Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 May, 2008 06:06 am
Given that the court remanded because: "We are unable to accept the conclusion of the court below and the challenged judgment must be reversed."--it is difficult to understand how you claim the Court could have found a conflict between the NFA and the second amendment. I think this is a clear example of your penchant for making statements from authority when in fact your "authority" is little more than wishful thinking. It would be nothing short of ridiculous to suggest that the Court should anticipate all possible objections to a piece of legislation when they reverse a lower court ruling which challenges it. That's not how the Court works, and in many, many cases in which they have considered a piece of legislation to be untenable in constitutional terms, they have so noted even when ruling that a lower court had made a finding on an inadequate basis.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 May, 2008 06:13 am
oralloy wrote:
Setanta wrote:
There is nothing in the text of the constitution or in the rulings of the Supremes to suggest that the Federal government is in any way inhibited from regulating what arms they keep and bear, as long as some type of arm is allowed. If the government were to restrict firearms ownership to single-shot, bolt-action rifles, there is nothing in the constitution or in case law to this date to prevent that.


Gotta disagree there. The core of the Second Amendment is related to upholding the viability of the militia. Single-shot rifles would not be much benefit to the militia. They might serve as snipers rifles, but would be totally inadequate as a basic infantry weapon.

Also, the right to carry an adequate self-defense weapon might not be in the Second Amendment, but it is somewhere in the Constitution (the Ninth Amendment would cover it if nothing else did). A single-shot rifle wouldn't be an adequate weapon to carry around for self-defense because its rate of fire would be too low.


You may disagree to your heart's content, it will the change the fact that nothing in the text of the amendment would prevent such legislation.

As for your personal preferences with regard to infantry weapons, you are ignoring something which i pointed out earlier, which is the implications of the Dick Act, with which the National Guard was organized on a nation-wide standard. In the Dick Act, those who do not participate in the regularly organized militia (i.e., the National Guard) are considered to be "unorganized" militia. Apart from the hilarious implications of attempting to rely upon a bunch of untrained, not uniformly equipped and unregimented pack of yahoos with a bewildering array of different weapons requiring different munitions to " . . . execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions," your remarks assume that the nation continues to need every citizen armed while not participating in a well-regulated militia to secure its security.

Even you won't see, reasonable people can see why i would not be inclined to agree that that end will be achieved by relying upon what the Dick Act refers to as the "unorganized" militia.

When the Chicoms come for ya, do you think you can stop 'em with yer Smith and Wesson? You certainly provide entertaining material, at any event.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 May, 2008 08:04 am
Setanta wrote:
oralloy wrote:
Setanta wrote:
There is nothing in the text of the constitution or in the rulings of the Supremes to suggest that the Federal government is in any way inhibited from regulating what arms they keep and bear, as long as some type of arm is allowed. If the government were to restrict firearms ownership to single-shot, bolt-action rifles, there is nothing in the constitution or in case law to this date to prevent that.


Gotta disagree there. The core of the Second Amendment is related to upholding the viability of the militia. Single-shot rifles would not be much benefit to the militia. They might serve as snipers rifles, but would be totally inadequate as a basic infantry weapon.

Also, the right to carry an adequate self-defense weapon might not be in the Second Amendment, but it is somewhere in the Constitution (the Ninth Amendment would cover it if nothing else did). A single-shot rifle wouldn't be an adequate weapon to carry around for self-defense because its rate of fire would be too low.


You may disagree to your heart's content, it will the change the fact that nothing in the text of the amendment would prevent such legislation.


That's not a fact. The Second Amendment would definitely prohibit such legislation.



Setanta wrote:
As for your personal preferences with regard to infantry weapons, you are ignoring something which i pointed out earlier, which is the implications of the Dick Act, with which the National Guard was organized on a nation-wide standard. In the Dick Act, those who do not participate in the regularly organized militia (i.e., the National Guard) are considered to be "unorganized" militia. Apart from the hilarious implications of attempting to rely upon a bunch of untrained, not uniformly equipped and unregimented pack of yahoos with a bewildering array of different weapons requiring different munitions to " . . . execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions,"


It is the Second Amendment's preference for infantry weapons, not mine.

The National Guard is not the militia so far as the Constitution is concerned. First, the Constitution limits the role of the militia to repelling invasion, suppressing insurrection, and enforcing the law. The National Guard does things the militia isn't allowed to do (like invade Iraq). Second, the National Guard doesn't let guardsmen take their M-16s home with them. The Second Amendment says that militiamen get to keep their weapons in their own possession.

My point about infantry weapons does not mean a bewildering array of different weapons. The government is free to establish standards for what specific weapons qualify for militia use. They just aren't allowed to keep modern infantry weapons off that list of approved weapons.



Setanta wrote:
your remarks assume that the nation continues to need every citizen armed while not participating in a well-regulated militia to secure its security.


No such assumption. It doesn't matter whether the nation needs it. So long as the Constitution has not been amended to change it, people have the right to have such arms.



Setanta wrote:
Even you won't see, reasonable people can see why i would not be inclined to agree that that end will be achieved by relying upon what the Dick Act refers to as the "unorganized" militia.

When the Chicoms come for ya, do you think you can stop 'em with yer Smith and Wesson? You certainly provide entertaining material, at any event.


Not sure what a Chicom is (I'm getting an image of hostile female invaders from Mars in a grade B Sci-Fi movie), but I don't think Smith and Wesson makes modern infantry weapons.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 May, 2008 08:22 am
Nothing in the second amendment would prohibit Congress from defining the arms of the militia as single-shot, bolt action rifles. That is a fact, whether or not you wish to acknowledge it. This is a prime example of you speaking as though from authority when you are actually voicing your preference or opinion as opposed to fact.

Your point about infantry weapons was an attempt to insist upon a pragmatic basis for the right to keep and bear arms. That's fair enough, but to do so while ignoring that the "well-regulated" militia of the past has been organized into the national guard, and that the strident agitators for gun rights who are not members of military organizations constitute the "unorganized" militia refered to in the Dick Act is either naive or self-delusive. From a practical stand point, citizens with guns, but without military training and military organization, contribute nothing to the security of free state.

You write: "So long as the Constitution has not been amended to change it, people have the right to have such arms." "Such arms?" Such arms as what? The constitution does not specify what such arms are, and the decision in Miller makes it clear that the Supreme Court recognizes Congress' right to arm the militia, and at second hand through legislation. Your argument takes on more and more the character of someone sticking their fingers in their ears and saying: "La-la-la-la, i can't hear you." The Constitution does not specify what arms people can keep and bear; the Constitution does give to Congress the power to provide for arming the militia, which can reasonably be fulfilled through legislation. The Dick Act represents a constitutionally valid regulation of the militia on the part of the Congress, and if Congress were to determine that single-shot, bolt action rifles were sufficient for the "unorganized" militia which is the residue of the available manpower after the organization of the National Guard, there is nothing in the Constitution which prohibits it.

To refer to my earlier example, if Congress were to ban hand guns outright, your feeble argument about what constitutes reasonable arms for infantrymen would not pan out in that example either.

You continue to assert that the second amendments allows things and prohibits things which it patently does not based upon the mere text, and which are not upheld by the decisions of the Supremes.

Chicom is a term that was promulgated in the 1950s by paranoid reactionaries, and refers to the Chinese communists.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 May, 2008 03:32 pm
Hanno, I think it is quite a leap to liken Clinton's alleged (unproven) theft of furniture from the White House to McCain's cooperation with the massive theft by crooked S & L's, whose deposits were backed by the USA. Although you brushed it off, McCain was very involved in the matter, and only avoided very severe sanctions because the Senate Ethics Committee was controlled by his fellow Reps.

You mentioned that you wouldn't mind seeing Fed Ex taking over the mail. Guess what, a first-class stamp would be $1.50 and many unprofitable addresses (e.g., rural) would not get service.
0 Replies
 
hanno
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 May, 2008 04:23 pm
I would never liken an act of miscreancy by that bottom-feeding space-harpy to an act of counter-social self-determination by a fightin' man. That's the point, moral ambiguity, only the magnitude and directionality matter.

Also I didn't say Fed Ex should take over, I just said they shouldn't be prohibited from using the boxes if the owners or people shooting stuff to them will it. Either way, do you think if it costs FedEx $1.50 to send a letter it doesn't either cost USPS that much plus complacency or that they've got too much capitol tied up just to be making sure everyone gets those Publishers-Clearing-House things? The rural people, nature of the beast, costs a fortune to live in Alaska so I could see charging for distance, if it's feasible to calculate distance up front, blah blah blah. Nobody would miss out - feel the consequences of their actions relative to shipping costs, god forbid but they might as well, transportation hurts the environment. Just like AOL can't tell you, much as they'd like to, whose server you can hit - call it a consumer-protection thing, you can't put out a sign that says 'Dentist' if your not a DDS, you can't call yourself a shipping company if you can't get stuff to Juno. The overall network might end up being big and clumsy like power-lines or airports, if so let the G, local or state preferably, maintain/censure it and charge/subsidize providers an equitable manner. Government ownership/exclusivity? What's there to gain? At worst I'd rather someone who couldn't call in federal charges have a monopoly.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 May, 2008 06:12 am
Setanta wrote:
Nothing in the second amendment would prohibit Congress from defining the arms of the militia as single-shot, bolt action rifles. That is a fact, whether or not you wish to acknowledge it.


The core purpose of the Second Amendment is to prevent the government from abusing its power to arm the militia to instead disarm the militia.

I can't think of a more blatant violation of that core purpose than a statute limiting the militia to using weapons that were already obsolete a hundred years ago.



Setanta wrote:
Your point about infantry weapons was an attempt to insist upon a pragmatic basis for the right to keep and bear arms. That's fair enough, but to do so while ignoring that the "well-regulated" militia of the past has been organized into the national guard, and that the strident agitators for gun rights who are not members of military organizations constitute the "unorganized" militia refered to in the Dick Act is either naive or self-delusive.


The National Guard can't be the militia referred to in the Constitution. The Constitution limits the militia to repelling invasion, suppressing insurrection, and enforcing the law. The National Guard does things that the militia is not allowed to do (like help invade Iraq).

And the Second Amendment says militiamen have the right to keep their weapons. Guardsmen have to leave their weapons in a government arsenal.



Setanta wrote:
From a practical stand point, citizens with guns, but without military training and military organization, contribute nothing to the security of free state.


I've nothing against the government requiring that people be part of an organized militia in order to exercise their right to have militia weapons (in fact, I'd actively support them doing so). But if the government declines to have such a militia, that doesn't make the right simply vanish.



Setanta wrote:
You write: "So long as the Constitution has not been amended to change it, people have the right to have such arms." "Such arms?" Such arms as what?


Such arms as would be used by a modern-day militia. Automatic rifles for instance.



Setanta wrote:
The constitution does not specify what such arms are, and the decision in Miller makes it clear that the Supreme Court recognizes Congress' right to arm the militia, and at second hand through legislation.


Miller also makes it clear that arms of a sort that are useful to a militia are the sort that people have the right to have.



Setanta wrote:
The Constitution does not specify what arms people can keep and bear; the Constitution does give to Congress the power to provide for arming the militia, which can reasonably be fulfilled through legislation. The Dick Act represents a constitutionally valid regulation of the militia on the part of the Congress,


The National Guard does things that the militia is prohibited from doing, and it does not let Guardsmen take their militia weapons home with them.



Setanta wrote:
To refer to my earlier example, if Congress were to ban hand guns outright, your feeble argument about what constitutes reasonable arms for infantrymen would not pan out in that example either.


I don't argue that the Second Amendment protects handguns.

If handguns were banned though, people would still have the right to carry guns for self-defense. They would have to be allowed to carry rifles or shotguns around in public (and ones that were suitable for self-defense).
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 May, 2008 06:52 am
McCain To Speak At La Raza Convention
Presidential nominee rubs shoulders with group that advocates calls to overthrow Southwestern U.S. http://infowars.net/articles/may2008/070508McCain.htm
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 May, 2008 09:11 am
oralloy wrote:
Setanta wrote:
Nothing in the second amendment would prohibit Congress from defining the arms of the militia as single-shot, bolt action rifles. That is a fact, whether or not you wish to acknowledge it.


The core purpose of the Second Amendment is to prevent the government from abusing its power to arm the militia to instead disarm the militia.

I can't think of a more blatant violation of that core purpose than a statute limiting the militia to using weapons that were already obsolete a hundred years ago.


Once again, you offer your opinion as though it were established fact. A great many scholars see the second amendment as assuring that people can participate in the militia without regard to social condition, without regard to class. Cf. Blackstone's commentaries, where he writes:

The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. (emphasis added)

The point of the second amendment is to assure that no one is restricted in the right to keep and bear arms based upon their "condition or degree."

Quote:
Setanta wrote:
Your point about infantry weapons was an attempt to insist upon a pragmatic basis for the right to keep and bear arms. That's fair enough, but to do so while ignoring that the "well-regulated" militia of the past has been organized into the national guard, and that the strident agitators for gun rights who are not members of military organizations constitute the "unorganized" militia refered to in the Dick Act is either naive or self-delusive.


The National Guard can't be the militia referred to in the Constitution. The Constitution limits the militia to repelling invasion, suppressing insurrection, and enforcing the law. The National Guard does things that the militia is not allowed to do (like help invade Iraq).

And the Second Amendment says militiamen have the right to keep their weapons. Guardsmen have to leave their weapons in a government arsenal.


In that case, i suggest that you file a class action suit to repeal the Dick Act. Your sense of melodrama, however, is unimpaired--the Constitution does not restrict the militia to repelling invasion, suppressing insurrection and enforcing the law--it simply grants to the Congress the power to call out the militia for those purposes.

Quote:
Setanta wrote:
From a practical stand point, citizens with guns, but without military training and military organization, contribute nothing to the security of free state.


I've nothing against the government requiring that people be part of an organized militia in order to exercise their right to have militia weapons (in fact, I'd actively support them doing so). But if the government declines to have such a militia, that doesn't make the right simply vanish.


I haven't said the right has vanished, i am simply pointing out that a bunch of heavily armed yahoos who are not regularly organized and for whom no degree of reliable training can be alleged can hardly be considered to contribute to the security of a free state. If anything, the odds are that they are threat to the security of a free state. See my reference to Blackstone for the purpose of the amendment, and the comment of the Supremes in Miller, when they state that the amendment can only be interpreted in the light of the powers granted Congress in Article One, Section Eight. That section grants to Congress the power to prescribe the training of the militia, and requires the states to train the militia as prescribed by congress. Individuals asserting the right to keep and bear arms, but who are not trained or organized under the laws of Congress do not contribute anything to the security of a free state.

Quote:
Setanta wrote:
You write: "So long as the Constitution has not been amended to change it, people have the right to have such arms." "Such arms?" Such arms as what?


Such arms as would be used by a modern-day militia. Automatic rifles for instance.


As i've already pointed out, the Dick Act provides for a "modern-day militia" in the form of the National Guard, and makes a distinction between that and the "unorganized militia." I am gratified that Congress, in its occasional wisdom, keeps automatic rifles out of the hands of those members of the public who are not also members of regular military establishments.

Quote:
Setanta wrote:
The constitution does not specify what such arms are, and the decision in Miller makes it clear that the Supreme Court recognizes Congress' right to arm the militia, and at second hand through legislation.


Miller also makes it clear that arms of a sort that are useful to a militia are the sort that people have the right to have.


Yes, within the context of a well-regulated militia, and you consistently side-step the issue that what the Dick Act refers to as the "unorganized militia" cannot reasonably be considered to be well-regulated.

Quote:
Setanta wrote:
The Constitution does not specify what arms people can keep and bear; the Constitution does give to Congress the power to provide for arming the militia, which can reasonably be fulfilled through legislation. The Dick Act represents a constitutionally valid regulation of the militia on the part of the Congress,


The National Guard does things that the militia is prohibited from doing, and it does not let Guardsmen take their militia weapons home with them.


Once again, you make things up as you go along. The Constitution does not prohibit the militia from doing the things which the National Guard does. That the Constitution enumerates circumstances in which Congress may call out the militia is not evidence that the Constitution prohibits the use of the militia for any other purpose.

Quote:
Setanta wrote:
To refer to my earlier example, if Congress were to ban hand guns outright, your feeble argument about what constitutes reasonable arms for infantrymen would not pan out in that example either.


I don't argue that the Second Amendment protects handguns.

If handguns were banned though, people would still have the right to carry guns for self-defense. They would have to be allowed to carry rifles or shotguns around in public (and ones that were suitable for self-defense).


There is absolutely no part of the Constitution which acknowledges or even refers to citizens having the right to keep arms for their self-defense. Once again, you attempt to make a statement from authority out of your personal predilections.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 May, 2008 12:05 pm
Bush goes to bat for McCain by putting the fix in at the FEC.


McCain critic loses role at FEC
By Stephanie Kirchgaessner in Washington

Published: May 7 2008 20:04 | Last updated: May 7 2008 20:04

The Bush administration has sidelined a federal official who raised legal questions about whether John McCain, Republican senator, could raise private funds in his presidential bid.

The White House late on Tuesday nominated Donald McGahn, who once served as an attorney for former majority leader Tom DeLay, to replace David Mason, a fellow Republican, as the chairman of the Federal Election Commission.

Mason raised hackles in some Republican circles early this year when, in response to a query by Mr McCain's campaign, he questioned the legality of a decision by the campaign to withdraw from the public financing system during the Republican primary.

The move to replace Mr Mason drew scrutiny from Democrats and public advocates who yesterday accused the administration of throwing Mr Mason "under a bus" in order to protect the presumptive Republican nominee for the White House.

"President Bush's dumping of Mason can only be viewed as a bald-faced and brazen attempt to wrongly manipulate an important enforcement decision by the nation's campaign finance enforcement agency," said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, a non-profit group that tracks money in politics.

Ken Gross, an attorney at Skadden Arps in Washington, said Mr Mason, having ruffled feathers over issues involving Mr McCain's presidential funding, had become a "victim" of the political machinations between the White House and Democrats in the Senate. The White House said it would not comment on how personnel decisions were made but that the president "appreciated" Mr Mason's service.

The nomination was part of an effort by the White House to end a congressional impasse that has brought the campaign finance watchdog to a standstill. Since December the FEC, a six-member bipartisan agency, has lacked a quorum that would allow it to issue advisory opinions on campaign finance issues or to initiate investigations into candidates who may be violating campaign finance rules.

The congressional stand-off is centred on the stalled nomination of the Republican Hans von Spakovsky, a former attorney at the Department of Justice's civil rights division, whose nomination Democrats have vowed to reject.

Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican minority leader, said the White House had accommodated a request by Democratic majority leader Harry Reid by offering enough nominees for a full slate at the FEC.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 May, 2008 01:28 pm
McCain brags about avoiding earmarking legislation. I wonder how he will explain this.

McCain pushed land swap said to have helped backer

(Reuters) - Republican presidential hopeful John McCain pushed to let an Arizona rancher trade remote land for federally owned acres ready for development, a swap that stands to enrich a top campaign fund-raiser, the Washington Post said on Friday.

Initially reluctant to support the swap, the senator from Arizona became instrumental in pushing the deal through Congress after rancher Fred Ruskin and the Yavapai Ranch Limited Partnership hired lobbyists that included key McCain supporters, the paper said.

They included his 1992 Senate campaign manager, two of his former Senate staff members -- one of whom has returned as his chief of staff -- and an Arizona insider who was a major McCain donor and is now bundling campaign checks, the paper said.

When the legislation passed in November 2005, Ruskin gave the job of building as many as 12,000 homes to SunCor Development, a firm in Tempe, Arizona, run by Steven Betts, a longtime McCain supporter who has raised more than $100,000 for the presumptive Republican nominee, the Post said. Betts said he and McCain never discussed the deal, it added.

A spokesman for the McCain campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The Audubon Society described the exchange as the largest in Arizona history, the Post said. It said it involved more than 55,000 acres of land, including rare expanses of desert woodland and pronghorn antelope habitat.

The deal triggered an outcry from some Arizona environmentalists when it was proposed in 2002, partly because it went through Congress rather than a process that allowed more citizen input, the paper said.

Although the bill called for the two parcels to be of equal value, a federal forestry official told a congressional committee he was concerned "the public would not receive fair value" for its land. A formal appraisal has not yet begun.

A town official opposed to the swap said other Yavapai Ranch land sold nine years ago for about $2,000 per acre, while some of the prime commercial land near a parcel the developers will receive has brought as much as $120,000 per acre, the Post reported.
0 Replies
 
hanno
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 May, 2008 03:37 pm
So I watched the O'Reilly interview - pretty awesome. it's the first time I've seen him speak much conversationally. I remember McCain being around in '00 and '04, but politics was a sore spot for me those years, never touched a gun in my life and there I was minding my own business, getting told what to do about it by someone who bought her kid a 30-06 for Christmas,like I was the one that put her husband in adult-diapers and a wheelchair. Didn't really pick back up on him till he threw his hat in the ring on Letterman; what a relief, at the time I'd resigned myself to being passed back and forth between the populist parties like a dime store hooker and to the next administration being an extended brow-beating from someone who doesn't pump they's own gas. Anyway, haven't seen him talk much, but as it turns out I'm impressed - cool, soft spoken, deliberate, measured pace - real slick, none of that exaggerated, grabby emotion like Hilly. I could swear I picked up on a bit of introspective sadness as well...

Anyway, the big thing they hit on in the first segment was the border, and I'm diggin it. I've often said I'm in favor of the American Mexican, not in the sense of Mexicans of American origin if such a thing exists, but in the sense of temporary workers possibly seeking naturalization. I mean, I'm down with anyone who wants to join the winning team, I think it'll help us keep up with inflation, and fill the industrial positions that seem to be out of style with my generation, not to mention that it's who we are, our birthright since Rome in a sense. The only problem, the only reason we feel the need to pick and choose our fellow human beings, like chasing them around the desert, coining the term 'beaner', is because we're running the joint like a country club - we want welfare for ourselves, but we don't want to share, or have folk doing without in our presence - how very ugly of us. I mean, when it was my grandparents they didn't like blacks because they were competing for crappy jobs - the only thing that's changed is it ain't jobs anymore, it's handouts we're getting uptight about. The Senator, however, seems to share my equitable and beneficent vision, secure the borders first, gain control, then clean up the temporary worker system with cutting edge technology. Take care of the citzens, treat everyone else like human beings, reap the rewards, I love it, it's like electing myself president if I could handle a jet...
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 May, 2008 02:06 pm
Setanta wrote:
oralloy wrote:
Setanta wrote:
Nothing in the second amendment would prohibit Congress from defining the arms of the militia as single-shot, bolt action rifles. That is a fact, whether or not you wish to acknowledge it.


The core purpose of the Second Amendment is to prevent the government from abusing its power to arm the militia to instead disarm the militia.

I can't think of a more blatant violation of that core purpose than a statute limiting the militia to using weapons that were already obsolete a hundred years ago.


Once again, you offer your opinion as though it were established fact. A great many scholars see the second amendment as assuring that people can participate in the militia without regard to social condition, without regard to class.


I've never heard any say that. Can you cite some?



Setanta wrote:
Cf. Blackstone's commentaries, where he writes:

The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. (emphasis added)

The point of the second amendment is to assure that no one is restricted in the right to keep and bear arms based upon their "condition or degree."


The Second Amendment was derived from the proposals of the Virginia Ratifying Convention:

    "Seventeenth, That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the Community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the Civil power." http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/const/ratva.htm


The Virginia Ratifying Convention did not express any concerns over class distinctions in the militia, but made quite a large fuss over the government abusing its power to arm the militia by instead disarming it:

An excerpt of one of Patrick Henry's arguments at the convention:

    "of what service would militia be to you, when, most probably, you will not have a single musket in the state? for, as arms are to be provided by Congress, they may or may not furnish them. Let me here call your attention to that part which gives the Congress power "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States--reserving to the states, respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress." By this, sir, you see that their control over our last and best defence is unlimited. If they neglect or refuse to discipline or arm our militia, they will be useless: the states can do neither--this power being exclusively given to Congress. The power of appointing officers over men not disciplined or armed is ridiculous; so that this pretended little remains of power left to the states may, at the pleasure of Congress, be rendered nugatory." http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_16s10.html




Setanta wrote:
oralloy wrote:
Setanta wrote:
Your point about infantry weapons was an attempt to insist upon a pragmatic basis for the right to keep and bear arms. That's fair enough, but to do so while ignoring that the "well-regulated" militia of the past has been organized into the national guard, and that the strident agitators for gun rights who are not members of military organizations constitute the "unorganized" militia refered to in the Dick Act is either naive or self-delusive.


The National Guard can't be the militia referred to in the Constitution. The Constitution limits the militia to repelling invasion, suppressing insurrection, and enforcing the law. The National Guard does things that the militia is not allowed to do (like help invade Iraq).

And the Second Amendment says militiamen have the right to keep their weapons. Guardsmen have to leave their weapons in a government arsenal.


In that case, i suggest that you file a class action suit to repeal the Dick Act.


Nice idea. I could probably achieve standing if I attempted to join the National Guard, but refused to take the oath swearing me into the Army.

But I don't really feel like paying the legal fees of pursuing a court case all the way to the Supreme Court.



Setanta wrote:
Your sense of melodrama, however, is unimpaired--the Constitution does not restrict the militia to repelling invasion, suppressing insurrection and enforcing the law--it simply grants to the Congress the power to call out the militia for those purposes.


On the contrary, the federal government is prohibited from doing anything the Constitution does not give it the express power to do. That is what the Tenth Amendment is all about.

(That also makes most federal gun control unconstitutional even without the Second Amendment.)



Setanta wrote:
oralloy wrote:
Setanta wrote:
From a practical stand point, citizens with guns, but without military training and military organization, contribute nothing to the security of free state.


I've nothing against the government requiring that people be part of an organized militia in order to exercise their right to have militia weapons (in fact, I'd actively support them doing so). But if the government declines to have such a militia, that doesn't make the right simply vanish.


I haven't said the right has vanished, i am simply pointing out that a bunch of heavily armed yahoos who are not regularly organized and for whom no degree of reliable training can be alleged can hardly be considered to contribute to the security of a free state. If anything, the odds are that they are threat to the security of a free state. See my reference to Blackstone for the purpose of the amendment, and the comment of the Supremes in Miller, when they state that the amendment can only be interpreted in the light of the powers granted Congress in Article One, Section Eight.


What they said was that the Second Amendment was intended to "assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness" of the militia. And it could only be interpreted in light of that goal.



Setanta wrote:
oralloy wrote:
Setanta wrote:
The constitution does not specify what such arms are, and the decision in Miller makes it clear that the Supreme Court recognizes Congress' right to arm the militia, and at second hand through legislation.


Miller also makes it clear that arms of a sort that are useful to a militia are the sort that people have the right to have.


Yes, within the context of a well-regulated militia, and you consistently side-step the issue that what the Dick Act refers to as the "unorganized militia" cannot reasonably be considered to be well-regulated.


I've no objection to the government setting up an organized militia that people have to join before they can have militia weapons.

But so long as the National Guard serves overseas and doesn't let guardsmen take their weapons home with them, it is not that militia.



Setanta wrote:
oralloy wrote:
Setanta wrote:
The Constitution does not specify what arms people can keep and bear; the Constitution does give to Congress the power to provide for arming the militia, which can reasonably be fulfilled through legislation. The Dick Act represents a constitutionally valid regulation of the militia on the part of the Congress,


The National Guard does things that the militia is prohibited from doing, and it does not let Guardsmen take their militia weapons home with them.


Once again, you make things up as you go along. The Constitution does not prohibit the militia from doing the things which the National Guard does. That the Constitution enumerates circumstances in which Congress may call out the militia is not evidence that the Constitution prohibits the use of the militia for any other purpose.


That is incorrect. The Tenth Amendment limits the federal government to only those powers that the Constitution enumerates for it.



Setanta wrote:
oralloy wrote:
Setanta wrote:
To refer to my earlier example, if Congress were to ban hand guns outright, your feeble argument about what constitutes reasonable arms for infantrymen would not pan out in that example either.


I don't argue that the Second Amendment protects handguns.

If handguns were banned though, people would still have the right to carry guns for self-defense. They would have to be allowed to carry rifles or shotguns around in public (and ones that were suitable for self-defense).


There is absolutely no part of the Constitution which acknowledges or even refers to citizens having the right to keep arms for their self-defense.


True. But the Constitution protects a number of unwritten rights via the Ninth Amendment. The right to carry arms for self-defense is one of those rights.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 May, 2008 07:46 pm
Quote:
That Didn't Take Long

McCain's convention chair gets tossed after Newsweek reported that he'd lobbied for the Burmese dictatorship.

---

McCain's pretty tight with a lot of lobbyists, isn't he?

--Josh Marshall


http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/194393.php

Get ready for a lot of this.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 May, 2008 10:32 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
That Didn't Take Long

McCain's convention chair gets tossed after Newsweek reported that he'd lobbied for the Burmese dictatorship.

---

McCain's pretty tight with a lot of lobbyists, isn't he?

--Josh Marshall


http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/194393.php

Get ready for a lot of this.

Cycloptichorn


Another:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/05/two-mccain-aide.html
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 May, 2008 03:16 pm
The second amendment was proposed (the fourth amendment proposed, the second to be ratified) by the First Congress. GUn nuts love to run around waving a copy of the Virginia ratifying convention documents, claiming that that were the source of the second amendement. Coincidence is not evidence of correlation. Absent the evidence of a majority of the members of the First Congress to the effect that they heavily edited the very different and prolix proposal which you cited, i have no good reason to believe your contention.

Quote:
On the contrary, the federal government is prohibited from doing anything the Constitution does not give it the express power to do. That is what the Tenth Amendment is all about.

(That also makes most federal gun control unconstitutional even without the Second Amendment.)


This is the complete text of the tenth amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

There is no mention there of a prohibition based on express powers granted to the United States, you are playing fast and loose with the truth in that statement. Nearly the entire body of constitutional jurisprudence is based on the inferential meaning of the Constitution. It may please you to be what you imagine a strict constructionist to be, but that in no way binds either the government nor the judiciary.

As for the silly argument about federal gun control, we have already discussed that with reference to Miller (when the Court rather obviously did not agree with the point of view you express here--your mere opinion) and the powers granted to Congress in Article One, Section Eight, which the Court was careful to point out, stating that the second amendment can only reasonably be interpreted in light of those powers.

You have addressed that, in your typically oblique manner, offering once again your opinion as though you spoke from authority:

Quote:
What they said was that the Second Amendment was intended to "assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness" of the militia. And it could only be interpreted in light of that goal.


That was precisely what i had said when i quoted their remark in full: With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view. You offer your remark as though that somehow refutes my comment to the effect that: " . . . and the comment of the Supremes in Miller, when they state that the amendment can only be interpreted in the light of the powers granted Congress in Article One, Section Eight." Your answer to the portion of my post which you quoted is not an answer at all. It does not answer the point i made that individuals arming themselves, but not subject to the controlling powers granted Congress do not constitute a well-regulated militia.

As for you continuing to insist about the National Guard not taking their arms home, and serving overseas, i will point out once again that you can readily prove your point by taking a case against the Dick Act to Federal Court, with the view to eventually convincing the Supremes of your argument.

Quote:
That is incorrect. The Tenth Amendment limits the federal government to only those powers that the Constitution enumerates for it.


No, you are incorrect. Once again, offering your opinion that the tenth amendment limits the United States to those powers expressly granted to it by the Constitution does not constitute a valid statement from authority. I'll quote the tenth Amendment once again.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Powers reserved to the people can be granted to the Congress inferentially by the election of Representatives and Senators. Were the Congress prohibited from doing anything except what it were expressly granted the power to do, the Constitution would say as much. It doesn't. Nor does the tenth amendment.

As always, you are preaching your opinion as though it were settled fact.

As for your claim that the ninth amendment grants to the people the right to carry arms for their self defense is not an answer to the denial on my part of your previous claim that the second amendment grants them that right. And, additionally, the text of the ninth amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

--is not evidence that the people are entitled to exercise any "rights" they can dream up.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 May, 2008 06:17 pm
Things Younger Than McCain dot-com

Did you know that Alaska was younger than McCain? And Israel? And plutonium? And McDonalds? And Superman? And Keith Richards? And both of Barack Obama's parents?
0 Replies
 
Mame
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 May, 2008 06:18 pm
nimh - ha ha ha ha ha


McCain! McCain! McCain!

I'm SICK, SICK, SICK of hearing about that guy.

New Topic!!
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 May, 2008 06:20 pm
I believe Ron Paul is older than McCain.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 May, 2008 11:22 am
Fox commentator: Ron Paul revolt could be 'disaster' for Republicans by David Edwards and Muriel Kane
Published: Tuesday May 13, 2008

Rep. Ron Paul is still in the GOP race and even drew 16% of the vote in the recent Pennsylvania Republican primary. Now his supporters are planning to stage a "revolt" at the Republican National Convention in September, possibly with the aim of securing Paul a prime time speaking slot.

Conservative radio talk show host Mike Gallagher told the hosts of Fox and Friends on Tuesday, "There is no question that this could be a major headache for John McCain."

"John McCain would be well-served to kind of reach out and give him an olive branch at the convention," Gallagher continued. "Let him speak, give him a role, because if these people are disrespected -- you know, this, combined with Bob Barr's announcement that Barr now is running as a Libertarian, is going to just take votes away from John McCain and could be a disaster for the Republican Party."

Bob Barr recently cited Paul's success as having helped inspire his own candidacy, pointing to "what Ron Paul has tapped into in terms of reaching an awful lot of young people in particular and illustrating very clearly that in this day and age it is possible to reach a lot of young people through the Internet."

Democratic political consultant and commentator Bob Beckel then joined into the Fox discussion, saying of Paul, "I think he ought to get a prime time speech at the convention. This is the only guy that has a bobble doll made for him that his head doesn't move."

"They're nuts," Beckel said of Paul's supporters, hastening to add, "I don't mean nuts in a bad way. They're nuts about their guy."

"I think they ought to do it, Mike," Beckel concluded, laughing. "I think it would be great for you guys to have Ron Paul at your convention."

"It'll show some diversity at the convention," Gallagher acknowledged.

"That's the kind of diversity you need, brother," Beckel affirmed.

This video is from Fox's Fox & Friends, broadcast May 13, 2008.
link
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » McCain!
  3. » Page 7
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 05/18/2022 at 07:24:31