Home | Community | Message Board

Magic Mushrooms Zamnesia
Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Left Coast Kratom Kratom Powder For Sale

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2  [ show all ]
OfflineTao
Village Genius

Registered: 09/19/03
Posts: 7,935
Loc: San Diego
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
Re: what is the militia? [Re: ]
    #3350797 - 11/12/04 06:30 PM (18 years, 2 months ago)

some of those might be joke votes in response to a loaded question :tongue:

and i don't think you really answered my question well, what you cited points to the necessity of a militia.


--------------------
Magash's Grain Tek  + Tub-in-Tub Incubator + Magash's PMP + SBP Tek + Dunking = Practically all a newbie grower needs :thumbup:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: what is the militia? [Re: ]
    #3350814 - 11/12/04 06:37 PM (18 years, 2 months ago)

So why does the Supreme Court reject your interpretation of the second amendment mush?


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleGijith
Daisy Chain Eater

Registered: 12/05/03
Posts: 2,400
Loc: New York
Re: what is the militia? [Re: Cyber]
    #3350875 - 11/12/04 06:54 PM (18 years, 2 months ago)

Thank you very much for the info, Cyber.

IMHO, that wraps it up.


--------------------
what's with neocons and the word 'ilk'?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineTao
Village Genius

Registered: 09/19/03
Posts: 7,935
Loc: San Diego
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
Re: what is the militia? [Re: Gijith]
    #3350905 - 11/12/04 07:00 PM (18 years, 2 months ago)

Don't forget about this:

?I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.?
-Thomas Jefferson


--------------------
Magash's Grain Tek  + Tub-in-Tub Incubator + Magash's PMP + SBP Tek + Dunking = Practically all a newbie grower needs :thumbup:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: what is the militia? [Re: Xlea321]
    #3351107 - 11/12/04 07:54 PM (18 years, 2 months ago)

So why does the Supreme Court reject your interpretation of the second amendment mush?

please cite a case and some actual findings of the court.

there have only been 5 cases related to the second amendment brought before the supreme court. none of them are in disagreement with my interpretation.

U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876) -

this case was more about the 14th amendment than the first or second. the impact of the case is that it was shortly after the civil war, and as part of a political move to ease tensions between the north and south, basically nullfied the 14th amendment and left it to the individual states to guarantee the constitutional rights of their constituents.

the case involved KKK members depriving black citizens of their rights of assembly and arms. the court ruled that the 1st and 2nd amendments were both limits on congress, not individuals, and so the victims would have to rely on their state's police agencies to protect their rights from the private individuals who were violating them. the case did not interpret or reinterpret either the first or second amendment in any way; it was primarily about the 14th. it does not contradict my "interpretation" of the second amendment at all.

"The right of the people peaceably to assemble for lawful purposes existed long before the adoption of the Constitution of the United States. In fact, it is, and always has been, one of the attributes of citizenship under a free government... It is found wherever civilization exists. It was not, therefore, a right granted to the people by the Constitution. The government of the United States when established found it in existence, with the obligation on the part of the States to afford it protection...

The first amendment to the Constitution prohibits Congress from abridging "the right of the people to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." This, like the other amendments proposed and adopted at the same time, was not intended to limit the powers of the State governments in respect to their own citizens, but to operate upon the National government alone...

...For their protection in its enjoyment, therefore, the people must look to the States. The power for that purpose was originally placed there, and it has never been surrendered to the United States.

The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called..."internal police""

- cruikshank court

as you can see, the court affirmed that both the 1st and 2nd amendments did not 'grant' rights, but merely prohibited congress from creating laws to infringe on them. the statement "The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution" has of course been taken out of context whenever the fienstien\brady people find it useful to twist facts to suit their agenda....


Presser v. People of Illinois (1886) -

presser was found guilty in the state of illinois of parading armed men without authorization. the court affirmed that the second amendment was a limitation on congress, and that the individual state had the authority to regulate military bodies, including the parading activities of the militia. again, this does not conflict with my "interpretation" of the second amendment.

"It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States; and, in view of this prerogative of the General Government, as well as of its general powers, the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question [the Second Amendment] out of view prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the General Government."

- presser court in dicta

Miller v. Texas (1894) -

another case related to the 14th amednment and loosely about the 2nd. a convicted murderer appeals saying that his 2nd amendment and 14th amendment rights had been violated. court reaffirms cruikshank v. US position.

U.S. v. Miller (1939) -

ruled that private ownership of weapons with no military application (a sawed-off shotgun was the weapon in question) were not covered by the second amendment. doesn't contradict with my "interpretation of the 2nd", but actually contradicts yours.

Lewis v. U.S. (1980) -

ruled that keeping convicted felons from owning guns was not unconstitutional. doesn't contradict with my "interpretation".


there was another recent case, not directly related to the second amendment, which says something interesting about what the word, "people" means in different places in the bill of rights:

U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990) -

" '[T]he people' seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. The Preamble declares that the Constitution is ordained and established by 'the people of the United States.' The Second Amendment protects 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,' and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to 'the people.' See also U.S. Const., Amdt. 1 ('Congress shall make no law . . . abridging . . . the right of the people peaceably to assemble') (emphasis added); Art. I, 2, cl. 1 ('The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the people of the several States') (emphasis added). While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that 'the people' protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community. "


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: what is the militia? [Re: ]
    #3351146 - 11/12/04 08:03 PM (18 years, 2 months ago)

The myth of the second amendment

What does the Second Amendment Mean?

How often have you heard someone argue against gun control laws by claiming: "Gun ownership is a constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment"? The assertion that the Second Amendment to our Constitution guarantees a broad, individual right to "keep and bear arms" and that it precludes any reasonable restrictions on guns is the philosophical foundation of the National Rifle Association's opposition to even the most modest gun control measures.

The NRA's constitutional theory is, however, divorced from legal and historical reality. It is based on carefully worded disinformation about the text and history of the Second Amendment and a systematic distortion of judicial rulings interpreting the Amendment. The result is a Second Amendment "mythology" which has been difficult to counter.

The History of The Second Amendment: Original Meaning And Intent

The Second Amendment states: "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The NRA tends to omit the first, crucial, half of the Second Amendment - the words referring to a "well-regulated militia."

When the U.S. Constitution was adopted, each of the states had its own "militia" - a military force comprised of ordinary citizens serving as part-time soldiers. The militia was "well-regulated" in the sense that its members were subject to various requirements such as training, supplying their own firearms, and engaging in military exercises away from home. It was a form of compulsory military service intended to protect the fledgling nation from outside forces and from internal rebellions.

The "militia" was not, as the gun lobby will often claim, simply another word for the populace at large. Indeed, membership in the 18th century militia was generally limited to able-bodied white males between the ages of 18 and 45 - hardly encompassing the entire population of the nation.

The U.S. Constitution established a permanent professional army, controlled by the federal government. With the memory of King George III's troops fresh in their minds, many of the "anti-Federalists" feared a standing army as an instrument of oppression. State militias were viewed as a counterbalance to the federal army and the Second Amendment was written to prevent the federal government from disarming the state militias.

The Second Amendment Today

In the 20th century, the Second Amendment has become an anachronism, largely because of drastic changes in the militia it was designed to protect. We no longer have the citizen militia like that of the 18th century.

Today's equivalent of a "well-regulated" militia - the National Guard - has more limited membership than its early counterpart and depends on government-supplied, not privately owned, firearms. Gun control laws have no effect on the arming of today's militia, since those laws invariably do not apply to arms used in the context of military service and law enforcement. Therefore, they raise no serious Second Amendment issues.

The Second Amendment in the Courts

As a matter of law, the meaning of the Second Amendment has been settled since the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). In that case, the Court ruled that the "obvious purpose" of the Second Amendment was to "assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness" of the state militia.

Since Miller, the Supreme Court has addressed the Second Amendment twice more, upholding New Jersey's strict gun control law in 1969 and upholding the federal law banning felons from possessing guns in 1980. Furthermore, twice - in 1965 and 1990 - the Supreme Court has held that the term "well-regulated militia" refers to the National Guard.

In the early 1980s, the Supreme Court addressed the Second Amendment issue again, after the town of Morton Grove, Illinois, passed an ordinance banning handguns (making certain reasonable exceptions for law enforcement, the military, and collectors). After the town was sued on Second Amendment grounds, the Illinois Supreme Court and the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that not only was the ordinance valid, but there was no individual right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment (Quillici v. Morton Grove). In October 1983, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal of this ruling, allowing the lower court rulings to stand.

In 1991, former Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger referred to the Second Amendment as "the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word ?fraud,' on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime...[the NRA] ha(s) misled the American people and they, I regret to say, they have had far too much influence on the Congress of the United States than as a citizen I would like to see - and I am a gun man." Burger also wrote, "The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon...[S]urely the Second Amendment does not remotely guarantee every person the constitutional right to have a ?Saturday Night Special' or a machine gun without any regulation whatever. There is no support in the Constitution for the argument that federal and state governments are powerless to regulate the purchase of such firearms..."

Since the Miller decision, lower federal and state courts have addressed the meaning of the Second Amendment in more than thirty cases. In every case, up until March of 1999 (see below), the courts decided that the Second Amendment refers to the right to keep and bear arms only in connection with a state militia. Even more telling, in its legal challenges to federal firearms laws like the Brady Law and the assault weapons ban, the National Rifle Association makes no mention of the Second Amendment. Indeed, the National Rifle Association has not challenged a gun law on Second Amendment grounds in several years.

The Renegade Decision: U.S. v. Emerson

On March 30, 1999, U.S. District Judge for Northern Texas Sam R. Cummings restored a domestic abuser's firearms, citing the Second Amendment as guaranteeing an individual right to keep and bear arms. This decision flies in the face of years of precedence and jurisprudence and can only be viewed as a renegade decision. In his opinion, Judge Cummings was unable to follow usual judicial practice and cite legal precedents that undergird his decision because there are none. This ruling has been appealed and since that decision, two federal courts, including a higher Circuit court, have ruled that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms (Gillespie v. City of Indianapolis).

Gun Control Laws and The Second Amendment

Even if one believes that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms, does that mean that all gun control laws are unconstitutional? Of course not. In fact, several states have clauses in their state constitutions which explicitly guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms, yet not a single gun control law has been overturned in those states for violating that clause.

The rights guaranteed by the Constitution have never been absolute. The First Amendment protects the freedom of the press, yet libel laws prevent newspapers from printing malicious lies about a person. The First Amendment also protects free speech, yet one cannot yell "Fire" in a crowded theatre. It is doubtful that the Founding Fathers envisioned a time when over 30,000 people are dying from gun violence a year, when high-power military-style weapons like AK-47's with 30-round magazines are available on the streets, when an 14-year-old can take his father's guns and mow down his classmates, or when parents leave a loaded pistol around and a two-year-old can easily fire it. The vast majority of the American people support reasonable gun control laws and view them as necessary to reduce the level of gun violence in this country. The framers of the Constitution would surely agree.


http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=second


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: what is the militia? [Re: ]
    #3351149 - 11/12/04 08:04 PM (18 years, 2 months ago)

A few more interesting facts:

THE RISKS OF GUNS IN THE HOME

Every day in the U.S., 77 people die from gun violence, including 16,586 completed suicides; 10,801 homicides; and 776 unintentional shootings.[1]

A gun kept in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in an unintentional shooting (4 times), a criminal assault or homicide (7 times), or an attempted or completed suicide (11 times) than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.[2]

40-43% percent of households own guns. This means that an approximately 44 million Americans own an estimated 192 million firearms.[3]

One out of three handguns is kept loaded and unlocked.[4]

Nearly all childhood unintentional shooting deaths occur in or around the home. Fifty percent occur in the home, and 40% occur in the home of a friend.[5]

When someone is home, a gun is used for protection in fewer than two percent of home invasion crimes.6[6]

http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/factsheets/?page=home


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/11/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: what is the militia? [Re: Gijith]
    #3351164 - 11/12/04 08:08 PM (18 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Gijith said:
Alright, I have a question that I can't find an easy answer to on Google. How long have gun rights been a major issue?

Does anyone know if people were debating this 50 years ago? 100? 150? 200?

I think this might give some indication of whether or not views have changed and whether or not we're 'misreading' the 2nd amendment.



I remember hearing something about the Catholic church wanting to ban guns in the Middle Ages, when they were created.


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: what is the militia? [Re: Xlea321]
    #3351214 - 11/12/04 08:20 PM (18 years, 2 months ago)

Indeed, membership in the 18th century militia was generally limited to able-bodied white males between the ages of 18 and 45 - hardly encompassing the entire population of the nation.

according to US law, the militia still means most physically able males between the ages of 17 and 45. the second amendment gives one reason as permitting citizens to keep and bear arms is the maintanence of a (civilian) militia.


"As a matter of law, the meaning of the Second Amendment has been settled since the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). In that case, the Court ruled that the "obvious purpose" of the Second Amendment was to "assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness" of the state militia."

why have the people of the brady campaign removed this quote from context... why did they cut off the direct quotation at the word "effectiveness" and finish with their own "state militia"?

they were deliberately dishonest, that's why.

the court statement actually does not say "state militia" but "such forces" (refering to "militia" in general) and later affirms that, "Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense." and "The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and law could be secured through the Militia -- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion."

other than that dishonest distortion, the brady page fails to cite a single court case in support of its claims. can you cite an actual court case?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: what is the militia? [Re: ]
    #3351224 - 11/12/04 08:24 PM (18 years, 2 months ago)

they were deliberately dishonest, that's why.

And this lying asshole "Lott" you've been quoting from is the paragon of honesty?


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/30/01
Posts: 34,246
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: what is the militia? [Re: Xlea321]
    #3352475 - 11/13/04 12:40 AM (18 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

This sentence does not say every Floyd, Clem or Burl has the right to bear arms.



Floyd, Clem andBurl are not people?


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/30/01
Posts: 34,246
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: what is the militia? [Re: Xlea321]
    #3352499 - 11/13/04 12:46 AM (18 years, 2 months ago)

So you can't cite a case and you resort to calling someone who's research hasn't been questioned a liar?

What a surprise.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleretread
-=HasH=-
Registered: 07/15/04
Posts: 851
Re: what is the militia? [Re: ]
    #3353760 - 11/13/04 07:03 AM (18 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

mushmaster said:
the compound you are talking about is made with deisel and ammonium nitrate fertilizer. both of these substances have a widespread and incredibly important civilian use, and it is actually pretty difficult to mix them properly and get the result to detonate. a shoulder-fired SAM is an offensive weapon and has no reasonable civilian purpose under almost any circumstances.




Actually, ANFO doesn't require a specific mixture. It doesn't even really require the Fuel Oil (of the ANFO, Ammonium nitrate/ Fuel Oil) mixture to detonate. The "problem" is that you must use a two-stage explosive to get this to work. A regular blasting cap (#2 I suppose would work) must be used to detonate a block of TNT. Since ANFO materials are readily accesible, as is the magnesium or aluminum powder you could add to sensitize it more, it's more of an issue of making sure that people don't get TNT and blasting caps.

While we are talking about this, if he had used true pure ammonium nitrate pellets (the stuff I learned with, came in a 50lb bag of AN treated with wax and diesel fuel to prevent oxidation), he would have levelled the entire goddamned city most likely.


Also, SAMS are fun! if I had one, i'd use it recreationally.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2  [ show all ]

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Left Coast Kratom Kratom Powder For Sale


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* The Constitution Is Enlightenment Enough spud 376 0 10/12/05 12:20 AM
by spud
* what law is the WOD based on
( 1 2 3 all )
hunterthompson 6,456 52 07/30/01 02:03 PM
by Phyl
* the individual vs. the collective
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Anonymous 5,091 65 12/19/03 11:21 PM
by Anonymous
* A Material Breach of the Constitution Ellis Dee 1,106 7 02/20/03 02:44 AM
by BowlKiller
* Constitution Restoration Act of 2004 biblical law in america mabus 1,389 13 03/16/04 04:25 AM
by Phred
* Governments in need of regime change.
( 1 2 all )
LSDempire 3,347 38 08/29/05 04:21 PM
by LSDempire
* Series on Protecting Your Privacy Online Lana 3,382 2 12/09/02 06:01 PM
by isam
* Iraqi Constitution ratification halts terrorism?
( 1 2 3 all )
Swami 4,620 44 10/18/05 04:10 AM
by Prosgeopax

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
2,467 topic views. 2 members, 1 guests and 1 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2023 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.026 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 16 queries.