OmSigDAVID wrote:snood wrote:shud blaks and whyts hav the saim axcess to firearms?
How's about obese peepul and skinny ones?
Old and yung?
The profundity is breathtaking....
Yes,
to each question, in that government in America was based on
depriving government of any authority to legislate in the area of gun control;
( i.e., no discrimination as to who can possess guns ).
This militia was obviously a
GOVERNMENT operation;
( in the parlance of the time, a " selected militia " as distinct from
a private militia, in those times called " a well regulated militia ".
When James Madison chose those words for the 2nd Amendment,
he did not select them
at random from a dictionary.
A
well regulated militia indicated the fellows in the neighborhood,
similar to a volunteer fire department, or a volunteer library,
or like the merchants of Los Angeles who armed themselves
in defense of their stores when police fled the scene,
or like the Free French in WWII, when their government
collapsed n fell into the hands of the German enemy,
or like the defenders of United Airlines Flight 93 on 9/11/1,
who FOUGHT BACK and recaptured the plane from the Moslems.
Being " well regulated " militia meant that these private militia
were not boisterous, did not shoot up the town,
and that thay were sufficiently well trained
and well disciplined to be effective in combat.
Note that thay never spoke of a " well regulated " treasury dept.,
nor of any other government function.
The militia of the 2nd Amendment were not the militia
of Article I Section 8.
Quote:Article One, Section 8, reads, in part:
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; (emphasis added)
In finding for the United States in United States versus Miller,
and thereby upholding the 1934 National Firearms Act,
That is
NOT historically what happened.
The trial court had
taken judicial notice that the disputed contraband
( a sawn off shotgun ) was a weapon.
The 2nd Amendment says that because well regulated militia
( i.e., private militia ) are necessary to the security of a free state,
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
It can be ( tho need not be ) surmised
that the weapons whose possession by the citizens are immune
from infringement are those that are useful to militia.
Only the possession of
WEAPONS
and the right to form private militia are defended by the 2nd Amendment.
If the instrument in question were not a weapon ( because of mutilation ),
then its possession has no immunity from the 2 A.
The USSC disapproved of the trial court having taken judicial notice
that
in that mutilated condition it can still help a militia ;
if NOT,
if it were no longer a weapon, then immunity for its possession
had been lost, when it got butchered.
The USSC demanded that the trial court
take factual evidence
on this point, a jurisdictionally critical point
and sent it back accordingly; however, the defendants were never seen
again and thay lost the trial
by default.
Quote:
the Supremes wrote in the majority opinion:
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.
Note the court 's
avoidance of use of the word "
weapon ".
Quote:Therefore, the Court obviously recognizes a right of Congress to regulate firearms.
In both United States versus Cruikshank, 1874,
and Presser versus Illinois, 1886, the Court has pointed out that the
Second Amendment binds the Federal government, but does not bind the states.
Therefore, by inference, the Court acknowledges the right of the states to regulate firearms.
Presser comes somewhat
closer to supporting what u claim.
In US v. CRUIKSHANK 92 US 542 (1875) felonious convictions of some Klansmen
for violation of the 1st Amendment (right of assembly),
and of the 2nd Amendment (right to keep and bear arms),
were reversed by the US 5th Circuit Ct. of Appeals,
on the grounds that it was neither pled nor proven that
THE STATE had,
by its laws, abridged the rights of US citizens
(Defendants being private citizens), and
FOR THAT REASON,
the 14th Amendment could not apply the 1st nor the 2nd Amendment
to the case at bar;
i.e., the 14th Amendment only protected citizens of
Louisiana from the GOVERNMENT of that State, not from their fellow citizens.
That Court pointedly implied that if officers of the State of Louisiana had,
BY ITS LAWS, violated the 1st or 2nd Amendment, they would have
feloniously violated the 14th Amendment and the Enforcement Act of May 31, 187O.
Note that the US Supreme Court affirmed this case.
In so doing, it held that the rights of the 1st and 2nd Amendments
long antedated the Constitution, such that when created, the US government
found them in being. Accordingly, these rights
are older than the Constitution,
which neither created nor granted them to the citizenry
any more than the Constitution created the moon nor granted the stars.
Quote:
Claiming that any government in the United States is deprived of the right to legislate in the area of gun control is nothing more than your brain-dead propaganda. You wish in one hand and sh!t in the other, and see which one fills up first. Just 'cause you want it be so don't make it so.
By your vulgar, filthy obscenities u have chosen to
disgrace yourself.
Someone told me that, in earlier times, u were a decent fellow.
However, I choose to forgive u.
Except for your aforesaid ventures into foul & repugnant obscenity,
I enjoy my conversations with u.
I enjoy your erudition, such as it may be; ( better than most ).
One might hope that u will re-discover the social graces.
Quote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:Region Philbis wrote:(waiting to hear what Calamity Jane has to say on the matter...)
She was Wild Bill Hickok 's girl.
Quote:Bullshit . . . the only one who ever said that was Jane herself,
and she only said it Hickok was not there, or after he was dead.
OK.
I guess u were there
listening to everyone,
so
u must KNOW.
DAVID
