The State of Florida vs George Zimmerman: The Trial

@Advocate,

Advocate wrote:

oralloy wrote:
There are no militiamen today.

So what? They come and go.

So "your claim that the Second Amendment is limited to militiamen" is logically invalid.

You can't limit a right so that it only applies to nonexistent people.

0 Replies

@Advocate,

Advocate wrote:

The amendment doesn't cover nonmilitiamen.

That is incorrect. You can't limit a right so that it only applies to non-existent people.

If you want to limit a right so that it only applies to militiamen, you need to have some militiamen.

0 Replies

@Advocate,

Advocate wrote:

It is of no moment whether or not there are militiamen today.

It is if you want to limit the right to apply only to militiamen.

You cannot limit a right so that it only applies to non-existent people.

1 Reply

@Advocate,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

oralloy wrote:

Advocate wrote:
Try reading the second amendment.

I already know it by heart.

Advocate wrote:
Maybe you can tell us where it is wrong.

Probably not.

Advocate wrote:
Are you saying there were no militiamen when the amendment was made?

No. I am saying there are no militiamen today.

It is obvious that Article I Section 8 contemplates militiamen of selected militia,
i.e., government-financed n equipped militia,
as distinct from well-regulated militia, private militia,
mentioned in 2A as being the beneficiary of a citizen's right to KABA.
It is possible that there might exist private militia in America.

Arguably, the mutineers aboard United Airlines Flight 93 on 9/11/1
had organized themselves into a de facto well-regulated militia
(i.e., non-government militia) before thay took the plane back from the Moslems.

Arguably, the merchants who armed themselves in defense from
the L.A. race riots were also de facto well-regulated militia,
as were the Mormon militia of the 18OOs, the critical factor being
that government have no hand in controlling those militia,
whose primary function was to prevent government from running away
with the country as was later done in Russia & Germany.

Advocate wrote:

There is no conceivable valid argument that terrorists
can constitute a militia.

I sincerely disagree, Advocate.
For instance, before the nazis took over,
their S.A. was a huge militia
and a good argument can be made that thay were bullies or "terrorists".
There have been and are several Moslem militia in Afganistan who are terroristic.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Advocate wrote:

It is of no moment whether or not there are militiamen today.

oralloy wrote:

It is if you want to limit the right to apply only to militiamen.

You cannot limit a right so that it only applies to non-existent people.

With all respect to the Advocate,
he has very, very badly distorted the historical meaning of the 2A,
which was accurately explained by the majority of the USSC in HELLER.
I don t have the energy to get into it. The decision was historically correct.

The Advocate simply gave vent to his wishes and his fantasies (no offense),
which are un-related to the decisions of the Authors of the Bill of Rights.

0 Replies

The Heller decision belies the explicit wording of 2A.

I might mention that the National Guard units in the various states constitute militias within the meaning of 2A.

2 Replies

@Advocate,

Advocate wrote:

The Heller decision belies the explicit wording of 2A.

I suspect that u actually believe
what u posted. Before we had HELLER, I asked several
professional grammarians, English professors (including liberals),
to analyze the 2 A, all of whom disagreed with u, and supported
the libertarian result that the USSC subsequently adopted from its own
adopted grammatical experts (which co-incides with known, applicable history).

By the way, read HELLER ` together with United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990)
as to who the people are who are protected by the 2nd Amendment,
if u SINCERELY wanna understand the point.

Advocate wrote:

I might mention that the National Guard units
in the various states constitute militias within the meaning of 2A.

The USSC has explicitly held
that the National Guard is NOT the "well regulated militia" of 2 A.

0 Replies

@Advocate,

Advocate wrote:

I might mention that the National Guard units in the various states constitute militias within the meaning of 2A.

The Framers very clearly intended the militia to be completely distinct from the standing army.

The National Guard is an active part of the standing army.

The Framers limited the role of the militia to: enforcing the law, repelling invasion, and suppressing insurrection.

The National Guard, as part of the standing army, goes far beyond those limited roles.

The Framers put the states in charge of selecting the militia's officers.

I confess to being ignorant as to how National Guard officers are selected. However, I will be surprised if they are chosen by state governments.

Militiamen have the right to purchase their own military weapons, and to keep those weapons at home.

I've never seen guardsmen being allowed to buy their own machine guns and anti-aircraft missiles, and take them home.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

We must distinguish between the selected militia of Article I Section 8
and the private militia of the 2A.

In theory, thay coud be brought into military conflict with one another
(like the 2 police forces of NYC in 1857).

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

oralloy wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Care to reveal how u differ
from Justice Scalia ?

He focuses exclusively on civilian self defense.
That part of the right is certainly important, but I would like it better if he also addressed:
a) the right of militia members to keep military weapons at home, and
b) the requirement that the government have an armed militia for people to join if they so desire.

U know that Mr. Heller only
litigated his right to keep pistols in his apartment.
That was a strategic decision, based upon the observed
incrementalist history of the labor movement. Anything else comes later.

Yes, but Justice Scalia's wording did not even acknowledge the prospect of heavier weapons for serving militiamen.

To follow his theory of the Second Amendment, militiamen are only allowed to fight using weapons suited for civilian self defense.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

We must distinguish between the selected militia of Article I Section 8
and the private militia of the 2A.
In theory, thay coud be brought into military conflict with one another
(like the 2 police forces of NYC in 1857).

I use slightly different terminology. My use of "militia" is what you are calling "select militia". What you are calling "private militia" I would call "the people".

But anyway, the Second Amendment protects more than just the right of the people to carry weapons suitable for self defense. It also protects the right of the selected militia to have heavier weapons (machine guns, grenades, anti-tank missiles, anti-aircraft missiles, etc).

Like most (all?) rights, there are many facets. That is the essence of where I differ from Justice Scalia. He acknowledges only the single facet of civilian self defense.

That is certainly the most practically useful for people. But I dream of a day when people are able to join a state militia and then keep Stinger Missiles in their homes.

0 Replies

That's all we need. Someone like oralloy sitting on his couch and watching "Survivor" and idly fiddling with his Stinger missile, and hitting the wrong switch. With any luck, it'll be pointed at him when he does. If it were anyone but oralloy, I'd assume he was being facetios. With him, not so sure about that.

2 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

That's all we need. Someone like oralloy sitting on his couch and watching "Survivor" and idly fiddling with his Stinger missile, and hitting the wrong switch. With any luck, it'll be pointed at him when he does. If it were anyone but oralloy, I'd assume he was being facetios. With him, not so sure about that.

Why would you think I'd stoop to watching a show like Survivor?

Why would you think I'd be so unsafe around a weapon?

No, I was not being facetious. A serving member of an active state militia would very much have the Constitutional right to purchase their own machine guns, grenades/grenade launchers, bazookas, Stinger missiles, etc). And they would have the right to keep their arsenal in their own home.

Did you think militiamen were supposed to be unarmed or something?

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

Stinger missiles only fire when they have a lock on a heat source such as an engine. I'm guessing if he was in your vicinity and happened to point the weapon in your direction, it could get a lock on all the hot air that comes out of your mouth. Wink

Have I ever mentioned how funny it is to hear people, who are anti-gun, talk about guns or weapons? It reminds me of the following saying:

Quote:

Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:
oralloy wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Care to reveal how u differ
from Justice Scalia ?

He focuses exclusively on civilian self defense.
That part of the right is certainly important, but I would like it better if he also addressed:
a) the right of militia members to keep military weapons at home, and
b) the requirement that the government have an armed militia for people to join if they so desire.

U know that Mr. Heller only
litigated his right to keep pistols in his apartment.
That was a strategic decision, based upon the observed
incrementalist history of the labor movement. Anything else comes later.

Yes, but Justice Scalia's wording did not even acknowledge
the prospect of heavier weapons for serving militiamen.

To follow his theory of the Second Amendment, militiamen are only
allowed to fight using weapons suited for civilian self defense.

As I recall, in dicta, he left the door open
to future litigation of M-16 possession "and the like".
He raised his voice in dicta favorably commenting on
the value of militia equipment at some point.
I digested the decision in some depth, but my records
were lost in a fire. I have not yet re-constructed them.

Vaguely, I seem to remember battle tanks being mentioned
somewhere in HELLER; maybe a quote.

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

Baldimo wrote:

Stinger missiles only fire when they have a lock on a heat source such as an engine. I'm guessing if he was in your vicinity and happened to point the weapon in your direction, it could get a lock on all the hot air that comes out of your mouth.

Have I ever mentioned how funny it is to hear people, who are anti-gun, talk about guns or weapons? It reminds me of the following saying:

Quote:
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.

I get a kick out of people like you who get arrested on some gun law and have their lives ruined.

3 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

As I recall, in dicta, he left the door open
to future litigation of M-16 possession "and the like".
He raised his voice in dicta favorably commenting on
the value of militia equipment at some point.
I digested the decision in some depth, but my records
were lost in a fire. I have not yet re-constructed them.
Vaguely, I seem to remember battle tanks being mentioned
somewhere in HELLER; maybe a quote.

I hope the fire wasn't a huge disaster.

Justice Scalia did leave the exact boundary for what was allowable a bit vague, but he made it so that the only weapons covered are what is suitable for the general populace. He did not leave any path for a state militia to have heavier military weapons.

1 Reply

@Advocate,

Advocate wrote:

Baldimo wrote:
Stinger missiles only fire when they have a lock on a heat source such as an engine. I'm guessing if he was in your vicinity and happened to point the weapon in your direction, it could get a lock on all the hot air that comes out of your mouth.

Have I ever mentioned how funny it is to hear people, who are anti-gun, talk about guns or weapons? It reminds me of the following saying:

Quote:
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.

I get a kick out of people like you who get arrested on some gun law and have their lives ruined.

That's not very nice.

Remember, the person who disagrees with you on one topic may be your closest ally on a different topic.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:
As I recall, in dicta, he left the door open
to future litigation of M-16 possession "and the like".
He raised his voice in dicta favorably commenting on
the value of militia equipment at some point.
I digested the decision in some depth, but my records
were lost in a fire. I have not yet re-constructed them.
Vaguely, I seem to remember battle tanks being mentioned
somewhere in HELLER; maybe a quote.

I hope the fire wasn't a huge disaster.

Justice Scalia did leave the exact boundary for what was allowable a bit vague, but he made it so that the only weapons covered are what is suitable for the general populace. He did not leave any path for a state militia to have heavier military weapons.

He said this (I'm pretty sure that u 've already seen it, but ANYWAY):
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in
military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may 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 ’s 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.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful
against modern-day bombers and tanks

I do not know an expert sniper with a high power rifle could make people on an airbase very unhappy or truck drivers moving armor on the highway systems just to start with.

1 Reply

The State of Florida vs George Zimmerman: The Trial

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know