.

Modern Americans may be absorbed by militias. It seems that back
then, they weren't.


Lisa

>
>   Of course, the framers did assume that Americans had a
>
> > personal right to guns, because some of them owned guns themselves.
>
> Most of them did.
>
> > It was simply a cultural given, like blue skies and hot weather in
> > July.
>
> > The Second says nothing at all about personal rights to arms.  Is
> > there any reason that it should?
>
> See above.  You need to look at some history of why there is a Second
> Amendment.
>
> --
> Sleep well, tonight.....
>
> RD (The Sandman
>
> Those who can laugh without cause have either
> found the true meaning of happiness.....

> Or have gone stark raving mad.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Scout]

Returned to sender

"SpamƁusteᴙ" <Spam Buste r...@notto.can> wrote in message
news:q4O0t.173887$O02.1...@newsfe18.iad...
> On 3/15/2013 12:59 AM, Rob Clinton wrote:
>
>
> --
> =====================================================================
> SPAMMED INTO NON-RELEVANT GROUPS / COUNTRIES
> =====================================================================
>

[Scout]

Returned to sender

"SpamƁusteᴙ" <Spam Buste r...@notto.can> wrote in message

news:Y4O0t.173888$O02....@newsfe18.iad...

[Scout]

Returned to sender

"SpamƁusteᴙ" <Spam Buste r...@notto.can> wrote in message

news:C5O0t.173889$O02....@newsfe18.iad...

[Scout]

Returned to sender

"SpamƁusteᴙ" <Spam Buste r...@notto.can> wrote in message

news:i6O0t.173890$O02....@newsfe18.iad...

[RD Sandman]

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote in

news:9IadnYHIeN9cS97M...@earthlink.com:

>
> RD Sandman wrote:
>>
>> "Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>>
>> > Stormin Mormon wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Even government goons?
>> >
>> > A Goon is a Goon the world round!
>> >
>> --
>> Politicians should only get paid if the budget is balanced, and there
is
>> enough left over to pay them.
>>
>> Bingo on both comments.
>
>
> Thanks, but I don't have time for Bingo. ;-)
>
>

Damn, and we just called O-69.

[RD Sandman]

Lisa Lisa <harryh...@yahoo.com> wrote in

news:913d687c-9808-48ab...@y9g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:

> On Mar 15, 5:43 pm, RD Sandman <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Lisa Lisa <harryharr...@yahoo.com> wrote

>> innews:adfe293c-ceff-46bc-bfc0-8
> 6d454...@he10g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:

What problem do you have with, "State militias were manned from a pool of
armed citizenry."?

> I've read "a lot" of literature from that era about the right to bear
> arms, and 98% of the time neither pro- nor anti-Federalists discussed
> a personal right to arms.

It was assumed in those days that most did own arms. Additionally, read
the Supreme Court decision in US v Miller - 1939. The following was
paraphrased from there. The actual quote is:

"The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the
debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and
States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly
enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting
in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for
military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for
service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by
themselves and of the kind in common use at the time. "

The subject came up very, very rarely.
> To me that rarity indicates that the personal right was on very few
> people's radar screens. It just wasn't an important issue.

It was an *understood* issue.

> No one need take my word for it, though. Just read the link I
> provided. (The Annals of Congress.) You'll notice that not only
> didn't the Second Amendment protect a personal right, but that it was
> relatively briefly discussed, which meant that the Framers didn't
> consider it all that controversial or important. And if you read
> James Madison's Notes on the Debates in the Federal Convention, you'll
> notice they give short shrift to militias there too.
>
> Modern Americans may be absorbed by militias. It seems that back
> then, they weren't.

It was the only "army" the colonies had.

Anyway, your stance is on the wrong side of the Supreme Court and
history.

[Lisa Lisa]

On Mar 16, 3:01 pm, RD Sandman <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote:

<snip>

> What problem do you have with, "State militias were manned from a pool of
> armed citizenry."?

None whatsoever. Generally speaking, healthy males between 17 and 45
were required to supply their own arms, which had to be up to state or
federal standard. Usually they mustered once a year on the village
green for drills and target practice in federally-funded state
militias that were officered by men chosen by the state governments.

> > I've read "a lot" of literature from that era about the right to bear
> > arms, and 98% of the time neither pro- nor anti-Federalists discussed
> > a personal right to arms.
>
> It was assumed in those days that most did own arms.  Additionally, read
> the Supreme Court decision in US v Miller - 1939.  The following was
> paraphrased from there. The actual quote is:
>
> "The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the
> debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and
> States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly
> enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting
> in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for
> military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for
> service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by
> themselves and of the kind in common use at the time. "

I think you're forgetting that Layton and Miller both lost the case
and the National Firearms Act was not found to violate the Second
Amendment.

The court did not think that sawed-off shotguns had any relation to a
well-regulated Militia, so I imagine they had to pay a stiff fine or
go to jail. And the National Firearms Act still stands.

Maybe you should actually read the cases you're quoting.

>   The subject came up very, very rarely.
>
> > To me that rarity indicates that the personal right was on very few
> > people's radar screens.  It just wasn't an important issue.
>
> It was an *understood* issue.

That's what I said. There was very little concern about personal
rights to guns, and the Second does not guarantee that right because
the right, very simply, was not even under discussion.

They were addressing the issue of federally-funded, state officered
state militias. Further, it was a very secondary concern, at best.
Anyone who doubts me can read the original text for themselves:

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=390

Even less is said about the subject in Madison's Notes of the Debates
in the Federal Convention. One gets the impression that the whole
issue was somewhat of a bore to the
people present.

> > No one need take my word for it, though.  Just read the link I
> > provided. (The Annals of Congress.)  You'll notice that not only
> > didn't the Second Amendment protect a personal right, but that it was
> > relatively briefly discussed, which meant that the Framers didn't
> > consider it all that controversial or important.  And if you read
> > James Madison's Notes on the Debates in the Federal Convention, you'll
> > notice they give short shrift to militias there too.

Ah, the dirty rotten truth. No one will look because it contravenes
their cherished ideologies.

> > Modern Americans may be absorbed by militias.  It seems that back
> > then, they weren't.
>
> It was the only "army" the colonies had.

Ah, so the non-existent George Washington commanded a non-existent
Continental Army, and the non-existent Baron Von Steuben trained it,
both during and after the Revolution.

> Anyway, your stance is on the wrong side of the Supreme Court and
> history.

US v. Miller affirmed the constitutionality of the National Firearms
Act. Layton and Miller LOST. They probably went to jail. Tee-hee.

> Sleep well, tonight.....

Crack a damned book, why don't you.

> RD (The Sandman
>
> Those who can laugh without cause have either
> found the true meaning of happiness.....

> Or have gone stark raving mad.- Hide quoted text -

Lisa

[RD Sandman]

Lisa Lisa <harryh...@yahoo.com> wrote in

news:9d850c9e-2dc7-45a3...@c10g2000vbt.googlegroups.com:

> On Mar 16, 3:01 pm, RD Sandman <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> What problem do you have with, "State militias were manned from a
>> pool of armed citizenry."?
>
> None whatsoever. Generally speaking, healthy males between 17 and 45
> were required to supply their own arms, which had to be up to state or
> federal standard.

Nope....just of a type in common use at the time.

Usually they mustered once a year on the village
> green for drills and target practice in federally-funded state
> militias that were officered by men chosen by the state governments.

Excuse me but the feds did NOT fund the state militias. In fact, part of
what the Second Amendment was about was a fear that the feds might fail
to arm the militias as noted in Article I, section 8. Then if the feds
infringed upon the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms, you ended
up with state militias which could no longer protect state sovereignty.

>> > I've read "a lot" of literature from that era about the right to
>> > bear arms, and 98% of the time neither pro- nor anti-Federalists
>> > discussed a personal right to arms.
>>
>> It was assumed in those days that most did own arms.  Additionally,
>> rea
> d
>> the Supreme Court decision in US v Miller - 1939.  The following was
>> paraphrased from there. The actual quote is:
>>
>> "The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the
>> debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies
>> and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show
>> plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically
>> capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of
>> citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that
>> ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear
>> bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at
>> the time. "
>
> I think you're forgetting that Layton and Miller both lost the case

Yes, and one reason that they did was there was no appearance by their
side in Court. That means that by default their side was never
presented. You wouldn't expect the government to present their side
would you?

> and the National Firearms Act was not found to violate the Second
> Amendment.
>
> The court did not think that sawed-off shotguns had any relation to a
> well-regulated Militia, so I imagine they had to pay a stiff fine or
> go to jail.

Neither happened. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court decision
and remanded the case back to the lower circuit for any follow-up. None
occurred.

> And the National Firearms Act still stands.

There was no attempt by Layton or Miller to eliminate the NFA. You do
understand what the case was about, I assume. It was simply that neither
Miller nor Layton paid the $200 tax. They (and the lower court) thought
it was unconstitutional to be charged the tax.

> Maybe you should actually read the cases you're quoting.

Maybe you should understand it.

>>   The subject came up very, very rarely.
>>
>> > To me that rarity indicates that the personal right was on very few
>> > people's radar screens.  It just wasn't an important issue.
>>
>> It was an *understood* issue.
>
> That's what I said. There was very little concern about personal
> rights to guns, and the Second does not guarantee that right because
> the right, very simply, was not even under discussion.

Yes, it was under discussion by the anti federalists who were afraid of
an overreaching central government.

> They were addressing the issue of federally-funded, state officered
> state militias.

No,they weren't. There were no federally funded state militias. The
national militia was addressed in Article I(8)(15 16) not the Second
Amendment.

Further, it was a very secondary concern, at best.
> Anyone who doubts me can read the original text for themselves:
>
> http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.
> db&recNum=390
>
> Even less is said about the subject in Madison's Notes of the Debates
> in the Federal Convention. One gets the impression that the whole
> issue was somewhat of a bore to the
> people present.
>
>> > No one need take my word for it, though.  Just read the link I
>> > provided. (The Annals of Congress.)  You'll notice that not only
>> > didn't the Second Amendment protect a personal right, but that it
>> > was relatively briefly discussed, which meant that the Framers
>> > didn't consider it all that controversial or important.  And if you
>> > read James Madison's Notes on the Debates in the Federal
>> > Convention, you'll notice they give short shrift to militias there
>> > too.
>
> Ah, the dirty rotten truth. No one will look because it contravenes
> their cherished ideologies.

Are you commenting on your own entries now? ;)

>> > Modern Americans may be absorbed by militias.  It seems that back
>> > then, they weren't.
>>
>> It was the only "army" the colonies had.
>
> Ah, so the non-existent George Washington commanded a non-existent
> Continental Army, and the non-existent Baron Von Steuben trained it,
> both during and after the Revolution.
>
>> Anyway, your stance is on the wrong side of the Supreme Court and
>> history.
>
> US v. Miller affirmed the constitutionality of the National Firearms
> Act.

I don't argue that they weren't guilty or that the tax was
unconstitutional. I look at US v Miller for other stuff that is in it.

> Layton and Miller LOST. They probably went to jail.

Nope. Miller was found shot to death on the bank of Little Spencer Creek
about nine miles south of Chelsea, Oklahoma on April 5, 1939.

Layton pleaded guilty to armed robbery and got ten years in McAlester
prison. On January 8, 1940, Layton pleaded guilty to the reinstated NFA
charge and was sentenced to 5 years probation. He died in 1967.

They are both buried at Woodlawn Cemetary in Claremore, Oklahoma.





--
Sleep well, tonight.....

[Ed Huntress]

Lisa, your history via the authorities generally "approved" by
textualists and original-intent originalists is quite correct --
Robert Bork would have approved -- but the Heller case dealt with that
"boring," and "assumed" thing -- the individual right. As little
evidence as there is in the records of the First Congress and that of
the state legislatures that had to ratify it, the courts have had to
wrestle with that question of whether there was something in the
*meaning* (rather than the *intent*) of the 2nd Amendment that implied
or supported an individual right. That's been the issue in question
for many years.

In the Heller case, the Court reached out into the "penumbras" that
the conservative Justices so often disparage, because they had little
else. They applied an original-meaning doctrine to the case, calling
upon the wealth of scholarship that had been compiled since the 1970s
-- basically a complilation of letters, speeches, and so on, that did
get involved with the issue of an armed populace, and an individual
right to bear arms. The evidence is overwhelming that the individual
right was assumed, that it was rarely questioned, and that some of the
important contributors to constitutional thinking who didn't actually
participate in the writing of the Constitution, nor in the First
Congress and its consideration of the Bill of Rights, such as
Jefferson, wrote powerful assertions of the right. They were supported
by actual participants in the writing of the Bill of Rights, including
Madison, Patrick Henry, and others.

In recent decades, liberal constitutional scholars, including Sanford
Levinson ("The Embarrassing Second Amendment"), Laurence Tribe, and
others have concluded that "the right of the people to keep and bear
arms" did, indeed, apply to individuals. The historical ideas
surrounding the writing of the Constitution, again, was overwhelming.
Building upon that, and a 5th Circuit decision (the Emerson case) and
its documentation in the early part of the last decade, the Court was
ready to decide the boring, assumed issue.

Pro-gun textualists (and knuckle-dragging ignoranti) hang their hats
on the independent clause, assuming that "the right of the people..."
necessarily means the right of individual people. The Court was really
addressing the question of whether that's literally true. There is
historical reason to question whether it was to be taken literally or
as a political gesture to the anti-federalists, but the Court, in
Heller, decided that it was true. "The right..." really means what it
says, that there was a right, predating the Constitution, that was
assumed by the Founders.

You know what the intent of the 2nd Amendment was -- it was a response
to fears by the anti-federalists, expressed in anti-federalist paper
#28, that the federal government would find an excuse within the
Constitution itself to disarm the state militias. But don't project
those militia provisions upon the idea behind the states' militias, or
the armed, "unorganized" militia that was the whole body of the
people. Those militias were NOT to be under federal control unless
they were called up by the federal government. Until then, they were a
state matter.

And one more thing that's important to understanding this whole issue:
At the time the BofR was written, the assumption was that it was
almost exclusively a set of prohibitions against the federal
governments, but not the states. (See Barron v. Baltimore and the
sate-established religions of the early 19th century.) If ever there
was a substantive Amendment in the Bill of Rights -- in other words,
other than the 9th and 10th -- that begs for a states' rights reading,
and against incorporation, it is the 2nd. So the McDonald case, and
incorporation, is very arguable.

But not Heller. It may have been assumed by the Founders, and even a
non-issue to them: boring. But it is not boring today. It is the
central issue regarding guns and individual rights. And Heller got it
right -- by loosening up and looking outside the "accepted
authorities," reaching a little bit into the realm of "penumbras," and
by using a combination of common sense and history to reach a decision
that comports with the understanding at the time of the founding.

--
Ed Huntress

[Pavor Nocturnus]

This is posted in a Canadian newsgroup.

We have many guns, a comparatively low gun crime rate and one firearms
law.

Why are you posting American issues here?

The Second Amendment is irrelevant north of the border.


A redneck buddy of mine from New Brunswick said to me:

"I own several guns, but in a bar I would rather see someone come in
with a rifle than a concealed handgun".

"With a rifle, I would know his intent"

[Richard]

USNET, where is where this discussion really is, is world wide.

Look at the distro again.

can.politics is only one of the cross-posted addresses.

[Pavor Nocturnus]

Your idea of a well regulated militia was blown apart in the War of
1812.

It was after that when you finally saw the light and had an army.

At least you got your national anthem out of it, when the British
rockets nailed your ass.

[Pavor Nocturnus]

The Battle of Fort McHenry was no battle at all. British guns had
range on American cannon, and stood off out of U.S. range, bombarding
the fort, which returned no fire. Their plan was to coordinate with a
land force, but from that distance coordination proved impossible, so
the British called off the attack and left. All the lights were
extinguished in Baltimore the night of the attack, and the fort was
bombarded for 25 hours. The only light was given off by the exploding
shells over Fort McHenry, illuminating the flag that was still flying
over the fort. The defence of the fort inspired the American lawyer
Francis Scott Key to write a poem that would eventually supply the
lyrics to "The Star-Spangled Banner".

[Scout]

Returned to sender

"SpamƁusteᴙ" <Spam Buste r...@notfor.can> wrote in message
news:aW91t.183663$KR.1...@newsfe27.iad...

> On 3/16/2013 5:57 PM, Pavor Nocturnus wrote:
>> On Mar 16, 8:49 pm, Pavor Nocturnus <random_chao...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Mar 16, 8:02 pm, Richard <cavel...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> USNET, where is where this discussion really is, is world wide.
>>>> Look at the distro again.
>>>> can.politics is only one of the cross-posted addresses.
>>>> On 3/16/2013 6:44 PM, Pavor Nocturnus wrote:
>>>>> This is posted in a Canadian newsgroup.
>>>>> We have many guns, a comparatively low gun crime rate and one firearms
>>>>> law.
>>>>> Why are you posting American issues here?
>>>>> The Second Amendment is irrelevant north of the border.
>>>>> A redneck buddy of mine from New Brunswick said to me:
>>>>> "I own several guns, but in a bar I would rather see someone come in
>>>>> with a rifle than a concealed handgun".
>>>>> "With a rifle, I would know his intent"
>>>
>
>

[Scout]

Returned to sender

"SpamƁusteᴙ" <Spam Buste r...@notfor.can> wrote in message

news:7V91t.183636$KR.4...@newsfe27.iad...

[Scout]

Returned to sender

"SpamƁusteᴙ" <Spam Buste r...@notfor.can> wrote in message

news:uV91t.183647$KR.5...@newsfe27.iad...

[Scout]

Returned to sender

"SpamƁusteᴙ" <Spam Buste r...@notfor.can> wrote in message

news:SV91t.183656$KR.6...@newsfe27.iad...

> On 3/16/2013 5:49 PM, Pavor Nocturnus wrote:
>> On Mar 16, 8:02 pm, Richard <cavel...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>> USNET, where is where this discussion really is, is world wide.
>>>
>>> Look at the distro again.
>>>
>>> can.politics is only one of the cross-posted addresses.
>>>
>>> On 3/16/2013 6:44 PM, Pavor Nocturnus wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> This is posted in a Canadian newsgroup.
>>>> We have many guns, a comparatively low gun crime rate and one firearms
>>>> law.
>>>> Why are you posting American issues here?
>>>> The Second Amendment is irrelevant north of the border.
>
>

[Pavor Nocturnus]

On Mar 16, 11:54 pm, "Scout"

<me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
> Returned to sender
>

> "SpamƁusteᴙ" <Spam  Buste r...@notfor.can> wrote in messagenews:SV91t.183656$KR.6...@newsfe27.iad...

the second amendment is only relevant to the USA.
Why is this trash being posted in a Canadian news group?

Hell, we own most of your real estate and our banks own most of yours.

We in the great white north don't care about your perverse love of
firearms and how it supposedly makes you "free"
We have our own. Rifles are the preference.

[Pavor Nocturnus]

Did you know that John Lott had a point! Since 1992, gun crime has
been reduced. Seemingly the same time as the introduction of the
Nicotine Patch.

So? Is it the Nicotine Patch or the increased usage of firearms that
reduced crime in the USA?

[Rob Clinton]

In article <iEE0t.97572$JX7....@fed06.iad>
"Stormin Mormon" <cayoung61***scam...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Same as whites owning guns for the purpose of committing crimes against
> negros.

White don't generally commit many crimes against negroes.
Negroes have no money and no brains. What would be the point?

> Christopher A. Young
> Learn more about Jesus
> www.lds.org
> .
>

> "Rob Clinton" <robcl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:12e660974f21092b...@msgid.frell.theremailer.net...

[Pavor Nocturnus]

On Mar 16, 2:30 pm, "Rob Clinton" <robclin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article <iEE0t.97572$JX7.84...@fed06.iad>

>
> "Stormin Mormon" <cayoung61***scambl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Same as whites owning guns for the purpose of committing crimes against
> > negros.
>
> White don't generally commit many crimes against negroes.
> Negroes have no money and no brains.  What would be the point?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Christopher A. Young
> > Learn more about Jesus
> >  www.lds.org
> > .
>

> > "Rob Clinton" <robclin...@gmail.com> wrote in message

> >news:12e660974f21092b...@msgid.frell.theremailer.net...
>
> > > > Thank you for proving my point..
>
> > > Ha ha ha!  I disproved your "point", of course.
>
> > What's your position on negroes owning guns for the purpose of
> > committing crimes against whites?

Guns! USA! BLAH BLAH!

When are you going to rise up and fight Obama?

[Pavor Nocturnus]

Or do you know what "walk the walk or talk the talk" means?

All I hear is shit from shit heads. No gumption.

[Pavor Nocturnus]

"I'm gonna open fire on 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue!"


That's the ticket.
Go for it!!!

[Pavor Nocturnus]

We did it, back in 1812. You assholes burned my city, so we
marched to DC and torched the White House. Sorry President
Madison.

[Gunner]

Do you like posting and reading your own messages?

I certainly dont.

<plink>

Gunner

The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie

[RD Sandman]

Ed Huntress <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in
news:sgr9k8hoshlbv8hfe...@4ax.com:

Excellent summation, Ed.

--
Sleep well, tonight.....

[RD Sandman]

Pavor Nocturnus <random_...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:5693650c-9c4e-
4ec2-a113-3...@m12g2000yqp.googlegroups.com:

How would you "see" a person with a concealed handgun?

> "With a rifle, I would know his intent"

And the rifle would be open carry........they are like trying to conceal
a Harley Davidson.


--
Sleep well, tonight.....

[RD Sandman]

Pavor Nocturnus <random_...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:4a57e750-5cfd-
41e5-81ae-d...@r13g2000yqg.googlegroups.com:

Hmmmm, seems to me that we are independent country and not a colony of
the British Empire. Something must have gone right.

--
Sleep well, tonight.....

[Scout]

"Pavor Nocturnus" <random_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5693650c-9c4e-4ec2...@m12g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...

Please explain to me how simply carrying one or the other would establish
their 'intent'?

[Richard]

On 3/17/2013 1:24 PM, RD Sandman wrote:

>> But not Heller. It may have been assumed by the Founders, and even a
>> non-issue to them: boring. But it is not boring today. It is the
>> central issue regarding guns and individual rights. And Heller got it
>> right -- by loosening up and looking outside the "accepted
>> authorities," reaching a little bit into the realm of "penumbras," and
>> by using a combination of common sense and history to reach a decision
>> that comports with the understanding at the time of the founding.
>>
>
> Excellent summation, Ed.
>

A keeper indeed.

[Ed Huntress]

And Pavor screwed up his history on this one. The Battle of Baltimore
was a turning point, in which the American fire killed the British
naval commander, and Vice Admiral Cohrane 's landing party was
repulsed at Fort McHenry. THAT's what "The Star-Spangled Banner" was
about, and why we have a National Monument there.

Cochrane turned tail and ran out of the Chesapeake Bay, headed for New
Orleans, where Andy Jackson and a gaggle of backwoods militia killed
385 British Regulars and wounded 1,520, suffering only 55 killed on
the American side, with 185 wounded. It was an utter defeat for the
best army in the world at the hands of that "incompetent" militia.

--
Ed Huntress

[RD Sandman]

Ed Huntress <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in

news:ii9ck8dhqrrh1d8fe...@4ax.com:

But why rub it in? ;)

[JohnJohnsn]

On Mar 17, 5:05 pm, SpamƁusteᴙ <Spam Buste r...@notfor.can> wrote:
>
> "Which part of KEEP IT OUT OF CANADA is unclear?"
>
What part of "Usenet is a world-wide source for topical discussions"
do YOU not understand?

Moreover; WHO appointed you "moderator" of an UNmoderated forum:
can.politics ?

If you have an issue with topicsappearing here you do not like, take
it toe-mail and complain directly to the one who includes can.politics
in the discussion: "Ray Keller" <Lefta...@re.desperate.com>

"What a Maroon, what an Ignoranimus."
--Bugs Bunny

[ConsRcons]

On 3/17/2013 3:30 PM, JohnJohnsn wrote:
> What part of "Usenet is a world-wide source for topical discussions"
> do YOU not understand? Moreover; WHO appointed you "moderator" of an
> UNmoderated forum: can.politics ?

What part of the agreement you signed with your internet provider on the
topic of spam or off-topic postings - did YOU not understand?

Internet Troll

A person whose sole purpose in life is to seek out people to argue with
on the internet over extremely trivial issues. Such arguments can happen
on blogs, Facebook, Myspace and a host of others.
The best thing you can do to fight an internet troll is to not
answer..or report them.

[Lisa Lisa]

On Mar 16, 6:35 pm, RD Sandman <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote:

> Lisa Lisa <harryharr...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:9d850c9e-2dc7-45a3...@c10g2000vbt.googlegroups.com:
>
> > On Mar 16, 3:01 pm, RD Sandman <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > <snip>
>
> >> What problem do you have with, "State militias were manned from a
> >> pool of armed citizenry."?
>
> > None whatsoever.  Generally speaking, healthy males between 17 and 45
> > were required to supply their own arms, which had to be up to state or
> > federal standard.
>

> Nope....just of a type in common use at the time.

>
>   Usually they mustered once a year on the village
>
> > green for drills and target practice in federally-funded state
> > militias that were officered by men chosen by the state governments.
>

> Excuse me but the feds did NOT fund the state militias.

Well, there goes the Constitution, folks. Just crumpled up like an
old grocery list and tossed into the garbage pail....

> In fact, part of
> what the Second Amendment was about was a fear that the feds might fail
> to arm the militias as noted in Article I, section 8.

> Then if the feds
> infringed upon the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms, you ended
> up with state militias which could no longer protect state sovereignty.

Some of the Anti-Federalists did indeed believe that the power to fund
was synonymous with the power to not fund, and the issue about an
overbearing government definitely did come up, but if you look closely
at the Annals you'll find no discussion at all about a private right
to arms.

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=390

Elbridge Gerry pointed that the clause about those scrupulous of
bearing arms could be misused, because authorities could declare
certain people to be conscientious objectors, and then forbid them to
bear arms. He also pointed out that Great Britain had used every
means within their power to prevent the establishment of an effective
militia in Massachusetts. James Jackson thought that any person who
refused to fight should pay a substitute, and that a clause about
securing a substitute should be inserted into the amendment. William
Smith agreed with Jackson. Egbert Benson didn't think conscientious
objectors had the right to determine whether or not they should bear
arms ("it is no natural right"), but that the matter ought to be left
to the Legislature, which would "always possess humanity enough to
indulge this class of citizens in a manner they are so desirous of."

Elbridge Gerry then motioned to include a clause about a militia being
"trained to arms" because he thought that it would ensure that the
Federal government would do so. Aedanus Burke proposed adding a
provision against standing armies to the amendment, but that went
nowhere, and they promptly went into what would later become the Third
Amendment.

> >> > I've read "a lot" of literature from that era about the right to
> >> > bear arms, and 98% of the time neither pro- nor anti-Federalists
> >> > discussed a personal right to arms.
>
> >> It was assumed in those days that most did own arms.  Additionally,
> >> rea
> > d
> >> the Supreme Court decision in US v Miller - 1939.  The following was
> >> paraphrased from there. The actual quote is:
>
> >> "The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the
> >> debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies
> >> and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show
> >> plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically
> >> capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of
> >> citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that
> >> ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear
> >> bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at
> >> the time. "
>
> > I think you're forgetting that Layton and Miller both lost the case
>

> Yes, and one reason that they did was there was no appearance by their
> side in Court.  That means that by default their side was never
> presented.  You wouldn't expect the government to present their side
> would you?

Now that's interesting. They really did have no lawyer; and yes, the
government have a political objective; they wanted tighter gun
control. Nonetheless, the decision still stands. The National
Firearms Act was found not unconstitutional, and the Second Amendment
was no barrier to gun control.

BTW, now that I know that neither man had representation, I think the
case was badly bungled. I completely agree with the verdict, but the
process? Sheeeeshh. BAD MOVE.

You're going to have to overturn a shitload of stare decisis if you
want to reverse Miller. It's incredibly well-settled. But hey, go
for it. I love fireworks.

> > and the National Firearms Act was not found to violate the Second
> > Amendment.
>
> > The court did not think that sawed-off shotguns had any relation to a
> > well-regulated Militia, so I imagine they had to pay a stiff fine or
> > go to jail.
>

> Neither happened.  The Supreme Court reversed the lower court decision
> and remanded the case back to the lower circuit for any follow-up.  None
> occurred.

True.

> > And the National Firearms Act still stands.
>

> There was no attempt by Layton or Miller to eliminate the NFA.

I'm not sure if Layton and Miller had anything beyond a sixth-grade
education, but the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the
Firearms Act, and declared a sawed-off shotgun to have no relation to
well-regulated militias.

> You do
> understand what the case was about, I assume.  It was simply that neither
> Miller nor Layton paid the $200 tax.  They (and the lower court) thought
> it was unconstitutional to be charged the tax.

>
> > Maybe you should actually read the cases you're quoting.
>

> Maybe you should understand it.

I understand that the Second was not a barrier to gun control in the
Miller case. It sounds like you're trying to argue that Miller
supports a private right to arms. I say that you've been smoking that
stuff inside your vacuum.

> >>   The subject came up very, very rarely.
>
> >> > To me that rarity indicates that the personal right was on very few
> >> > people's radar screens.  It just wasn't an important issue.
>
> >> It was an *understood* issue.
>
> > That's what I said.  There was very little concern about personal
> > rights to guns, and the Second does not guarantee that right because
> > the right, very simply, was not even under discussion.
>

> Yes, it was under discussion by the anti federalists who were afraid of
> an overreaching central government.

It was under discussion very occasionally, even by nervous Anti-
federalists. Here and there it came up, but very seldom. The
Pennsylvania minority might have brought it up, and it cropped up a
few other times, but it was not a major concern, even in that crowd.

At any rate, the Anti-federalists LOST. It's a bygone issue.

> > They were addressing the issue of federally-funded, state officered
> > state militias.
>

> No,they weren't.  There were no federally funded state militias.  The
> national militia was addressed in Article I(8)(15 16) not the Second
> Amendment.

No, there were no federally-funded militias before the passage of the
Constitution, because they were all STATE-funded. But that's somewhat
irrelevant, since we've scrapped the Articles of Confederation.

>   Further, it was a very secondary concern, at best.

> > Anyone who doubts me can read the original text for themselves:
>
> >  http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.
> >  db&recNum=390
>
> > Even less is said about the subject in Madison's Notes of the Debates
> > in the Federal Convention.  One gets the impression that the whole
> > issue was somewhat of a bore to the
> > people present.
>
> >> > No one need take my word for it, though.  Just read the link I
> >> > provided. (The Annals of Congress.)  You'll notice that not only
> >> > didn't the Second Amendment protect a personal right, but that it
> >> > was relatively briefly discussed, which meant that the Framers
> >> > didn't consider it all that controversial or important.  And if you
> >> > read James Madison's Notes on the Debates in the Federal
> >> > Convention, you'll notice they give short shrift to militias there
> >> > too.
>
> > Ah, the dirty rotten truth.  No one will look because it contravenes
> > their cherished ideologies.
>

> Are you commenting on your own entries now?  ;)

My commentary on the mindset of the individual rights crowd.

> >> > Modern Americans may be absorbed by militias.  It seems that back
> >> > then, they weren't.
>
> >> It was the only "army" the colonies had.
>
> > Ah, so  the non-existent George Washington commanded a non-existent
> > Continental Army, and the non-existent Baron Von Steuben trained it,
> > both during and after the Revolution.
>
> >> Anyway, your stance is on the wrong side of the Supreme Court and
> >> history.
>
> > US v. Miller affirmed the constitutionality of the National Firearms
> > Act.
>

> I don't argue that they weren't guilty or that the tax was
> unconstitutional.  I look at US v Miller for other stuff that is in it.

What other stuff?

> > Layton and Miller LOST.  They probably went to jail.
>

> Nope.  Miller was found shot to death on the bank of Little Spencer Creek
> about nine miles south of Chelsea, Oklahoma on April 5, 1939.

Right after the decision! Maybe he was emotionally unsettled and got
into trouble.

Or maybe he was just a criminal.

> Layton pleaded guilty to armed robbery and got ten years in McAlester
> prison.  On January 8, 1940, Layton pleaded guilty to the reinstated NFA
> charge and was sentenced to 5 years probation.  He died in 1967.

Wow, you really know about their personal lives. I assumed both were
long dead. Anyhow, what a pair.

> They are both buried at Woodlawn Cemetary in Claremore, Oklahoma.

Have you visited the gravesite and left bouquets of roses?

> Sleep well, tonight.....

I hope to.

> RD (The Sandman

Lisa
>

[M.I.Wakefield]

"ConsRcons" wrote in message news:8Br1t.4779$N52...@newsfe01.iad...

> On 3/17/2013 3:30 PM, JohnJohnsn wrote:
> > What part of "Usenet is a world-wide source for topical discussions"
> > do YOU not understand? Moreover; WHO appointed you "moderator" of an
> > UNmoderated forum: can.politics ?
>
> What part of the agreement you signed with your internet provider on the
> topic of spam or off-topic postings - did YOU not understand?

Feel free to complain to their ISP, but it's not your business to police
can.politics.

[RD Sandman]

Lisa Lisa <harryh...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:7a1162d5-aca8-426a...@h9g2000vbk.googlegroups.com:

>> > I think you're forgetting that Layton and Miller both lost the case
>>
>> Yes, and one reason that they did was there was no appearance by
>> their side in Court.  That means that by default their side was never
>> presented.  You wouldn't expect the government to present their side
>> would you?
>
> Now that's interesting. They really did have no lawyer; and yes, the
> government have a political objective; they wanted tighter gun
> control. Nonetheless, the decision still stands. The National
> Firearms Act was found not unconstitutional, and the Second Amendment
> was no barrier to gun control.

Not quite what was said. The decision was that the tax stamp was
constitutional and that the Second Amendment protected military type
weaponry not the sawed off shotgun. Of course, they were unaware of an
arm known as the Trench Sweeper which was a sawed off pump shotgun.
Well, I guess one reason for that would be that the government side of
things was certainly not going to bring that up.

> BTW, now that I know that neither man had representation, I think the
> case was badly bungled. I completely agree with the verdict, but the
> process? Sheeeeshh. BAD MOVE.
>
> You're going to have to overturn a shitload of stare decisis if you
> want to reverse Miller. It's incredibly well-settled. But hey, go
> for it. I love fireworks.

Why would I wish to overturn Miller? I agree with it. Military type
arms are the ones that SHOULD be the MOST protected. That would include
M16s and M4s which are full auto in addition to shotguns and handguns
like Berretas and 1911s.

>> > and the National Firearms Act was not found to violate the Second
>> > Amendment.
>>
>> > The court did not think that sawed-off shotguns had any relation to
>> > a well-regulated Militia, so I imagine they had to pay a stiff fine
>> > or go to jail.
>>
>> Neither happened.  The Supreme Court reversed the lower court
>> decision and remanded the case back to the lower circuit for any
>> follow-up.  None occurred.
>
> True.
>
>> > And the National Firearms Act still stands.
>>
>> There was no attempt by Layton or Miller to eliminate the NFA.
>
> I'm not sure if Layton and Miller had anything beyond a sixth-grade
> education, but the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the
> Firearms Act, and declared a sawed-off shotgun to have no relation to
> well-regulated militias.

Yep.

>> You do
>> understand what the case was about, I assume.  It was simply that
>> neither
>> Miller nor Layton paid the $200 tax.  They (and the lower court)
>> thought
>> it was unconstitutional to be charged the tax.
>>
>> > Maybe you should actually read the cases you're quoting.
>>
>> Maybe you should understand it.
>
> I understand that the Second was not a barrier to gun control in the
> Miller case.

Millewr wasn't a gun control case. It was a revenue stamp case.

It sounds like you're trying to argue that Miller
> supports a private right to arms. I say that you've been smoking that
> stuff inside your vacuum.

Let me riddle you this. How could a person show up for duty when called
bearing his own weapons of a kind in common use if he couldn't own it per
the Second Amendment? BTW, RKBA and the Second Amendment cover two
different things. RKBA is the actual bearing of arms and it was well
understood in those days. The Second Amendment was about protecting that
right so that an overreaching central government couldn't weaken the
state militias through neglect in arming them via Article I(8)(16).

>> >>   The subject came up very, very rarely.
>>
>> >> > To me that rarity indicates that the personal right was on very
>> >> > few people's radar screens.  It just wasn't an important issue.
>>
>> >> It was an *understood* issue.
>>
>> > That's what I said.  There was very little concern about personal
>> > rights to guns, and the Second does not guarantee that right
>> > because the right, very simply, was not even under discussion.
>>
>> Yes, it was under discussion by the anti federalists who were afraid
>> of an overreaching central government.
>
> It was under discussion very occasionally, even by nervous Anti-
> federalists. Here and there it came up, but very seldom. The
> Pennsylvania minority might have brought it up, and it cropped up a
> few other times, but it was not a major concern, even in that crowd.

Actually, it is the reason the Second Amendment was written.

> At any rate, the Anti-federalists LOST. It's a bygone issue.

No, they didn't. The Constution would not have ratified if not for the
promise to include the Bill of Rights. The federalists agreed with that
and the Constitution was ratified in 1789 and the Bill of Rights in 1791.

>> > They were addressing the issue of federally-funded, state officered
>> > state militias.
>>
>> No,they weren't.  There were no federally funded state militias.  The
>> national militia was addressed in Article I(8)(15 16) not the Second
>> Amendment.
>
> No, there were no federally-funded militias before the passage of the
> Constitution, because they were all STATE-funded.

They remained STATE funded after the ratification of the Constitution.
The only time the central government had responsibility for them was when
the federal government called them to service. Then they came under ArtI
(8)(15 16). Even the duties that they were expected to perform were
different under federal call to service than they were under state call
call to service. They reported to differents chains of command.

But that's somewhat
> irrelevant, since we've scrapped the Articles of Confederation.

The Articles were pretty much scrapped after the rebellions. That is why
there was a Constitutional Convention to produce the replacement.

>>   Further, it was a very secondary concern, at best.
>
>> > Anyone who doubts me can read the original text for themselves:
>>
>> >  http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/ll
> ac001.
>> >  db&recNum=390
>>
>> > Even less is said about the subject in Madison's Notes of the
>> > Debates in the Federal Convention.  One gets the impression that
>> > the whole issue was somewhat of a bore to the
>> > people present.
>>
>> >> > No one need take my word for it, though.  Just read the link I
>> >> > provided. (The Annals of Congress.)  You'll notice that not only
>> >> > didn't the Second Amendment protect a personal right, but that
>> >> > it was relatively briefly discussed, which meant that the
>> >> > Framers didn't consider it all that controversial or important.
>> >> >  And if yo
> u
>> >> > read James Madison's Notes on the Debates in the Federal
>> >> > Convention, you'll notice they give short shrift to militias
>> >> > there too.
>>
>> > Ah, the dirty rotten truth.  No one will look because it
>> > contravenes their cherished ideologies.
>>
>> Are you commenting on your own entries now?  ;)
>
> My commentary on the mindset of the individual rights crowd.

It was backed up by the Supreme Court. I have a lot more trust in them
than I do in your ranting.

>> >> > Modern Americans may be absorbed by militias.  It seems that
>> >> > back then, they weren't.
>>
>> >> It was the only "army" the colonies had.
>>
>> > Ah, so  the non-existent George Washington commanded a non-existent
>> > Continental Army, and the non-existent Baron Von Steuben trained
>> > it, both during and after the Revolution.
>>
>> >> Anyway, your stance is on the wrong side of the Supreme Court and
>> >> history.
>>
>> > US v. Miller affirmed the constitutionality of the National
>> > Firearms Act.
>>
>> I don't argue that they weren't guilty or that the tax was
>> unconstitutional.  I look at US v Miller for other stuff that is in
>> it.
>
> What other stuff?

What should be protected by the Second Amendment....the fact that when
called to duty they were to bring their own firearms which is kinda hard
to do if private ownership isn't protected. The fact that SOME
regulation is fine per the Second Amendment but the right itself is
protected.

>> > Layton and Miller LOST.  They probably went to jail.
>>
>> Nope.  Miller was found shot to death on the bank of Little Spencer
>> Cre
> ek
>> about nine miles south of Chelsea, Oklahoma on April 5, 1939.
>
> Right after the decision! Maybe he was emotionally unsettled and got
> into trouble.
>
> Or maybe he was just a criminal.

He was a two bit thug.....as was Layton. Not exactly poster boys for gun
rights.

>> Layton pleaded guilty to armed robbery and got ten years in McAlester
>> prison.  On January 8, 1940, Layton pleaded guilty to the reinstated
>> NF
> A
>> charge and was sentenced to 5 years probation.  He died in 1967.
>
> Wow, you really know about their personal lives. I assumed both were
> long dead. Anyhow, what a pair.
>
>> They are both buried at Woodlawn Cemetary in Claremore, Oklahoma.
>
> Have you visited the gravesite and left bouquets of roses?

Nope. Why would I? I just read their history.

[ConsRcons]

On 3/17/2013 5:13 PM, M.I.Wakefield wrote:
> Feel free to complain to their ISP, but it's not your business to police
> can.politics.

You feel it's a right for you to spam and troll. I feel it's my right
to return that spam to you or the garbage bin.

Equal 'rights', see?

[Lisa Lisa]

On Mar 16, 7:20 pm, Ed Huntress <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 14:47:12 -0700 (PDT), Lisa Lisa
>
>
>
>
>

> <harryharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Mar 16, 3:01 pm, RD Sandman <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> ><snip>
>
> >> What problem do you have with, "State militias were manned from a pool of
> >> armed citizenry."?
>
> >None whatsoever.  Generally speaking, healthy males between 17 and 45
> >were required to supply their own arms, which had to be up to state or

> >federal standard.  Usually they mustered once a year on the village

> >green for drills and target practice in federally-funded state
> >militias that were officered by men chosen by the state governments.
>

> >> > I've read "a lot" of literature from that era about the right to bear
> >> > arms, and 98% of the time neither pro- nor anti-Federalists discussed
> >> > a personal right to arms.
>
> >> It was assumed in those days that most did own arms.  Additionally, read
> >> the Supreme Court decision in US v Miller - 1939.  The following was
> >> paraphrased from there. The actual quote is:
>
> >> "The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the
> >> debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and
> >> States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly
> >> enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting
> >> in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for
> >> military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for
> >> service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by
> >> themselves and of the kind in common use at the time. "
>

> >I think you're forgetting that Layton and Miller both lost the case

> >and the National Firearms Act was not found to violate the Second
> >Amendment.
>
> >The court did not think that sawed-off shotguns had any relation to a
> >well-regulated Militia, so I imagine they had to pay a stiff fine or

> >go to jail.  And the National Firearms Act still stands.

>
> >Maybe you should actually read the cases you're quoting.
>

> >>   The subject came up very, very rarely.
>
> >> > To me that rarity indicates that the personal right was on very few
> >> > people's radar screens.  It just wasn't an important issue.
>
> >> It was an *understood* issue.
>
> >That's what I said.  There was very little concern about personal
> >rights to guns, and the Second does not guarantee that right because
> >the right, very simply, was not even under discussion.
>

> >They were addressing the issue of federally-funded, state officered

> >state militias.  Further, it was a very secondary concern, at best.

> >Anyone who doubts me can read the original text for themselves:
>

> >http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001...

>
> >Even less is said about the subject in Madison's Notes of the Debates
> >in the Federal Convention.  One gets the impression that the whole
> >issue was somewhat of a bore to the
> >people present.
>
> >> > No one need take my word for it, though.  Just read the link I
> >> > provided. (The Annals of Congress.)  You'll notice that not only
> >> > didn't the Second Amendment protect a personal right, but that it was
> >> > relatively briefly discussed, which meant that the Framers didn't

> >> > consider it all that controversial or important.  And if you read

> >> > James Madison's Notes on the Debates in the Federal Convention, you'll
> >> > notice they give short shrift to militias there too.
>
> >Ah, the dirty rotten truth.  No one will look because it contravenes
> >their cherished ideologies.
>

> >> > Modern Americans may be absorbed by militias.  It seems that back
> >> > then, they weren't.
>
> >> It was the only "army" the colonies had.
>
> >Ah, so  the non-existent George Washington commanded a non-existent
> >Continental Army, and the non-existent Baron Von Steuben trained it,
> >both during and after the Revolution.
>
> >> Anyway, your stance is on the wrong side of the Supreme Court and
> >> history.
>
> >US v. Miller affirmed the constitutionality of the National Firearms

> >Act.  Layton and Miller LOST.  They probably went to jail.  Tee-hee.
>
> >> Sleep well, tonight.....
>
> >Crack a damned book, why don't you.
>

> >> RD (The Sandman
>
> >> Those who can laugh without cause have either
> >> found the true meaning of happiness.....

> >> Or have gone stark raving mad.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >Lisa
>
> Lisa, your history via the authorities generally "approved" by
> textualists and original-intent originalists is quite correct --
> Robert Bork would have approved -- but the Heller case dealt with that
> "boring," and "assumed" thing -- the individual right. As little
> evidence as there is in the records of the First Congress and that of
> the state legislatures that had to ratify it, the courts have had to
> wrestle with that question of whether there was something in the
> *meaning* (rather than the *intent*) of the 2nd Amendment that implied
> or supported an individual right. That's been the issue in question
> for many years.

I'm guessing this is a kerfuffle about the meaning of the word
"people."

> In the Heller case, the Court reached out into the "penumbras" that
> the conservative Justices so often disparage, because they had little
> else. They applied an original-meaning doctrine to the case, calling
> upon the wealth of scholarship that had been compiled since the 1970s
> -- basically a complilation of letters, speeches, and so on, that did
> get involved with the issue of an armed populace, and an individual
> right to bear arms. The evidence is overwhelming that the individual
> right was assumed, that it was rarely questioned, and that some of the
> important contributors to constitutional thinking who didn't actually
> participate in the writing of the Constitution, nor in the First
> Congress and its consideration of the Bill of Rights, such as
> Jefferson, wrote powerful assertions of the right. They were supported
> by actual participants in the writing of the Bill of Rights, including
> Madison, Patrick Henry, and others.

You're naming the losing side. Besides, I don't think any of those
people were usually referring to individuals. They were referring to
state-funded and state-led militias, as mentioned in the Articles.

The thoughts of the Anti-Federalists might be interesting from an
historical viewpoint, but they are pretty much legally irrelevant.
Because they LOST.

> In recent decades, liberal constitutional scholars, including Sanford
> Levinson ("The Embarrassing Second Amendment"), Laurence Tribe, and
> others have concluded that "the right of the people to keep and bear
> arms" did, indeed, apply to individuals. The historical ideas
> surrounding the writing of the Constitution, again, was overwhelming.
> Building upon that, and a 5th Circuit decision (the Emerson case) and
> its documentation in the early part of the last decade, the Court was
> ready to decide the boring, assumed issue.

I studied the Emerson case years ago. It's hazy in my mind, and
somewhere in my bookcase. In any case, wasn't Mr. Emerson deprived of
his arsenal because he was somewhat murderously enraged at his wife?

In the end, the Second didn't help him out, either.

> Pro-gun textualists (and knuckle-dragging ignoranti) hang their hats
> on the independent clause, assuming that "the right of the people..."
> necessarily means the right of individual people. The Court was really
> addressing the question of whether that's literally true. There is
> historical reason to question whether it was to be taken literally or
> as a political gesture to the anti-federalists, but the Court, in
> Heller, decided that it was true. "The right..." really means what it
> says, that there was a right, predating the Constitution, that was
> assumed by the Founders.

I don't think I've read Heller, but I can tell you this much---vague
meanings predating the Constitution do not have the force of law.
Besides, the right to arms wasn't libertarian under the Articles
either, because the militias then were funded by the state
governments.

So hazy, pre-Constitutional meanings are immaterial.

> You know what the intent of the 2nd Amendment was -- it was a response
> to fears by the anti-federalists, expressed in anti-federalist paper
> #28, that the federal government would find an excuse within the
> Constitution itself to disarm the state militias.
> But don't project
> those militia provisions upon the idea behind the states' militias, or
> the armed, "unorganized" militia that was the whole body of the
> people. Those militias were NOT to be under federal control unless
> they were called up by the federal government. Until then, they were a
> state matter.

Well, I'm not at all sure what you're saying. Yes, militias were
state-funded under the Articles, and federally-funded under the
Constitution. The unorganized militia argument has never stood up in
a court of law. We'd be in real trouble if it did. It would mean
that the Crips and the Bloods could declare themselves militias and
place themselves outside the law.

> And one more thing that's important to understanding this whole issue:
> At the time the BofR was written, the assumption was that it was
> almost exclusively a set of prohibitions against the federal
> governments, but not the states. (See Barron v. Baltimore and the
> sate-established religions of the early 19th century.) If ever there
> was a substantive Amendment in the Bill of Rights -- in other words,
> other than the 9th and 10th -- that begs for a states' rights reading,
> and against incorporation, it is the 2nd. So the McDonald case, and
> incorporation, is very arguable.

I am not familiar with the McDonald case. I had thought that the BoR
applies to the states through the 14th, and has for quite a while, or
at least for the last sixty or seventy years.

> But not Heller. It may have been assumed by the Founders, and even a
> non-issue to them: boring. But it is not boring today. It is the
> central issue regarding guns and individual rights. And Heller got it
> right -- by loosening up and looking outside the "accepted
> authorities," reaching a little bit into the realm of "penumbras," and
> by using a combination of common sense and history to reach a decision
> that comports with the understanding at the time of the founding.

I don't agree. I think foggy, pre-Constitutional meanings of the word
"people" have absolutely no force in a court of law. Moreover, the
judges in the Heller case are not historians, and might very well be
cherry-picking statements that seem to support their political biases.

The Annals of Congress are crystal-clear. The framers were not
talking about an individual right, and that's all that matters.


> Ed Huntress-

Lisa

[M.I.Wakefield]

"ConsRcons" wrote in message news:Mmt1t.93234$I12....@newsfe16.iad...

Odd how messages about non-Canadian politics are on-topic when you make
them, but off-topic when others do.

[ConsRcons]

On 3/17/2013 5:59 PM, M.I.Wakefield wrote:
> Odd how messages about non-Canadian politics are on-topic when you make
> them, but off-topic when others do.

They stay in Canada. No cross-border shopping for American idiot
posters. Unlike you.

[RD Sandman]

Lisa Lisa <harryh...@yahoo.com> wrote in

news:d5493f3f-eed9-4047...@bs5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:

He didn't win his argument but the case did declare that the Second
Amendment was about an individual right to keep and bear arms. The Ninth
Circuit disagreed with that and that set up two circuits courts
disagreeing with each other which most thought would lead to the case
being heard by the Supreme Court. Such was not to be, though, as the
Supremes failed to grant certiorari to the case which denied review.

>> Pro-gun textualists (and knuckle-dragging ignoranti) hang their hats
>> on the independent clause, assuming that "the right of the people..."
>> necessarily means the right of individual people. The Court was
>> really addressing the question of whether that's literally true.
>> There is historical reason to question whether it was to be taken
>> literally or as a political gesture to the anti-federalists, but the
>> Court, in Heller, decided that it was true. "The right..." really
>> means what it says, that there was a right, predating the
>> Constitution, that was assumed by the Founders.
>
> I don't think I've read Heller,

You should. Both Heller (2008) and McDonald (2010). Heller affirmed
that the RKBA was, indeed, an individual right but their decision only
applied to the District of Columbia which was federal land. McDonald
incorporated that right under the Second Amendment as to also apply to
the states.

but I can tell you this much---vague
> meanings predating the Constitution do not have the force of law.
> Besides, the right to arms wasn't libertarian under the Articles
> either, because the militias then were funded by the state
> governments.

They still were under the Constitution although both the state and the
feds were on the hook. The feds increased their share under the 1903
Militia Act (Dick Act).

"The increase in Federal funding was an important development. In 1808
Congress had allocated $200,000 a year to arm the militia; by 1887, the
figure had risen to only $400,000. But in 1906, three years after the
passage of the Dick Act, $2,000,000 was allocated to arm the militia;
between 1903 and 1916, the Federal government spent $53,000,000 on the
Guard, more than the total of the previous hundred years."

Wiki - Dick Act.

> So hazy, pre-Constitutional meanings are immaterial.
>
>> You know what the intent of the 2nd Amendment was -- it was a
>> response to fears by the anti-federalists, expressed in
>> anti-federalist paper #28, that the federal government would find an
>> excuse within the Constitution itself to disarm the state militias.
>> But don't project
>> those militia provisions upon the idea behind the states' militias,
>> or the armed, "unorganized" militia that was the whole body of the
>> people. Those militias were NOT to be under federal control unless
>> they were called up by the federal government. Until then, they were
>> a state matter.
>
> Well, I'm not at all sure what you're saying. Yes, militias were
> state-funded under the Articles, and federally-funded under the
> Constitution.

Nope. It was a shared funding.

The unorganized militia argument has never stood up in
> a court of law. We'd be in real trouble if it did. It would mean
> that the Crips and the Bloods could declare themselves militias and
> place themselves outside the law.

No, it wouldn't. The state militias all report to some high office
within their state....usually the governor, lieutenant governor or in
some states an adjutant general. That keeps those dudes who stick
branches in their hats and go drink beer and shit in the woods from
calling themselves the militia and having it mean anything. They don't
report to the dude at the local Dairy Queen.

>> And one more thing that's important to understanding this whole
>> issue: At the time the BofR was written, the assumption was that it
>> was almost exclusively a set of prohibitions against the federal
>> governments, but not the states. (See Barron v. Baltimore and the
>> sate-established religions of the early 19th century.) If ever there
>> was a substantive Amendment in the Bill of Rights -- in other words,
>> other than the 9th and 10th -- that begs for a states' rights
>> reading, and against incorporation, it is the 2nd. So the McDonald
>> case, and incorporation, is very arguable.
>
> I am not familiar with the McDonald case. I had thought that the BoR
> applies to the states through the 14th, and has for quite a while, or
> at least for the last sixty or seventy years.

Nope. It has been adjudicated as to apply to the states in a case by
case manner starting in 1925. I had a listing of what clause was
incorporated when but I had a computer crash sometime ago and that
compilation was lost. I have it on paper but not in the computer. I
will have to re-keywhack it one of these days. Meanwhile it is available
in The Evolving Constitution, edited by Lieberman. Your local library
may have it.

>> But not Heller. It may have been assumed by the Founders, and even a
>> non-issue to them: boring. But it is not boring today. It is the
>> central issue regarding guns and individual rights. And Heller got it
>> right -- by loosening up and looking outside the "accepted
>> authorities," reaching a little bit into the realm of "penumbras,"
>> and by using a combination of common sense and history to reach a
>> decision that comports with the understanding at the time of the
>> founding.
>
> I don't agree. I think foggy, pre-Constitutional meanings of the word
> "people" have absolutely no force in a court of law. Moreover, the
> judges in the Heller case are not historians, and might very well be
> cherry-picking statements that seem to support their political biases.

Perhaps you should read Heller and McDonald before you pass judgement on
what's in them.

> The Annals of Congress are crystal-clear. The framers were not
> talking about an individual right, and that's all that matters.

You lose. You lose by Emerson, Heller and McDonald. As noted, read them
before you attempt to criticize what's in them.....otherwise you simply
sound like a liberal. ;)


--
Sleep well, tonight.....

[Gray Guest]

Pavor Nocturnus <random_...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:3ac2db59-c85e-
47e1-bc5e-f...@v8g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:

> On Mar 17, 5:09�ｿｽam, Pavor Nocturnus <random_chao...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 17, 5:06�ｿｽam, Pavor Nocturnus <random_chao...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Mar 16, 2:30�ｿｽpm, "Rob Clinton" <robclin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > In article <iEE0t.97572$JX7.84...@fed06.iad>
>>
>> > > "Stormin Mormon" <cayoung61***scambl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > Same as whites owning guns for the purpose of committing crimes
aga
> inst
>> > > > negros.
>>
>> > > White don't generally commit many crimes against negroes.

>> > > Negroes have no money and no brains. �ｿｽWhat would be the point?

>>
>> > > > Christopher A. Young
>> > > > Learn more about Jesus

>> > > > �ｿｽwww.lds.org

>> > > > .
>>
>> > > > "Rob Clinton" <robclin...@gmail.com> wrote in message

>> > > >news:12e660974f21092ba255954d1bbbfa32

@msgid.frell.theremailer.net...
>>
>> > > > > > Thank you for proving my point..
>>

>> > > > > Ha ha ha! �ｿｽI disproved your "point", of course.

>>
>> > > > What's your position on negroes owning guns for the purpose of
>> > > > committing crimes against whites?
>>

>> > Guns! �ｿｽUSA! �ｿｽBLAH BLAH!

>>
>> > When are you going to rise up and fight Obama?
>>
>> Or do you know what "walk the walk or talk the talk" means?
>>

>> All I hear is shit from shit heads. �ｿｽ No gumption.

>
> "I'm gonna open fire on 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue!"
>
>
> That's the ticket.
> Go for it!!!
>

Hmmm. That sounds like a threat. Forwarded to the Secret Service.

--
Refusenik #1

Libs suffer from Eleutherophobia. And there is no cure.

Obama called the SEALs and THEY got bin Laden. When the SEALs called Obama,
THEY GOT DENIED. Fuck Obama

[Gunner]

On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 16:50:28 -0700 (PDT), Lisa Lisa
<harryh...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>
>> Are you commenting on your own entries now?  ;)
>
>My commentary on the mindset of the individual rights crowd.

So you disagree with SCOTUS?

Hummm?

[Gunner]

On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 17:44:29 -0700 (PDT), Lisa Lisa
<harryh...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>The Annals of Congress are crystal-clear. The framers were not
>talking about an individual right, and that's all that matters.

Odd that the SCOTUS disagrees with you isnt it?

Opinions like yours and dirty skivies....they both stink.