Reply
Fri 25 Mar, 2016 12:30 pm
What if the wolf had an Apache chopper and lots of napalm?
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:
What if the wolf had an Apache chopper and lots of napalm?
I'd watch the FRACK out of that movie! MAKE IT HAPPEN EDGAR!
@tsarstepan,
First I need an investor to provide 45 million dollars.
And then I need something on the side to finance the movie.
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:What if the wolf had an Apache chopper and lots of napalm?
The Second Amendment protects the right of militiamen to keep Stinger missiles at home.
@oralloy,
You are so full of ****, oralloy.
@edgarblythe,
Are you suggesting that, of all the people in America,
militiamen are excluded from the right to keep and bear arms?
Or that the Framers intended the militia to not have military weaponry when they fight?
The framers, of course, did not write the second amendment--the members of the First Congress did. As is clear from the first clause of the second amendment, they intended the militia to be well regulated. Paragraphs in Article One, Section Eight of the constitution empower Congress to regulate the militia, including the power to provide for arming the militia. The Supreme Court in The United States versus Miller, in 1939, upheld the 1934 National Firearms Act, stating that they had no notion that Congress had designated shotguns having a barrel of less than 18" to be an arm destined for the militia. So you allege that although sawed-off shotguns are not an arm provided for the militia by Congress, stinger missiles are.
Utter lunacy.
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:The framers, of course, did not write the second amendment--the members of the First Congress did.
Technically the Second Amendment came from the Anti-Federalist contingent at the Virginia Ratifying Convention. All the First Congress did was polish it a bit.
Setanta wrote:As is clear from the first clause of the second amendment, they intended the militia to be well regulated.
The term "well regulated" was used to refer to a militia that had trained to a sufficient degree that they could fight as a single coherent unit, as opposed to fighting as a bunch of uncoordinated individuals.
Setanta wrote:Paragraphs in Article One, Section Eight of the constitution empower Congress to regulate the militia, including the power to provide for arming the militia.
This was subsequently modified by the Second Amendment, the second part of which ensured that militiamen have the right to be armed independently of the government.
Setanta wrote:The Supreme Court in The United States versus Miller, in 1939, upheld the 1934 National Firearms Act, stating that they had no notion that Congress had designated shotguns having a barrel of less than 18" to be an arm destined for the militia. So you allege that although sawed-off shotguns are not an arm provided for the militia by Congress, stinger missiles are.
I take no position on the question of sawed-off shotguns.
But yes. I do claim Stinger missiles as a military weapon eminently suitable for militia use.
Also anti-tank bazookas, machine guns/API ammo, grenades/grenade launchers, etc.
@oralloy,
I don't need lectures from you on the meaning of the language in the second amendment or Article One, Section Eight--especially as your comments are mere
ipse dixit statements from you without substantiation. All of your comments are distorted by your polemical position. The second clause of the second amendment does not state or imply that the militia may arm themselves independently of the will of Congress. It also does not say that they may not. However,
The United States versus Miller clearly does state that Congress' power to provide for arming the militia is not modified or impaired by the second amendment. Fortunately, the nation is not subject to your quixotic and self-serving polemic.
Utter lunacy . . .
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:your comments are mere ipse dixit statements from you without substantiation.
No one is preventing you from asking for cites.
Setanta wrote:All of your comments are distorted by your polemical position.
That is incorrect. My comments reflect the clearly-expressed intentions of the Founding Fathers.
Setanta wrote:The second clause of the second amendment does not state or imply that the militia may arm themselves independently of the will of Congress.
Yes it does. That was the entire point of it. There were fears that the government would use their power to arm the militia to cripple the militia by denying them adequate arms. The Anti-Federalists proposed a guarantee that militiamen would be able to arm themselves even if the federal government attempted to curtail their weaponry. That became the second part of the Second Amendment.
Setanta wrote:However, The United States versus Miller clearly does state that Congress' power to provide for arming the militia is not modified or impaired by the second amendment.
I do not see any such statement in the ruling.
It does though clearly state that the Second Amendment was intended to help the militia be an effective fighting force.
Note:
"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."
@oralloy,
You're just making sh*t up--which is par for the course with you. Have a nice life, don't bother to write.
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:You're just making sh*t up--which is par for the course with you.
Wrong. As always, I am merely pointing out well-established facts.
I see that you read what you want to read, and ignore the rest. Before the passage which you quoted, is the following:
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. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.
From Heller, that very conservative court noted:
"Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons. It is particularly wrongheaded to read Miller for more than what it said, because the case did not even purport to be a thorough examination of the Second Amendment."
"Extends only to certain types of weapons"--and how does one determine which types of weapons? By reference to Article One, Section 8, which was not invalidated by the second amendment as you claim, and which is affired both in Miller and Heller.
(Congress shall have the power) To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, . . ., and until such time as Congress says you can have surface to air missiles, anti-tank weapons, grenade launchers, etc., the second amendment does not give you the right to possess them. Furthermore, the Militia Act of 1903, which created the National Guard, classified you and all others who are not a part of the National Guard as unorganized militia. Don't hold your breath waiting for Congress to grant you the right to keep and bear surface to air missiles.
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:"Extends only to certain types of weapons"--and how does one determine which types of weapons? By reference to Article One, Section 8,
No. By making a reasonable judgement as to whether a given weapon is militarily useful.
Setanta wrote:which was not invalidated by the second amendment as you claim, and which is affired both in Miller and Heller.
I never said that it was invalidated. It was merely modified so that militiamen have the right to be armed independently of the government's power to arm them.
Setanta wrote:and until such time as Congress says you can have surface to air missiles, anti-tank weapons, grenade launchers, etc., the second amendment does not give you the right to possess them.
The Second Amendment does however protect the right of
militiamen to keep such weapons at home.
Setanta wrote:Don't hold your breath waiting for Congress to grant you the right to keep and bear surface to air missiles.
Militiamen have that right independently of the will of Congress.
You are wrong on all counts, and i've shown you why you are wrong. I will waste no more time on your made-up BS, the source of your obsessive, wrong-headed polemic.
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:You are wrong on all counts,
That is incorrect. As usual, I've accurately stated all relevant facts.
Setanta wrote:your made-up BS,
The writings of the Founding Fathers are hardly something that I made up.
Opinion, and unsubstantiated opinion at that, does not constitute fact. You've been peddling your horsie poop for years--and you always call it fact, and it's always nothing more than opinion.
@Setanta,
What the Founding Fathers clearly expressed in their writings is a question of fact. Opinion has nothing to do with it.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace
Selected Answer