Fight the U.N. Gun Ban

Advocate wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Advocate,

do u agree that your interpretation of the Second Amendment
is that instead of

"... the right of the people to keep and bear arms
shall not be infringed "

what it actually was meant to say was:

" the powers of state governments to keep and bear arms
to control the people, shall not be infringed. "

Is that an accurate description
of your position in this matter, Advocate ?

David

Quote:

Dave, the 2A is silent on whether the [ federal ?? ] government
can regulate the right to bear arms.

Is it your position that the word " infringed " has no meaning ?

Quote:

Thus, regulation is permitted.

So u mean that the federal [ ?? ] government
can regulate anything, unless explicitly denied ?

Is that accurate ?

like the antithesis of the 9th and 10th Amendments ?

Quote:

2A just says that members of a well-regulated militia
have the [unfettered] right to bear arms.

In your vu,
what is the purpose of that, Advocate ? Y did the Authors bother to do that ?

Is that so that if a corporal or a sergeant in the militia
orders " stack arms ! " the militia men can refuse on Constitutional grounds ?

In your vu,
what was the Authors' reason for amending the Constitution
to invest the members of those militia with this immunity ?

David

0 Replies

Snood, what brought that on? You are usually very measured and nonpersonal.

Dave, 2A refers to a well-regulated militia. As part of that regulation, the soldier can be ordered to stack arms.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

Yeah, but crazy obnoxious f*cks like you are so easy to hate, though.

[URL=http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3159250#3159250]Snood[/URL] wrote:

Your mindless sniping makes you irrelevant.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Snood, what brought that on? You are usually very measured and nonpersonal.

You obviously do not pay much attention to Snoods posts.

Do a search on "Your mindless sniping makes you irrelevant". I tend to post this anytime I see Snood make himself more irrelevant than he already is.

0 Replies

I 've found it e z to not relate to him.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Snood, what brought that on? You are usually very measured and nonpersonal.

Dave, 2A refers to a well-regulated militia.
As part of that regulation, the soldier can be ordered to stack arms.

Advocate,
will u address the questions that I asked u ( hereinabove set forth ) ?

0 Replies

Dave, I gather you think that the militia wording was added for the heck of it. Nonsense!

As I stated before, the framers needed to be certain that this new country, the USA, would not be able to disarm their states' militias. There was no intention to give everyone an unfettered right to bear arms.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Dave, I gather you think that the militia wording was added for the heck of it. Nonsense!

As I stated before, the framers needed to be certain that this new country, the USA,
would not be able to disarm their states' militias.
There was no intention to give everyone an unfettered right to bear arms.

Will u tell us your first name,
so that I don 't need to call u "Advocate" all the time ?
MY real name IS David.

It has never been my position that:
"the militia wording was added for the heck of it."
The experts in English grammar whose impartial work product
I produced in front of u showed it to be an EXPLANATION of the reason
that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall be infringed. "

According to your understanding of history,
what was the reason that chose to make sure that government:
" would not be able to disarm their states' militias. "

According to your understanding of history,
Y did thay BOTHER to make sure that government
" would not be able to disarm their states' militias. "

Y ?

David

0 Replies

David, just call me Ad.

I really don't understand your last post. But I think we have reached an impasse for the time being. In any event, the conservative majority of the SCOTUS will lean toward your view. That will be the end of our argument for the foreseeable future.

0 Replies

I havta say this ( candor moves me ):
if the USSC raped the Bill of Rights and said that we cud not speak freely
or that we cud not have an opinion of our own (as the Red Chinese said),
or that the Authors of the Bill of Rights intended to augment the powers of GOVERNMENT
in the Bill of Rights, instead of the rights of the people ( crippling powers of government )
or that the ordinary natural born American citizen cud not keep and bear arms:
I 'd continue to oppose it.

One reason that I 've asked u these questions
( most of which u have ignored ) is that your position
is a Jonny-come-lately position that has no basis in history;
i.e., it is hopelessly untenable.

I probe because I 've long been interested in observing
how the human mind works;
how it can move to try to sustain an overwhelmingly untenable position.

From history, I know that in their minds and hearts,
the Authors of the Bill of Rights were much more pro-gun than
Wayne LaPierre.

From history, I know that in their minds and hearts,
the Authors of the Bill of Rights were on my side, the libertarian side,
to wit: on the side of laissez faire personal freedom
of defense against either common street criminals
or
against government, that it may be overthrown, as the English were.
In ratifying the Supreme Law of the Land, our forefathers said so explicitly.

I find it interesting how anyone can try to
sustain a historically untenable position.

From our exchanges of vu, the resultant information of my inquiry is:
simply a choice to close one 's eyes to history
( and to the grammar that resulted therefrom )
one can live in his own world and pretend that the Founders of the USA
were not libertarian-individualists who chose to subordinate the collective
to freedom of the individual citizen.

In any case,
the question before the USSC is a narrow one,
to which there will be a correspondingly narrow answer.
At least one more appeal will be necessary, from a state in my opinion,
to end all gun control from Canada to Mexico, from sea-to-shining-sea.

When that happens, it will be devasting to the well being of the violent criminals
who prey upon the decent people.

Additionally, it sets the right tone against collectivism.

ALL I WANT IS
LAISSEZ FAIRE PERSONAL FREEDOM
FOR MY FELLOW CITIZENS.

I already have it.

David

0 Replies

David, you are drawing a red herring when you intimate that I think the constitution requires gun control for the individual. My position is that the constitution is silent on this, opening the door to government regulation.

I know that you are Mr. laissez faire , but no one wants excessive regulation. However, we are all regulated to some extent (traffic law, etc.), which must exist in any society.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

David, you are drawing a red herring when you intimate
that I think the constitution requires gun control for the individual.
My position is that the constitution is silent on this,
opening the door to government regulation.

I know that you are Mr. laissez faire , but no one wants excessive regulation.
However, we are all regulated to some extent (traffic law, etc.),
which must exist in any society.

Meaning no disrespect:
Inasmuch as u have some degree of legal education
( I am not certain to what extent ), I 'd have thought that u 'd know
that the federal government has no power other than what has been
explicitly granted to it, whereas u appear to have expressed that concept
BACKWARD. Fortunately, the USSC is better attuned to the situation.

Do u DISPUTE that the Authors were friends of liberty like me ?
If u don 't dispute that,
then Y do believe that thay wud not create a libertarian Constitution,
when thay had the opportunity, as I wud have done ?

Do u DISPUTE the fact
that of all the writings that we have from the 1700s
bearing upon ratification of the Constitution,
or commenting upon it, there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING
representing the point of vu that government has power
to create a system of discriminatory licensure to possess defensive guns
( altho I can offer for your examination, the opposite point of vu being expressed
in the early years of the USA, and will do so, upon request ).
David

P.S.:
I did not attribute to u
the position that the Constitution requires control of guns.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Dave, the 2A is silent on whether the government can regulate the right to bear arms. Thus, regulation is permitted.

Regulation would only be permitted if it didn't prevent people from having militia arms.

Militia regulations would also not apply to hunting and self-defense guns -- just to militia-style weapons.

Advocate wrote:

2A just says that members of a well-regulated militia have the [unfettered] right to bear arms.

Nope. It says all able-bodied males have such a right.

If the government set up a militia, you could reasonably argue that people should join in order to exercise their right to have a militia arm, but the fact that the government has not set up such a militia pretty much eliminates any possibility of imposing such a requirement.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Dave, 2A refers to a well-regulated militia. As part of that regulation, the soldier can be ordered to stack arms.

"Well regulated" meant a militia that could fight as a coordinated team instead of as a bunch of individuals.

What does "stack arms" mean?

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Dave, I gather you think that the militia wording was added for the heck of it. Nonsense!

The militia wording was added to force the government to always have a militia.

Advocate wrote:

As I stated before, the framers needed to be certain that this new country, the USA, would not be able to disarm their states' militias. There was no intention to give everyone an unfettered right to bear arms.

There is no such thing as an unfettered right. I'm unsure why you keep using that term.

The Framers intended the militia to include all able-bodied white males.

The Fourteenth Amendment expanded that to include all able-bodied males.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

David, you are drawing a red herring when you intimate that I think the constitution requires gun control for the individual. My position is that the constitution is silent on this, opening the door to government regulation.

The Tenth Amendment prevents federal regulation of non-militia arms.

The Second Amendment prohibits any regulation of militia arms that would prevent people from having them (or keeping them at home).

The Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit any regulations that would prevent people from carrying arms suitable for self-defense.

State governments are permitted to pass regulations that do not interfere with the above rights.

0 Replies

This page (requires Java) will relay a live (text) report from the Supreme Court as it hands down today's rulings (including timely links to the rulings themselves).

http://www.coveritlive.com/index.php?option=com_altcaster&task=siteviewaltcast&altcast_code=4b9ce315ba

The website's reporting goes live at 9:45 AM eastern time.

The Supreme Court begins giving the morning's rulings at 10:00 AM eastern time.

(The Java applet updates the reporting automatically -- no need to refresh browsers.)

No guarantees that Heller will come today, but if it does, this will be the first place to relay the news, and the first to link the ruling.

Cool

0 Replies

oralloy wrote:

This page (requires Java) will relay a live (text) report from the Supreme Court as it hands down today's rulings (including timely links to the rulings themselves).

http://www.coveritlive.com/index.php?option=com_altcaster&task=siteviewaltcast&altcast_code=4b9ce315ba

The website's reporting goes live at 9:45 AM eastern time.

The Supreme Court begins giving the morning's rulings at 10:00 AM eastern time.

(The Java applet updates the reporting automatically -- no need to refresh browsers.)

No guarantees that Heller will come today, but if it does, this will be the first place to relay the news, and the first to link the ruling.

No Heller ruling today. Next batch of rulings comes Thursday June 19.

0 Replies

oralloy wrote:

oralloy wrote:
This page (requires Java) will relay a live (text) report from the Supreme Court as it hands down today's rulings (including timely links to the rulings themselves).

http://www.coveritlive.com/index.php?option=com_altcaster&task=siteviewaltcast&altcast_code=4b9ce315ba

The website's reporting goes live at 9:45 AM eastern time.

The Supreme Court begins giving the morning's rulings at 10:00 AM eastern time.

(The Java applet updates the reporting automatically -- no need to refresh browsers.)

No guarantees that Heller will come today, but if it does, this will be the first place to relay the news, and the first to link the ruling.

No Heller ruling today. Next batch of rulings comes Thursday June 19.

I was led to expect it in " late June "

David

0 Replies

I believe that it is most probable that there will be a 5 to 4 vote
in favor of personal freedom, with Kennedy being the deciding vote.

David

0 Replies

Fight the U.N. Gun Ban

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know