Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Obama: I'm not going to 'take everyone's guns away'

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    If you take it in the context of the time (1790ish) then the militia is all able bodied adult males in a particular town or whatever that can be turned out to defend it or for short term military duty.

    By the Civil War, they would be called "Volunteers." These are units that are raised by the state or even wealthy individuals, sometimes equipped at private expense, other times furnishing their own arms and uniforms, and raised for a set period of time with possibly restrictions on their use.

    Britain's Home Guard, or the German Volkssturm in WW 2 are other examples of Militia.

    The way the founders meant it was men turned out under a local leader for local military service on a part time basis. The men would supply their own arms and ammunition, might have uniforms or distinguishing clothing, furnished at their expense, and they would have limited or no formal military training in many case.
    Well finally someone who can read and comprehend english and doesn't reinvent history

    After you understand what it says I'm afraid it gets you no closer to practical regulations however.

    Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., writing for the majority, said "the right to self-defense protected by the Second Amendment was fundamental to the American conception of ordered liberty. Like other provisions of the Bill of Rights setting out such fundamental protections, it must be applied to limit not only federal power but also that of state and local governments."

    Where do they get this right to self defense out of the Second Amendment? One could imagine that ordered liberty could be arrived at by a number of processes other than an armed citizenry. In fact it could be argued that in certain cases such as 19th century cow towns an armed citizenry proved exceptional disorderly and the local law enforcement violated the right to bear arms vigorously. Don't get me wrong I'm not opposed to arming yourself for self defense nor the courts upholding that right I just don't think it is part of the second amendment. The second amendment clearly saw the need for private ownership to prevent militias being disarmed so the point I'm making is only philosophical to a point but the same open interpretation leads to other unwarranted regulations.

    Scalia writes that “dangerous and unusual weapons” are not protected by the Second Amendment. So are militias not allowed to have "dangerous" weapons? I think they want to have their cake and eat it to.

    I could go along with the historical context for self defence being part of the english common law tradition and including it but the ban on assault rifles is clearly not in keeping with militia traditions.


    I think the important points are still not covered. A militia needs military grade weapons and well regulated is not defined?
    We hunt the hunters

    Comment


    • #32
      It should be noted that when the Bill of Rights were ratified that the private individuals that could afford them owned cannons. In addition, in those days, when Gay meant carefree and happy, well regulated meant being experienced in the handling of. Militia also meant a home guard of volunteers, not the National Guard of today.

      Those that insist that the Constitution and its Bill of Rights are a document that can be molded and shaped to fit the changing times would render it ineffective as the law of the land. This current regime, along with Democrats, spineless Republicans, and a majority of Supreme Court Judges, are attempting to do just that.
      “Breaking News,”

      “Something irrelevant in your life just happened and now we are going to blow it all out of proportion for days to keep you distracted from what's really going on.”

      Comment


      • #33
        Yes Soetoro I believe you...

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by SRV Ron View Post
          It should be noted that when the Bill of Rights were ratified that the private individuals that could afford them owned cannons. In addition, in those days, when Gay meant carefree and happy, well regulated meant being experienced in the handling of. Militia also meant a home guard of volunteers, not the National Guard of today.

          Those that insist that the Constitution and its Bill of Rights are a document that can be molded and shaped to fit the changing times would render it ineffective as the law of the land. This current regime, along with Democrats, spineless Republicans, and a majority of Supreme Court Judges, are attempting to do just that.
          The problem with your point is that most pro-gun people would agree with bans on civilians being able to own artillery, MANPADs, or nuclear weapons - all arms possessed by the government as well.

          We as a nation all decided that we would modify the constitution and interpret it as we see fit. No major party believes in a strict, literal and absolute interpretation of the constitution and its rights across the board.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
            Well finally someone who can read and comprehend english and doesn't reinvent history

            After you understand what it says I'm afraid it gets you no closer to practical regulations however.

            Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., writing for the majority, said "the right to self-defense protected by the Second Amendment was fundamental to the American conception of ordered liberty. Like other provisions of the Bill of Rights setting out such fundamental protections, it must be applied to limit not only federal power but also that of state and local governments."

            Where do they get this right to self defense out of the Second Amendment?
            America had just overthrown an occupying military power, and set up an ironclad provision to prevent a similar occurrence.

            It also is noteworthy that America at the time of the Constitution was a mostly lawless expanse peopled by hostile natives and often far from any established law and order. Literally no European civilization existed west of the Thirteen Colonies.

            Being armed was not a "right", it was a necessity, and it still is.
            Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post

              We as a nation all decided that we would modify the constitution and interpret it as we see fit. No major party believes in a strict, literal and absolute interpretation of the constitution and its rights across the board.
              No, we didn't. The government decided that. There has never been a national vote on modifying the Constitution.

              Meanwhile, the Constitution clearly says what it means and means exactly what it says. It does not require "interpretation, which is merely a political ploy to avoid adhering to it, and a means of keeping vast numbers of otherwise useless lawyers employed at our expense.

              After all, if the nation is free to "interpret" the laws and basis for those laws, then most of us would chose to "interpret" the 16th Amendment in such a way as to not require us to pay income taxes to anybody.

              Ask yourself this - do Christians get to "interpret" the Ten Commandments"
              Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

              Comment


              • #37
                A guy with a knife started running around stabbing people in a California University Campus just now. Yes, a gun-free zone.
                He got 5 victims before was stopped by a guy with a gun.
                Last edited by The Exorcist; 04 Nov 15, 13:21.
                "Why is the Rum gone?"

                -Captain Jack

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                  No, we didn't. The government decided that. There has never been a national vote on modifying the Constitution.
                  By voting in the people who have done so for generations without attempting to change it, we collectively have given our tacit consent.

                  And most people are pretty happy with limitations on the constitution that aren't enumerated directly. After all, few people argue that it is a constitutional right that they should be able to purchase rocket launchers from 7-11 just like picking up a bag of crisps.

                  Ask yourself this - do Christians get to "interpret" the Ten Commandments"
                  Yes, and fairly often.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by The Exorcist View Post
                    A guy with a knife started running around stabbing people in a California University Campus. Yes, a gun-free zone.
                    He got 5 victims before was stopped by a guy with a gun.
                    They should all carry Louiseville Sluggers to comply with the rules. Against a guy with a knife, I'll take a ball bat any day of the week. It never jams, never runs out of ammo and it's far more gratifying when I connect.
                    Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by The Exorcist View Post
                      A guy with a knife started running around stabbing people in a California University Campus just now. Yes, a gun-free zone.
                      He got 5 victims before was stopped by a guy with a gun.
                      Was the guy with the gun arrested for having it in a "gun free zone" and then sued by the knife wielding nutter for having threatened him?
                      I wouldn't put money against that given it's in Cali...

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Actually, Obama's statement is absolutely true. He isn't going to take guns away from everyone, just us law abiding citizens. The criminals, his favorite illegals, the gang bangers and all the cartel killers Holder armed up will still have theirs.

                        And, of course, all of the armed Secret Service agents needed to keep him alive.


                        Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by The Exorcist View Post
                          A guy with a knife started running around stabbing people in a California University Campus just now. Yes, a gun-free zone.
                          He got 5 victims before was stopped by a guy with a gun.
                          Knowing California, the next part should read; "....and the gunner was put under arrest for possession."

                          Yeah, Buddy!

                          GG
                          "The will of a section rooted in self interest, should not outweigh the vital interests of a whole people." -Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain-

                          "Fanatics of any sort are dangerous." -GG-

                          Comment

                          Latest Topics

                          Collapse

                          Working...
                          X