0
   

NRA trains members to attack enemies without mercy

 
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Feb, 2007 02:21 pm
"They like to paint us as racists and bigots because our fathers and uncles killed krauts and japs...." - cjhsa, post #247479

With 30-06's AND Howizters, I might add.

You know, it always helps to know who the enemy is. I think the NRA knows exactly who they are dealing with. I hope.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Feb, 2007 02:23 pm
maporsche wrote:
Steve 41oo wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Gun ownership is a detriment to society?
well thats how it seems to me.


And are you an expert in this subject? Just curious about your experience level, or if your claims are merely anecdotal.

Quote:

The more guns in circulation the more they are fired the more accidents and violent crime.


I agree that with more weapons there are more violent crimes using those weapons. What I disagree with is that if there were no guns that violent crime would go down. You'd have less violent crime involving a firearm, but the evidence available shows that violent crime with other weapons increases to compensate.

Quote:

What are you supposed to do with a gun, just polish it?


My guns never get touched unless I'm going to the range or if I need it for self defense. It's a personal insurance policy, not a toy.

Quote:

And the really bad guys, knowing the householder may be armed, is more likely to carry a bigger gun and use it first.


Or they are less likely to break in. Or if they do break in and my alarm goes off it really doesn't matter if they are willing to use it first because I'm trained and likely better prepared to handle the situation, and if they get a shot off they'd be lucky. You don't need a bigger gun to disarm a criminal. And it doesn't get much bigger than my shotgun.

I really don't think you know what you're talking about.
Do you like playing with it?
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Feb, 2007 02:41 pm
DrewDad wrote:
The people are granted the right to keep and bear arms, not the right to form militias.

I have enjoyed your posts, DrewDad, and usually find myself in agreement with you, so it is with some reluctance that I am compelled to say that your statement here is one of the dumbest things I've ever seen in this forum -- and I've read a lot of Brandon's posts.

It's true that the "militia clause" of the second amendment doesn't grant people the right to form militias, but then that clearly wasn't the drafters' intention. Rather, that clause defines and limits the scope of the right that is protected from governmental infringement. As Setanta pointed out, the supreme court in US v. Miller explicitly held that the "militia clause" defined the scope of the right:
    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. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158. The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power- 'To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; 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.' U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, 8. 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. [i]It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view[/i].

(emphasis added) In short, all elements of the second amendment must be interpreted as having some effect, and so the right to bear arms must be related to preservation of a well-regulated militia.

DrewDad wrote:
And I discussed the grammatical content of the Amendment, not its legal ramifications.....

When interpreting the amendment, the grammatical content and the legal ramifications are interconnected.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Feb, 2007 02:54 pm
joefromchicago wrote:
It's true that the "militia clause" of the second amendment doesn't grant people the right to form militias, but then that clearly wasn't the drafters' intention. Rather, that clause defines and limits the scope of the right that is protected from governmental infringement.

Is it your position, then, that Howitzers fall within the scope of the right to bear arms? The Supreme Court's test in Miller would seem to imply it, since Howitzers, unlike sawed-off shotguns, do bear "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia".
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Feb, 2007 02:58 pm
In a serious riposte to your levity, i'd like to see you try to move, set-up, lay, load and fire your howitzer effectively, all by yourself.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Feb, 2007 03:03 pm
It doesn't surprise me that the Illinois anti-gun nazis are afraid of militias. Michigan, after all, has one.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Feb, 2007 03:12 pm
Thomas wrote:
Is it your position, then, that Howitzers fall within the scope of the right to bear arms? The Supreme Court's test in Miller would seem to imply it, since Howitzers, unlike sawed-off shotguns, do bear "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia".

The second amendment protects the right of individuals to keep and bear arms. So the interpretation of the amendment must be consistent with that fact. At the time of the drafting of the bill of rights, individuals did not possess artillery (and, let's hope, they still don't). The drafters of the second amendment, therefore, did not intend for the amendment to protect the right of individuals to possess howitzers, and subsequent judicial opinions and federal gun laws confirm that interpretation of the amendment.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Feb, 2007 03:15 pm
cjhsa wrote:
It doesn't surprise me that the Illinois anti-gun nazis are afraid of militias. Michigan, after all, has one.


You have a breath-taking ability to display blind stupidity. Presserj v. Illinois came before the court in 1886, and so it bears no relation to the gun control measures of this or the last century. Futhermore, Presser sued Illinios because the state regulated the militia, not because Illinois prohibited the militia.

Yeah, we all know about the Michigan militia. It would be priceless to see them in action, to see how fast they'd throw down their guns and run for it.
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Feb, 2007 03:16 pm
Setanta wrote:
In a serious riposte to your levity, i'd like to see you try to move, set-up, lay, load and fire your howitzer effectively, all by yourself.

Fair enough. How about the much-discusssed assault rifles then? They're the poster case of the kind of arms that gun controllers seek to ban. But they're also practical weapons for individuals to handle by themselves in a war. They are "ordinary military equipment" and therefore bear "a reasonable relationship to a well-regulated militia", in the language of the Miller court. The way I understand Joe's post, assault rifles are plainly covered by the Second Amendment, as he and the Miller court interpret it.

And that's not the end of it. It seems to me that the same reasoning would plausibly extend to machine guns, bazookas, hand grenades, and a long list of other equipment: Equipment small enough that people would frequently operate it individually in a war, but so far out even the NRA doesn't say they should be legal. And that's a pretty tough standard of far-out-ness.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Feb, 2007 03:18 pm
I have no problem with that Thomas, just as soon as Congress, as a result of the powers granted that body in Article One, Section 8, explicitly state that assault rifles constitute the prescribed weapon with which they intend to arm the militia.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Feb, 2007 03:33 pm
I have the ability to produce simple facts that make you cringe Set.

http://www.moccw.org/images/ccwmap.gif

Whadya know?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Feb, 2007 03:39 pm
Well, i know now that you seem to be too stupid to distinguish between the legal right to carry concealed weapons, and whether or not any particular state has or regulates a militia.

Your map is a "concealed carry" map, and has no relationship to whether or not any particular state has a militia, or a militia ordinance.

I'm not surprised.

I have no illusions, though, that demonstrating your ignorance will never make you cringe.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Feb, 2007 03:42 pm
joefromchicago wrote:
At the time of the drafting of the bill of rights, individuals did not possess artillery (and, let's hope, they still don't).

I agree so far, but this seems strangely inconsistent with other Bill of Rights jurisprudence.

For example, when the Bill of Rights was drafted, there were no films either. But it has never been controversial that silent movies (devoid of language) are in principle covered by the freedom of speech. Similarly, telephones and computers were not on the desks of the Founding Fathers, which may help explain why they were so productive. Nevertheless, the Fourth Amendment has always covered the bugging of communication electronics. I don't even think this was ever controversial between liberal and the conservative Supreme Court jurists. Finally for now, the Constitution empowers Congress "To raise and support Armies .....; To provide and maintain a Navy" and "To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;" It never gave anyone authority to raise, support, provide, maintain, and make rules for an airforce.

You can go through the whole constitution; everytime new technologies were invented, the Supreme Court has held them to be covered by the rights and powers defined in the 18th century documents. What legal reasoning leads to your special pleading about the 2nd amendment? Why are you arguing that 2nd Amendment interests, but no other interests in the Bill of Rights, are constrained to the limits of 1791 technology?
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Feb, 2007 03:58 pm
Setanta wrote:
I have no problem with that Thomas, just as soon as Congress, as a result of the powers granted that body in Article One, Section 8, explicitly state that assault rifles constitute the prescribed weapon with which they intend to arm the militia.

Suppose Congress equipped the members of the organized Militia (the National Guard and the Naval Forces) with those weapons -- which I think it does. Would it follow for you that the unorganized Militia -- all able bodied males between 17 and 45 not part of the organized Militia -- have a Second Amendment right to hold and bear these weapons?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Feb, 2007 04:16 pm
Not unless and until the Congress explicitly says as much. The National Guard is, officially, the Army National Guard, and as such cannot reasonably be conflated with the militia. It is a reserve of the army which is administered by the states. At this page of Global Security-dot-org, you can read about the Dick Act which created the Army National Guard. A distinction was made between the organized militia--the National Guard--and the reserve militia.

The courts assiduously avoid visiting the IInd Amendment. However, it is my sense of the current organization of the military forces of the United States, that if it were pushed to a decision, the courts would find that the IInd Amendment applies to what became known from the Dick Act as the reserve militia, and does not apply to the Army National Guard.

You are, of course, entitled to think differently.

Once again, i will be satisfied with whatever explicit statement the Congres were to make, pursuant to their powers as described in Article One, Section 8. If i felt that such an explicit decision endangered the nation, i might, if sufficiently motivated, agitate for the repeal of any such measure.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Feb, 2007 04:28 pm
Setanta wrote:
Not unless and until the Congress explicitly says as much.

How do you square this interpretation with the fact that the Second Amendment protects a "right of the people"? Clearly the founders envisioned some scenario in which Congress would transgress against this right. Otherwise there would have been no point in inserting a right to bear arms into the Bill of Rights. Yet under this interpretation of the Second Amendment, it covers only those weapons that Congress, in its wisdom, chooses to equip "the people" with.

Can you give me some scenarios that would constitute a Second Amendment violation for you?
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Feb, 2007 04:40 pm
Thomas wrote:
I agree so far, but this seems strangely inconsistent with other Bill of Rights jurisprudence.

Only if you take an "original intent" view of the constitution.

Thomas wrote:
For example, when the Bill of Rights was drafted, there were no films either. But it has never been controversial that silent movies (devoid of language) are in principle covered by the freedom of speech. Similarly, telephones and computers were not on the desks of the Founding Fathers, which may help explain why they were so productive. Nevertheless, the Fourth Amendment has always covered the bugging of communication electronics. I don't even think this was ever controversial between liberal and the conservative Supreme Court jurists. Finally for now, the Constitution empowers Congress "To raise and support Armies .....; To provide and maintain a Navy" and "To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;" It never gave anyone authority to raise, support, provide, maintain, and make rules for an airforce.

Quite so, and I believe I have pointed that out to you in the past.

Thomas wrote:
You can go through the whole constitution; everytime new technologies were invented, the Supreme Court has held them to be covered by the rights and powers defined in the 18th century documents. What legal reasoning leads to your special pleading about the 2nd amendment? Why are you arguing that 2nd Amendment interests, but no other interests in the Bill of Rights, are constrained to the limits of 1791 technology?

Are you suggesting that howitzers did not exist at the time of the drafting of the second amendment?

http://www.nps.gov/archive/colo/graphics/howitzer.gif
Howitzer at the battle of Yorktown

Artillery was certainly not new technology in the late eighteenth century. But, in any event, I'm not arguing that the interests protected by the bill of rights are constrained by 1791 technology (I'll leave that argument to Clarence Thomas). Those protections, however, are to be interpreted in light of the intent of the drafters. Thus, if the drafters intended to protect "speech," and the courts find that movies are sufficiently "speech-like," then movies are protected under the first amendment. Similarly, if the drafters intended to protect the right to bear the kind of arms that militia men were expected to bring with them to muster, then they didn't intend to protect those kinds of arms, such as howitzers, that individuals wouldn't have been expected to provide.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Feb, 2007 04:41 pm
Thomas wrote:
Setanta wrote:
Not unless and until the Congress explicitly says as much.

How do you square this interpretation with the fact that the Second Amendment protects a "right of the people"? Clearly the founders envisioned some scenario in which Congress would transgress against this right. Otherwise there would have been no point in inserting a right to bear arms into the Bill of Rights. Yet under this interpretation of the Second Amendment, it covers only those weapons that Congress, in its wisdom, chooses to equip "the people" with.

Can you give me some scenarios that would constitute a Second Amendment violation for you?


Historically, militia participation in European nations, and in European colonies in North America, was restricted, often on the basis of property qualifications. For example, even at the height of the Napoleonic period, the militias in England, which then basically served as a "pre-conscription" pool for the battalions of regiments serving in the field in Spain, were still restricted, although the bar had been considerably lowered. (And, essentially, drafting all males into the militias would have stepped on the toes of Royal Navy Press gangs, which swept up just about any unemployed man who didn't have an employer who would come to get him back.) In Holland, militia membership was restricted on confessional lines, with Catholics and Anabaptists excluded.

In France, the peasants were disarmed after the uprisings of the Jacquerie in the late 13th and early 14th centuries. Militias were disbanded outright in the reign of Louis XIV. Similar actions to disarm the peasants have been common in history: during the 16th century Sengoku period in Japan, Hashiba Hideyoshi conducted a disarming of the peasants which was known as "the sword hunt" after the assassination of Oda Nobunaga--who himself had extirpated all of the armed members of Buddhist sects, and even recruited Sohei (Buddhist warrior monks) to effect that end. Disarming peasants, and restricting participation in militias is common in history.

So, the argument of gun control opponents that the IInd Amendment is intended to prevent tyrrany is obliquely disingenuous. It is not intended to necessarily arm the population against a tyrannical government, so much as it is to assure that no one segment of the population arms to impose on another. During Shays' Rebellion in Massachusetts after the revolution and before the Constitution, veterans of the war who rebelled in arms were dispersed by the state militia, who had spent the war at home after the British left Boston.

Therefore, it seems apparent to me, as it does to many other students of history, that the intent is to prevent exclusive enrollment in the militia. It give all citizens the right to participate in the militia, without further qualification.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Feb, 2007 04:45 pm
joefromchicago wrote:
Are you suggesting that howitzers did not exist at the time of the drafting of the second amendment?

Actually I had mentally moved on to bazookas, hand grenades, and machine guns. How about them?
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Feb, 2007 04:47 pm
Setanta wrote:
Therefore, it seems apparent to me, as it does to many other students of history, that the intent is to prevent exclusive enrollment in the militia. It give all citizens the right to participate in the militia, without further qualification.

Okay, so what would constitute a violation of that right by Congress?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.2 seconds on 12/22/2024 at 01:24:03