33
   

The Gun Fight in Washington. Your opinons?

 
 
Lustig Andrei
 
  2  
Reply Mon 21 Jan, 2013 06:38 pm
@oralloy,
I don't see how the Dick Act of 1903 violates anything. It simply mandates that the "militias" (now renamed as the National Guard) be better trained, better equipped and come under at least partial Federal control. A very poor showing of their abilities to do the job was amply demonstrated during the Spanish-American War, leading to the reform of the entire military establishment, including the state militias.
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Mon 21 Jan, 2013 06:48 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
Quote:
the Spanish-American War,


That was instigated to free all those people oppressed by the Spanish, right, Merry?

Didn't work out too good for any of them. One oppressor out and a new equally or even more brutal oppressor in.

Can you, Andrei, point out to me even one instance where the US has lived up to the hype/bullshit about it being the savior of the oppressed?
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Reply Mon 21 Jan, 2013 06:53 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
Lustig Andrei wrote:
I don't see how the Dick Act of 1903 violates anything. It simply mandates that the "militias" (now renamed as the National Guard) be better trained, better equipped and come under at least partial Federal control. A very poor showing of their abilities to do the job was amply demonstrated during the Spanish-American War, leading to the reform of the entire military establishment, including the state militias.
If I remember accurately, the USSC has held
that the National Guard is not the militia mentioned in the 2 A.
(I don 't remember which case.)
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jan, 2013 07:39 pm
Quote:
Can you, Andrei, point out to me even one instance where the US has lived up to the hype/bullshit about it being the savior of the oppressed?


Didn't think so, Andrei.

Lifetime after lifetime after lifetimes of lies. Y'all have been living lives that are mostly lies.

That must give you a warm, fuzzy feeling.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 21 Jan, 2013 07:58 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
Lustig Andrei wrote:
I don't see how the Dick Act of 1903 violates anything.


It doesn't (so far as I know).



Lustig Andrei wrote:
It simply mandates that the "militias" (now renamed as the National Guard) be better trained, better equipped and come under at least partial Federal control.


No. The National Guard are not the militia.

If they were the militia, guardsmen would have the right to buy their own military weapons, and the right to keep them at home.

If they were the militia, guardsmen would not be sworn into the US Army when they join the Guard (the militia and a standing army being two VERY different things).

If they were the militia, their role would be limited to repelling invasion, suppressing insurrection, and enforcing the law. They would not be serving in overseas wars.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jan, 2013 08:15 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

Lustig Andrei wrote:
It simply mandates that the "militias" (now renamed as the National Guard) be better trained, better equipped and come under at least partial Federal control.


If they were the militia, guardsmen would not be sworn into the US Army when they join the Guard
(the militia and a standing army being two VERY different things).
Agreed; its the difference between government troops,
and a civilian citizenry, well armed in its own defense.





David
0 Replies
 
Lustig Andrei
 
  2  
Reply Mon 21 Jan, 2013 08:36 pm
@JTT,
Troll, would you please go away. Your non-sequiturs are getting annoying.
JTT
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 21 Jan, 2013 08:48 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
Is that the delusion that gets you thru your day, Lustig Merry?
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  -3  
Reply Tue 22 Jan, 2013 08:42 am
@Lustig Andrei,
Lustig Andrei wrote:



What I am interested in is your honest opinion on what the chances are that the current hysteria (and that's all it is) will actually lead to some significant legislation at the national level regarding weapons control. Regardless of what you think should happen, what do you think, realistically, is going to happen? Please try and back it up with some reasons of why you think this.


The reasonable and rational man would look to the US constitution for answers.

All that will happen now is some 'feel good' measures.

Significant legislation that would get the guns out of the hands of criminals would be a good thing, but nobody seems to be interested in this... it's no wonder because the plan is to weaken America.

farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Tue 22 Jan, 2013 09:39 am
@H2O MAN,
No, the 2nd Amendment Uber alles crowd wants to thin the population of innocent children.

They see it as their duty
Thomas
 
  4  
Reply Tue 22 Jan, 2013 09:47 am
@Lustig Andrei,
Lustig Andrei wrote:
What I am interested in is your honest opinion on what the chances are that the current hysteria (and that's all it is) will actually lead to some significant legislation at the national level regarding weapons control.

I expect that one of two things will happen, with approximately equal probability:

1) After much posturing, Democrats and Republicans agree on marginal improvements. The most likely of these is to mandate, as a condition of every gun sale, expanded background checks into the buyer's criminal and psycho-pathological records. And just to bracket the boundaries of what I mean by "marginal": I don't see a reincarnation of the Brady assault-weapons ban anywhere in America's near future.

2) The Obama administration will force House Republicans to go on record as refusing even such marginal improvements, allowing it to portray them as out-of-control extremists. (I personally think that such a portrait would be accurate, but that's beside the point in terms of politics.) The administration will then use this as a lever in other negotiations.

Either way, Obama wins, and Republican hardliners are on the defensive.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Jan, 2013 11:41 am
The willingness of some to argue that the 2nd amendment gives citizens the right to carry any weapon at any time will ultimately defeat itself. If the courts actually rule that the people have a very clear way to overturn it, amend the Constitution to eliminate the 2nd amendment.

It may well be a Pyrrhic victory to get carry anywhere any time as some seem to want.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 22 Jan, 2013 06:39 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
No, the 2nd Amendment Uber alles crowd wants to thin the population of innocent children.

They see it as their duty


Don't be silly. You know very well that having a pistol grip on a rifle causes no harm whatsoever to children.

I am grateful for the aid that this silliness provided in derailing magazine limits, but now that they are all but derailed, isn't it time to rein in the silliness?
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Tue 22 Jan, 2013 06:50 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
The willingness of some to argue that the 2nd amendment gives citizens the right to carry any weapon at any time will ultimately defeat itself.


Any weapon??? Who made that argument?

Are you referring to the people's right to carry handguns whenever they go about in public? That is not exactly unlimited. A handgun is not "any weapon".

Plus, the government would still be allowed to place limits on carrying in courthouses, bars, schools, etc, if they could come up with a plausible reason why such a limit would make sense in that particular location (it would actually have to be a plausible reason, however, or the courts would strike it down).



parados wrote:
If the courts actually rule that the people have a very clear way to overturn it, amend the Constitution to eliminate the 2nd amendment.

It may well be a Pyrrhic victory to get carry anywhere any time as some seem to want.


The American people will never overturn the Second Amendment, under any circumstances whatsoever.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Tue 22 Jan, 2013 06:59 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
The willingness of some to argue that the 2nd amendment gives citizens the right to carry any weapon at any time will ultimately defeat itself.

I don't know whom you have in mind when you say "some", but even justice Scalia doesn't argue that in his Heller decision. The right to hold and bear arms is a Constitutional right of the individual, just like free speech, free assembly, due process, and whatnot. And just as with these other rights, the government can constrain this one, if the constraints are narrowly tailored to achieve compelling public interests.

Hence, in the next 20 years, I expect lots of Second-Amendment cases in which the Supreme Court will balance the individual right to hold and bear arms against the compelling interest of cities and states to maintain public safety. I also expect that all of the measures currently discussed will pass the Supreme Court's yet-to-be-developed balancing tests --- even if Scalia turns out to become their architect.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 22 Jan, 2013 07:29 pm
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:
parados wrote:
The willingness of some to argue that the 2nd amendment gives citizens the right to carry any weapon at any time will ultimately defeat itself.


I don't know whom you have in mind when you say "some", but even justice Scalia doesn't argue that in his Heller decision. The right to hold and bear arms is a Constitutional right of the individual, just like free speech, free assembly, due process, and whatnot. And just as with these other rights, the government can constrain this one, if the constraints are narrowly tailored to achieve compelling public interests.

Hence, in the next 20 years, I expect lots of Second-Amendment cases in which the Supreme Court will balance the individual right to hold and bear arms against the compelling interest of cities and states to maintain public safety.


I agree so far, but....



Thomas wrote:
I also expect that all of the measures currently discussed will pass the Supreme Court's yet-to-be-developed balancing tests --- even if Scalia turns out to become their architect.


The matter most under discussion at the moment is a ban on harmless cosmetic features like pistol grips and adjustable stocks.

What would be the public's compelling interest in preventing a rifle from having a pistol grip?
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Tue 22 Jan, 2013 07:52 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
What would be the public's compelling interest in preventing a rifle from having a pistol grip?


The public doesn't want to see you gun nuts prevented from having that hand available for whacking the tiny pistol you keep in your pants.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Tue 22 Jan, 2013 08:57 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
If they were the militia, their role would be limited to repelling invasion, suppressing insurrection, and enforcing the law. They would not be serving in overseas wars.


footnote that was the problem the government ran into during the War of 1812 as the states militias would not take part in the invasion of Canada so all you Canadians on this system one of the main reasons you are still an independent country is our constitution and the fact that a state militia is not the same as the modern National guard.
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Jan, 2013 11:19 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:
footnote that was the problem the government ran into during the War of 1812 as the states militias would not take part in the invasion of Canada so all you Canadians on this system one of the main reasons you are still an independent country is our constitution and the fact that a state militia is not the same as the modern National guard.


Maybe. It is impossible to rerun history to see how things would turn out if things were done differently, but Canada was not exactly defenseless, and might have still repelled our invasion even if all our militia had responded when summoned.

You are correct to note though that some states refused to send their militia based on the fact that the invasion of Canada was not a legitimate use of the militia.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jan, 2013 05:52 am
@oralloy,
Quote:
Maybe. It is impossible to rerun history to see how things would turn out if things were done differently, but Canada was not exactly defenseless, and might have still repelled our invasion even if all our militia had responded when summoned.


Even without the militia US forces greatly outnumbers the Canadians and British defenders and only very very bad leadership under General Hull resulted in not taking Canada as it was.

So once more the Canadians owe their independent from the US to the limits placed on militia forces in our Constitution.

0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 08/11/2020 at 07:27:44