Guns and the Supreme Court

edgarblythe wrote:

oralloy wrote:
edgarblythe wrote:
Which to me fulfills the criterion.

You are mistaken. The Constitutional criteria for the militia limit it to serving only within US borders. The National Guard serves outside US borders.

The Second Amendment says militiamen can keep their weapons at home. National Guardsmen are not allowed to take their M-16s home.

I'm not totally mistaken. As circumstances shift, so does adherance to matters of the Constitution, which is the way it was planned from the beginnng.

No, circumstances do not justify not adhering to the Constitution. And it was not planned that way.

The way it was planned from the beginning (and still is now), is that the only way to avoid adhering to a part of the Constitution, is by amending the Constitution to change the part you don't like.

0 Replies

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Common Sense and The Law (should) go hand in hand.

"You can have shotguns and rifles to protect your home and family.
Our statute doesn't outlaw all firearms."

OK, that's somewhat reasonable.
I can just as easily (and probably more easily) fend off an attacker in my home
with a shotgun or rifles than with a hand gun.
But wait, if you do rely on a shotgun or rifle for protection,
the same DC statute requires you to install a trigger lock on the weapon
or keep it disassembled.

In either instance, the weapon will be of little to no value
in actually protecting yourself and your family.

It sure is GENEROUS of the suppressionists
to allow us to defend ourselves or our families in our homes.

It occurrs to me that we and our families shud be equally able
to defend our lives from the violence of man or beast out in public places.

It is NOT feasible to carry a shotgun nor a rifle around with u all the time.
I cud not do it.
HANDGUNS are necessary for that purpose.

As a practical matter: for defense in the street, its handguns or nothing.

David

0 Replies

oralloy wrote:

edgarblythe wrote:
oralloy wrote:
edgarblythe wrote:
Which to me fulfills the criterion.

You are mistaken. The Constitutional criteria for the militia limit it to serving only within US borders. The National Guard serves outside US borders.

The Second Amendment says militiamen can keep their weapons at home. National Guardsmen are not allowed to take their M-16s home.

I'm not totally mistaken. As circumstances shift, so does adherance to matters of the Constitution, which is the way it was planned from the beginnng.

No, circumstances do not justify not adhering to the Constitution. And it was not planned that way.

The way it was planned from the beginning (and still is now), is that the only way to avoid adhering to a part of the Constitution, is by amending the Constitution to change the part you don't like.

It was planned the Constitution would be an evolving, not stationary, force.

0 Replies

edgarblythe wrote:

oralloy wrote:
edgarblythe wrote:
oralloy wrote:
edgarblythe wrote:
Which to me fulfills the criterion.

You are mistaken. The Constitutional criteria for the militia limit it to serving only within US borders. The National Guard serves outside US borders.

The Second Amendment says militiamen can keep their weapons at home. National Guardsmen are not allowed to take their M-16s home.

I'm not totally mistaken. As circumstances shift, so does adherance to matters of the Constitution, which is the way it was planned from the beginnng.

No, circumstances do not justify not adhering to the Constitution. And it was not planned that way.

The way it was planned from the beginning (and still is now), is that the only way to avoid adhering to a part of the Constitution, is by amending the Constitution to change the part you don't like.

It was planned the Constitution would be an evolving, not stationary, force.

It was planned that the Constitution would evolve by the amendment process only, and be otherwise stationary.

0 Replies

oralloy wrote:

edgarblythe wrote:
oralloy wrote:
edgarblythe wrote:
Which to me fulfills the criterion.

You are mistaken. The Constitutional criteria for the militia limit it to serving only within US borders. The National Guard serves outside US borders.

The Second Amendment says militiamen can keep their weapons at home. National Guardsmen are not allowed to take their M-16s home.

I'm not totally mistaken. As circumstances shift, so does adherance to matters of the Constitution, which is the way it was planned from the beginnng.

No, circumstances do not justify not adhering to the Constitution. And it was not planned that way.

The way it was planned from the beginning (and still is now),
is that the only way to avoid adhering to a part of the Constitution,
is by amending the Constitution to change the part you don't like.

Yes.
Were it otherwise,
a constituion wud be of very brief duration.

The first time an ambitious demagogue cud find any flimsy excuse,
he 'd overthrow that constitution, after some impassioned oratory,
and assurances that the constituion was only suspended on a TEMPORARY basis.

As I remember, the legislation that invested Hitler with unlimited power
after the Reichstag fire, was only to deal with THAT emergency.

It must have been a LONG emergency,
seeing as how it lasted until the end of the 1000 Year Reich.

David

0 Replies

edgarblythe wrote:

oralloy wrote:
edgarblythe wrote:
oralloy wrote:
edgarblythe wrote:
Which to me fulfills the criterion.

You are mistaken. The Constitutional criteria for the militia limit it to serving only within US borders. The National Guard serves outside US borders.

The Second Amendment says militiamen can keep their weapons at home. National Guardsmen are not allowed to take their M-16s home.

I'm not totally mistaken. As circumstances shift, so does adherance to matters of the Constitution, which is the way it was planned from the beginnng.

No, circumstances do not justify not adhering to the Constitution. And it was not planned that way.

The way it was planned from the beginning (and still is now), is that the only way to avoid adhering to a part of the Constitution, is by amending the Constitution to change the part you don't like.

It was planned the Constitution would be an evolving, not stationary, force.

What evidence has drawn u to that conclusion, Edgar ?

David

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

H2O....I own very similar HDW.

Pistol (Glock 23)
Shotgun (Mossburg 500)
Rifle (Bushmaster AR15)

All 3 I feel are required for ultimate protection for a variety of emergency situations (burglery, katrina-like event, or worse).

Excellent !!

Prepare for the worst and hope you never have to take the shot.

0 Replies

oralloy wrote:

edgarblythe wrote:
oralloy wrote:
edgarblythe wrote:
oralloy wrote:
edgarblythe wrote:
Which to me fulfills the criterion.

You are mistaken. The Constitutional criteria for the militia limit it to serving only within US borders. The National Guard serves outside US borders.

The Second Amendment says militiamen can keep their weapons at home. National Guardsmen are not allowed to take their M-16s home.

I'm not totally mistaken. As circumstances shift, so does adherance to matters of the Constitution, which is the way it was planned from the beginnng.

No, circumstances do not justify not adhering to the Constitution. And it was not planned that way.

The way it was planned from the beginning (and still is now), is that the only way to avoid adhering to a part of the Constitution, is by amending the Constitution to change the part you don't like.

It was planned the Constitution would be an evolving, not stationary, force.

It was planned that the Constitution would evolve by the amendment process only,
and be otherwise stationary.

That 's right.

U r not supposed to be able to change the Constitution
simply by lying about it.

David

0 Replies

Plenty of gun-porn pictures here.

I used to like looking at magazines with pictures of guns, slingshots, crossbows, and knives when I was about 10 or 12 years old.

Then I grew up.

0 Replies

oralloy wrote:

edgarblythe wrote:
Today, state militias already have the weapons. They only need bodies.

Not quite. Today there are no state militias
(and the states violate our rights by not having them).

Not exactly.

If James Madison had intended those militia
to be state government militia
( such as referred to in Article I Section 8 )
he 'd NOT have chosen the words of art " well regulated militia "
which were the DIAMETRICAL OPPOSITE of such militia.

In the parlance of the times,
and of earlier centuries, he 'd have called them " selected militia. "

His choice of language indicated his intention
( adopted by Congress ) that the private citizens who were armed,
can continue to organize themselves freely into units of militia
( in vu of the fact that there were NO POLICE
and there was strength in numbers which was needed, occasionally ).

Witness the fact that nowhere is there any reference to
a " well regulated Navy," nor a " well regulated Treasury Dept. "
nor a " well regulated Senate " nor to ANY other entity of government.

" Well regulated militia " meant private militia, but properly self disciplined,
not boisterous, and drilled well enuf to be effective in battle.

David

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

Plenty of gun-porn pictures here.

I used to like looking at magazines with pictures of guns, slingshots,
crossbows, and knives when I was about 10 or 12 years old.

Then I grew up.

When I was 8 years old,
I was unarmed, and a little nervous when I was alone
( just a touch uneasy ), tho I lived in a neighborhood
of Arizona in which I never knew of the perpetration of ANY crime.
The police never arrived with lights and sirens.

I was so fortunate as to win a .38 revolver in a poker game
with some other kids. Carrying it, I had more serenity;
better peace of mind. I carried it for years.
Then I grew up, and upgraded to a .44 revolver,
for superior stopping power.
Both have 2 inch barrels, so as not to be obtrusive.

I 'd like to get a good digital camera
to take pictures of my gun collection; maybe 8 megapixel.
I don 't know much about photography.

David

0 Replies

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:
My own taste goes to a .44 revolver
loaded with .44 special hollowpointed slugs,
to optimize energy dump into the target.
David

Something that takes no real skill to kill and offers me the best chance of blowing away an intruder.

I'm thinking a shotgun

Off topic to the discussion, but a shotgun would not be a good choice as the sole weapon of household defense. A revolver with a barrel no longer than 4" that fits your hand is about ideal. Not sure what's offered in .44 special, but that or 38 special would be a good choice. They require much less skill at defensive ranges than you may have been led to believe.

I happen to favor autos, but that's not my recommendation.

0 Replies

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Constitution is many things to many people. Undoubtedly, it is the frame work for the Government of the United States of America, defining the three branches and clearing delineating the powers of the branches. It also undoubtedly grants certain power to the federal government and grants others to the states; and it undoubtedly guarantees the basic rights of the people.

The Constitution is short; it cannot and does not attempt to cover every eventuality. Even when it seems it is clear, there can be conflicting rights, conflicting spheres of power. When disputes arise, it comes time for people, and most importantly judges of the Judicial Branch, to interpret the Constitution. The concept of constitutional interpretation is foreign in some countries, where the constitution makes a reasonable effort to cover every eventuality. These constitutions are generally rigid and little changing, adapting slowly to advances in political views, popular opinion, technology, and changes in government. The U.S. Constitution, however, has been termed a Living Constitution, in part because it grows and adapts to internal and external pressures, changing from one era and generation to the next.

When a new situation arises, or even a new variation on an old situation, the Constitution is often looked to for guidance. It is at this point that the various interpretations of the Constitution come into play.

There is no one right way to interpret the Constitution, and people often do not always stick to one interpretation. Below, then, are the major divisions in interpretation; your own personal beliefs may fall into several of these categories.

Note: the major sources for material for this section were "Constitutional Law: Cases and Commentary" by Daniel Hall, and "On Reading the Constitution" by Lawrence Tribe and Michael Dorf.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_intr.html

0 Replies

roger wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
My own taste goes to a .44 revolver
loaded with .44 special hollowpointed slugs,
to optimize energy dump into the target.
David

Something that takes no real skill to kill and offers me the best chance of blowing away an intruder.

I'm thinking a shotgun

Off topic to the discussion, but a shotgun would not be a good choice as the sole weapon
of household defense. A revolver with a barrel no longer than 4" that fits your hand
is about ideal. Not sure what's offered in .44 special, but that or 38 special
would be a good choice. They require much less skill at defensive ranges
than you may have been led to believe.

I happen to favor autos, but that's not my recommendation.

I 've had too much jamming with automatics,
except for my 1940 Luger P-'08.
Jamming in a fire fight can get very embarrassing.

I used to carry a .38 special,
but I later became aware of problems of stopping power.

For example, some police chased a derelict into an alley.
He turned on them, broke a bottle and charged at one of the officers.

The officer emptied out his .38 cylinder into the chest of the derelict,
who perished from his wounds, but not before thrusting the broken bottle
into the throat of the officer, who failed to survive the adventure.

The .38 did NOT break the bum 's charge.

( I bet that misanthrope did not even have a license for that bottle. )

I remember my mother advising me, at an early age:
" wise is he who learns from his mistakes,
but WISER is he who learns from the mistakes of others. "

David

0 Replies

OmSigDAVID wrote:

For example, some police chased a derelict into an alley.
He turned on them, broke a bottle and charged at one of the officers.

The officer emptied out his .38 cylinder into the chest of the derelict,
who perished from his wounds, but not before thrusting the broken bottle
into the throat of the officer, who failed to survive the adventure.

The .38 did NOT break the bum 's charge.

I wouldn't point a finger the weapon in that scenario.
The LEO could have just stepped out of the way of the charging perp and yelled ¡Ole! as he passed.
Maybe his partner could have pulled him out of the way.

That said, I prefer my hand gun be a semi-automatic .45 APC.

0 Replies

edgarblythe wrote:

There is no one right way to interpret the Constitution, and people often do not always stick to one interpretation.

True, but there are reasonable limits on that. You can't just interpret that the Constitution means the exact opposite of what it says.

It is hardly legitimate to interpret "limitations on the militia that prevent overseas service" as "allowing overseas service", or to interpret "requirements that militiamen be allowed to keep their weapons at home" as "allowing them to be prevented from taking their weapons home".

Someone could say they interpret Freedom of Religion so that it only applies to Catholic bishops too. But that would be no more legitimate than the suggested misinterpretations of the militia clauses.

0 Replies

edgarblythe wrote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Constitution is many things to many people. Undoubtedly, it is the frame work for the Government of the United States of America, defining the three branches and clearing delineating the powers of the branches. It also undoubtedly grants certain power to the federal government and grants others to the states; and it undoubtedly guarantees the basic rights of the people.

The Constitution is short; it cannot and does not attempt to cover every eventuality. Even when it seems it is clear, there can be conflicting rights, conflicting spheres of power. When disputes arise, it comes time for people, and most importantly judges of the Judicial Branch, to interpret the Constitution. The concept of constitutional interpretation is foreign in some countries, where the constitution makes a reasonable effort to cover every eventuality. These constitutions are generally rigid and little changing, adapting slowly to advances in political views, popular opinion, technology, and changes in government. The U.S. Constitution, however,
has been termed a Living Constitution,
in part because it grows and adapts to
internal and external pressures,
changing from one era and generation to the next.
When a new situation arises,
or even a new variation on an old situation, the Constitution is often looked to for guidance.
It is at this point that the various interpretations of the Constitution come into play.

There is no one right way to interpret the Constitution,
and people often do not always stick to one interpretation.

This artifice is contrived to rationalize CHEATING on the social and political contract.
If u accept the philosophy of deception, it might be used against u by another cheater
who refuses to abide by the clear language of the Constitution.
Cheating can go off in many different directions,
some of which u do not like.

In effect, this reddened doctrine throws out and repudiates
the entire Constitution and supplants it with a council
of what Plato called " philosopher kings " of unlimited jurisdiction,
like the Faros of Egypt, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot and Saddam,
all of whom claimed to act in the name of the people.

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

I used to like looking at magazines with pictures of guns, slingshots, crossbows, and knives when I was about 10 or 12 years old.

Then I grew up.

Your comment does not support your statement.

0 Replies

H2O_MAN wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

For example, some police chased a derelict into an alley.
He turned on them, broke a bottle and charged at one of the officers.

The officer emptied out his .38 cylinder into the chest of the derelict,
who perished from his wounds, but not before thrusting the broken bottle
into the throat of the officer, who failed to survive the adventure.

The .38 did NOT break the bum 's charge.

I wouldn't point a finger the weapon in that scenario.
The LEO could have just stepped out of the way of the charging perp
and yelled ¡Ole! as he passed.
Maybe his partner could have pulled him out of the way.

There were earlier instances of this phenomenon;
c.1900, during the Philippine Insurrection,
on multiple occassions, some doped up Moros
charged at American troops who were armed with .38 revolvers.
Same story: thay did not do the job.
Thay did not break the charges of the Moros,
who were vanquished by the said .38s,
but not before thay chopped up our troops, with their machetes.

Some of the older troops remembered using .45s
and brought them back into service,
which WERE competent in breaking the charges,
doped up Moros not withstanding.

Q.E.D.: .44s and .45s can do what .38s can 't.
Perhaps improvements in projectile technology can change this.
I 've heard that 80% of persons who are shot with handguns survive their wounds.
How to bring that statistic down ?
The answer might be found in microfrangible slugs that will supercavitate
and shred the target from within. I saw that on TV, the Military Channel.
Maybe that 's on the horizon for personal defensive ordnance.

Quote:

That said, I prefer my hand gun be a semi-automatic .45 APC.

Tho its not my choice,
many, many very respectable aficionados of defensive personal ordnance LOVE IT.

David

0 Replies

If I was wrong by very much, there would be no efforts by liberals and conservatives to pack the Supreme Court, as they do, as there would then be no point.

0 Replies

Guns and the Supreme Court

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know