Reply
Thu 20 Mar, 2008 05:50 pm
If the pro-freedom side prevails in the USSC,
vindicating and restoring every citizen's
constitutional rights to keep and bear arms,
how far shud that go ?
In US v. MILLER the USSC said that weapons whose possession
was protected by 2 A were " ordinary military equipment " citing to and
adopting the case of AYMETTE v. STATE 2 Hump. [21 Tenn] 154, 158."
The AYMETTE case,
which the Supreme Court approvingly adopted declares:
"the arms, the right to keep which is secured,
are such as are usually employed in civilized warfare,
and that constitute ordinary military equipment.
If the citizens have these arms in their hands,
they are prepared in the best possible manner to repel
any encroachments on their rights." [ emphasis added by David ]
Even tho it was the concept of the Founders,
the authors of the Constitution that created government in America
after the eviction of George von Hanover's minions,
that the citizens will always be able to overthrow government,
if thay found that to be necessary, as the Founders had just done,
it is somewhat questionable that this point of vu is still viable,
in an era of WMD.
If u ask what we citizens shud do if W or
some future president declared a moratorium on ELECTIONS,
after dumping some inspirational, ringing oratory on us:
I don 't have an answer,
but I 'm willing to waive my constitutional right
to such WMD as heavy artillery, battle tanks n flame throwers.
( OK, call me a wuss. ) Thay r too expensive anyway,
and take too much space. I don 't have room for a 12 inch gun.
Where to draw the line ?
Chuck Schumer might be willing to concede a single shot .22 rifle
whereas Sen. Feinstein wud not go beyond water pistols
( no not the kind that shoot acid, I said WATER pistols ).
Everyone has to promise only to put WATER in them.
OK: for my part, I am willing to forsake belt fed machineguns and higher;
i.e., no flamethrowers, no battle tanks, no artillery, no grenades nor other bombs,
no fighter jets or bombers, nor any crew served weapons.
No nukes, no biological warfare, no gas warfare.
The Line of Demarkation is: belt fed machineguns.
I am willing to make THAT the borderline.
On the l'aissez faire freedom side of that border:
the citizens get an end to ALL gun control = full destruction of all police records
of licensure and/or of registration of any defensive personal ordnance whatsoever,
and secretly keeping any of it by police will be a felony
subject to major time in federal prison and loss of pensions.
Every citizen is and will be freely entitled to unlimited access to and possession
of submachineguns, revolvers, pistols ( of any calibration and any size magazines ),
and shoulder weapons of fully automatic rifles and shotguns,
sem-automatic, or bolt action, or lever action, or pump action rifles & shotguns,
with no questions asked, free access to ammo for the aforesaid weapons
and free access to all bladed weapons.
In other words, restoring the status quo ante as of around 1934.
Whatayathink ?
U gotta draw the line SOMEWHERE in an era of WMD.
Incidentally, comments from collectivist-authoritarians
hurling personal insults are pointless; a waste
of your time and mine ( and IMO, are abusive of the forum ).
Analytical criticism is fine and is lovingly accepted, but
please take your semi-hysterical acrimony elsewhere.
David
More trash from the crazy jerk
Any judge who would take an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, and then look directly at a sentence in it and say, "that sentence isn't really there," is unfit to serve, and that's a gentle description. "Shall not be infringed" isn't a complicated thought.
contrex wrote:More trash from the crazy jerk
I take exception to that remark, and reject it.
David
Brandon9000 wrote:Any judge who would take an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution,
and then look directly at a sentence in it and say,
"that sentence isn't really there," is unfit to serve,
and that's a gentle description.
"Shall not be infringed" isn't a complicated thought.
Yes, indeed.
So stipulated.
I am a New Yorker with a very high opinion of your adopted State of Florida.
In 1986, Florida led the way in rejecting and repealing gun control,
in favor of " shall issue " concealed weapons licensure,
on a non-discretionary basis, and later led the way in Castle Doctrine
home defense statutory philosophy.
Since 1986, 40 of the 50 states, have rejected gun control
( rejected discriminatory licensure of the right to self defense, on an arbitrary basis ).
We all have good reason to be grateful to your adopted state.
David
OmSigDAVID wrote:contrex wrote:More trash from the crazy jerk
I take exception to that remark, and reject it.
David
Funny, I thought you might!
You're so crazy you answer your own posts!
contrex wrote:OmSigDAVID wrote:contrex wrote:More trash from the crazy jerk
I take exception to that remark, and reject it.
David
Funny, I thought you might!
You're so crazy you answer your own posts!
The topic is
not the state of my mental health.
Thank u for your concern.
I invite u to address the subject matter of the thread,
to wit: where to draw the borderline.
I suggested that belt fed machineguns and higher be waived & relinquished,
and that the status quo ante
l'aissez faire free market be restored as to
all weapons
LESS than said belt fed machineguns
and that it be a felony for any police, FBI or BAT to keep any records
of owners or possessors of lesser weapons.
If its not asking too much of u, please be polite.
David
you keep writing
l'aissez faire
You've done it before.
Why?
You have a computer. Why can't you look up the right way to spell it?
contrex wrote:you keep writing
l'aissez faire
You've done it before.
Why?
You have a computer. Why can't you look up the right way to spell it?
Thank u for your concern about my spelling.
The topic of this thread is the borderline of compromise
of civilian possession of defensive ordnance,
not spelling.
Let 's stay on topic.
David
OmSigDAVID wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:Any judge who would take an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution,
and then look directly at a sentence in it and say,
"that sentence isn't really there," is unfit to serve,
and that's a gentle description.
"Shall not be infringed" isn't a complicated thought.
Yes, indeed.
So stipulated.
I am a New Yorker with a very high opinion of your adopted State of Florida.
In 1986, Florida led the way in rejecting and repealing gun control,
in favor of " shall issue " concealed weapons licensure,
on a non-discretionary basis, and later led the way in Castle Doctrine
home defense statutory philosophy.
Since 1986, 40 of the 50 states, have rejected gun control
( rejected discriminatory licensure of the right to self defense, on an arbitrary basis ).
We all have good reason to be grateful to your adopted state.
David
Thanks. BTW, since you said adopted, maybe you know that I'm actually from New York. Have to get back there someday soon. My wife has never seen my home town. But, I digress.
Brandon9000 wrote:OmSigDAVID wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:Any judge who would take an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution,
and then look directly at a sentence in it and say,
"that sentence isn't really there," is unfit to serve,
and that's a gentle description.
"Shall not be infringed" isn't a complicated thought.
Yes, indeed.
So stipulated.
I am a New Yorker with a very high opinion of your adopted State of Florida.
In 1986, Florida led the way in rejecting and repealing gun control,
in favor of " shall issue " concealed weapons licensure,
on a non-discretionary basis, and later led the way in Castle Doctrine
home defense statutory philosophy.
Since 1986, 40 of the 50 states, have rejected gun control
( rejected discriminatory licensure of the right to self defense, on an arbitrary basis ).
We all have good reason to be grateful to your adopted state.
David
Thanks. BTW, since you said adopted, maybe you know that I'm actually from New York.
Have to get back there someday soon.
My wife has never seen my home town. But, I digress.
Yes. I read your profile.
Introduce her to some of our better restaurants.
David
You think you know it all buddy, but you lack spirit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qThmM5-y_Ok
However that may be, Buddy,
this thread is about the point of compromise
concerning civilian possession of defensive ordnance,
not about my omniscience, nor about spirituality.
Let 's stay on topic.
David
It does not suck.
WHERE shud we draw the borderline ?
If u say 100%, that 's not a borderline,
and unlikely to be in keeping with the holding
of the USSC to be forthcoming around the 4th of July.
David
OmSigDAVID wrote:However that may be, Buddy,
this thread is about the point of compromise
concerning civilian possession of defensive ordnance,
not about my omniscience, nor about spirituality.
Let 's stay on topic.
David
I like to wait till i'm at the other end of a barrel to figure that kind of thing out.
So far twice, fast talking and a fast sprint has saved me both times.
Amigo wrote:OmSigDAVID wrote:However that may be, Buddy,
this thread is about the point of compromise
concerning civilian possession of defensive ordnance,
not about my omniscience, nor about spirituality.
Let 's stay on topic.
David
I like to wait till i'm at the other end of a barrel to figure that kind of thing out.
So far twice, fast talking and a fast sprint has saved me both times.
Lemme get this straight:
u prefer to wait to begin your defensive planning
until u r in an emergency, at the rong end of a gun barrel ?
Do u advise your friends and fellow citizens to do this ?
.
Right to keep and bear, all the way. I mean, if I get a brain tumor that's my problem, if I get mugged it's my problem too, only crime the PD intervenes on is bad driving, and they're not great at that. I mean, everybody knows what you shouldn't have for your own little self, if it's contrary to the communal good (and there again, I've yet to see that it is at all). It's like thanks to Oprah and Judge Wapner anything one does selfishly is subject to search and seizure.
I keep hearing about when the Second Amendment came out what the context was, but among other things it was such that people did what they had to for themselves and those close to them. Compared to today it was egoism and utilitarianism on meth. Now it's like stand back and let the G do it's job even though a tumor's still a tumor and people don't have enough risk so they drive their Kia 95 mph. That alone should show that the human condition has been 'improved' enough by state intervention.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace