| Home | Community | Message Board |
|
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
NextShop:  Buy Bali Kratom Powder  Kratom Capsules for Sale, Red Vein Kratom  Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order |
| |||||||
 Xlea321 Stranger Registered: 02/25/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
|
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,
Don't you think if they'd have simply meant "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" they were intelligent enough to simply state this? Why start the sentence discussing militia unless the rest of the sentence relates to militia? Can you explain this? -------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
| |||||||
|
Anonymous |
| ||||||
|
They preface the stated right with the most important justification. They had just fought a war of secession against a government which they felt was increasingly tyrranical. They realized that for the people to be free, they must maintain the security and freedom of the states. Towards that end, the people must be armed so that the militia (citizens who may be called to arms) may be able to defend and restore their liberties.
Understand the meaning of the militia (it is not the National Guard)... "The militia is a voluntary force not associated or under the control of the States except when called out; [when called into actual service] a permanent or long standing force would be entirely different in make-up and call." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper #28 "The President, and government, will only control the militia when a part of them is in the actual service of the federal government, else, they are independent and not under the command of the president or the government. The states would control the militia, only when called out into the service of the state, and then the governor would be commander in chief where enumerated in the respective state constitution." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper #69 "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." - George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788 "Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People." - Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788. "The militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, ... all men capable of bearing arms;..." - "Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic", 1788 (either Richard Henry Lee or Melancton Smith). "Every able-bodied freeman, between the ages of 16 and 50 is enrolled in the militia." - Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, Query IX. "Whenever governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." - Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789. "To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws." - John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788) "As the greatest danger to liberty is from large standing armies, it is best to prevent them by an effectual provision for a good militia." - James Madison, notes of debates in the 1787 Federal Convention "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson "The militia is the dread of tyrants and the guard of freemen." - Gov. R. Lucas, former Major General of the Ohio Militia, 1832 "The United States should get rid of its militias." - Stalin, 1933 Please indicate where in the Constitution or provide quotes from the Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalist Papers, The Constitutional Convention Debates or any relevant source which states that the militia is the National Guard. (hint: the Constitution was written in the 1700s, and the National Guard was not created until January 21, 1903, under the name of its founder, "The Dick Act.") Please also provide quotes from any of the afore mentioned sources which supports the argument that the Second Amendment is not to be construed as a safeguard against tyrrany. Edited by Evolving (09/02/02 05:48 AM)
| |||||||
|
luvdemshrooms Two inch dick..but it spins!?    Registered: 11/29/01 Posts: 34,247 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
|
It would appear Alex has made his mind up. I guess we shouldn't expect facts to make any difference to him.
-------------------- 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
| |||||||
|
Xlea321 Stranger Registered: 02/25/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
|
Is this how you were taught to interpret the written word? Ignore the first part of the sentence and just take note of the bit you like?
Cutting and pasting quotes from a pro-gun lobby site does not an argument make. If the founding fathers had meant militia to mean every single individual in the US they wouldn't have needed to use the term. They would have simply said "Every individual has the right to bear arms". Clearly a militia is something entirely different to an individual. Otherwise any anarchist bomber could have said he was a "militia" and had the right to attack anyone. MILITIA - The military force of the nation, consisting of citizens called forth to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrection and repel invasion. The Constitution of the United States provides on this subject as follows: Art. 1, s. 8, 14. Congress shall have power to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions. - 15. 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. -------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi Edited by Alex123 (09/02/02 07:08 AM)
| |||||||
|
Xlea321 Stranger Registered: 02/25/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
|
I guess we shouldn't expect facts to make any difference to him
Why not hit me with one? I havn't read one from you guys yet. -------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
| |||||||
|
luvdemshrooms Two inch dick..but it spins!? Registered: 11/29/01 Posts: 34,247 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
|
Like I said, facts don't matter to you. You seem to insist upon using the modern definition of militia. In the days that the bill of rights was written the militia was every able bodied man. That was the term for an army of the people. Even today the definition of an army of citizens / civilians still lives on.
mi?li?tia Pronunciation Key (m-lsh) n. 1.An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers. 2.A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency. 3.The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service. http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=militia In reply to: You mean we haven't hit you with one you're willing to accept since it goes against what you want to believe. You don't want to accept Supreme Court decisions, quotes from those who wrote the Bill of Rights, dictionary definitions, and you don't want to provide evidence of what you state. At this point I can only assume you are being deliberately obtuse. Either that or you're just trying to prolong this thread. Unless you can come up with some evidence to back up your claim, besides the feeble attempts to whine and cry because you don't like the way the ammendment is written, don't expect me to waste my time trying to explain the obvious to you. -------------------- 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
| |||||||
|
Anonymous |
| ||||||
In reply to: I did address the first part of the amendment, apparently you weren't paying attention, or are unable to interpret the written word, "They preface the stated right with the most important justification. They had just fought a war of secession against a government which they felt was increasingly tyrranical. They realized that for the people to be free, they must maintain the security and freedom of the states. Towards that end, the people must be armed so that the militia (citizens who may be called to arms) may be able to defend and restore their liberties." In reply to: Reading comprehension, "... the right of the people..." Look at the wording of the other amendments as I previously presented for you, the people get it? The people are all the individual citizens. In reply to: Are you really incapable of comprehending that any organization of humans is composed of individuals?
| |||||||
|
Xlea321 Stranger Registered: 02/25/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
|
Tell me something. If the second amendment really means what you're saying - that every individual should bear arms why stop at handguns and rifles? Why don't you campaign for every individual to own bazoookas, anti-aircraft missiles, blackhawk helicopters and nuclear weapons?
What use is your militia when they only have handguns and the state has tanks and helicopters? If you truly believe the idea of the second amendment you're pushing then outside every home there should be a tank. Why do you only want people armed with rifles and handguns? -------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi Edited by Alex123 (09/02/02 07:06 PM)
| |||||||
 Ellis Dee Archangel   Registered: 06/29/01 Posts: 13,104 Loc: Fire in the sky Last seen: 5 years, 1 month |
| ||||||
|
Alex.
Why do you hate freedom? Why do you think I shouldn't be allowed to keep my six shooter I bought a couple months ago? Why do you think I shouldn't be allowed to keep my 12 guage under the bed that I use for home defence and sleep well at night? Why don't you thnk I should be allowed to use that same shotgun to shoot clay disks and rabbits and deer when they're in season? Why do you hate my freedom so much? -------------------- "If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do."-King Solomon And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
| |||||||
|
luvdemshrooms Two inch dick..but it spins!? Registered: 11/29/01 Posts: 34,247 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
In reply to: Where did you get "should" from.... it's not that everyone should. It's that all "law abiding" americans have the right. Whether or not they choose to exercise that right is up to them. In reply to: Technically, in the US vs Miller, the ruling was that the weapons must be in comman usage by the military. However, even if we could find someone willing to sell us a tank or a blackhawk, who could afford one. I'd love to have a helicopter. Your replys are getting more far-fetched and you still have offered nothing to back up your position other than foolish examples and whining. -------------------- 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 Edited by luvdemshrooms (09/02/02 10:46 PM)
| |||||||
|
mntlfngrs The Art of Casterbation  Registered: 07/18/02 Posts: 3,937 Last seen: 5 years, 7 months |
| ||||||
|
Lets stop arguing the second amendment and look at some statistics.
http://www.cato.org/realaudio/audiopages/gunlaws.html http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/%7Ellou/guns.html http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-284.html http://www.zpub.com/un/guns.html http://www.enteract.com/~mgfree/GunFacts_NRA-Mag.htm http://www.igc.apc.org/ncia/facts.html#rate http://wildcat.arizona.edu/papers/91/79/05_1_m.html [url=http://wildcat.arizona.edu/papers/89/101/02_3_m.html] ]http://wildcat.arizona.edu/papers/89/101/02_3_m.html[/url] FIREARMS FACTS: GENERAL NUMBER OF Approx. 200 million firearms, GUNS IN U.S.: including 65-70 million handguns GUN OWNERS IN U.S.: 60-65 million, 30-35 million own handguns FIREARMS USED 11% of firearms owners FOR PROTECTION: 13% of handgun owners CRIMINAL MISUSE OF Less than 0.2% of firearms, FIREARMS YEARLY: Less than 0.4% of handguns Over 99.8% of U.S. firearms and 99.6% of U.S. handguns will not be involved in criminal activity in any given year. NRA voluntary firearm safety programs have helped reduce the accidental firearm fatality rate 67% over the last 50 years, while firearms ownership has risen 140%, and handgun ownership has risen 200%. WHY AMERICANS OWN FIREARMS (Based on 1978 Decision Making Information surveys, with handgun data confirmed by 1978 Caddell survey.) Primary Reasons to Own/Use Firearms, Projected Number of Americans (Approx. 60-65 million owners of 200,000,000 or more firearms) HUNTING: 51% 33,000,000 Americans PROTECTION: 32% 21,000,000 " Used Gun for Protection: 11% 7,000,000 " TARGET SHOOTING: 13% 8,500,000 " COLLECTING: 4% 2,600.000 " Primary Reasons to Own/Use Handguns Projected Number of Americans (30-35 million owners of 65,000,000 handguns) HUNTING: 10% 3,500,000 Americans PROTECTION: 58% 21,000,000 " Used Gun For Protection: 13% 4,600,666 " TARGET SHOOTING: 18% 6,300,000 " COLLECTING: 14% 5,000,000 " FIREARMS AND SELF-DEFENSE Survey research indicates that there are more than 2.1 million protective uses of firearms each year, far more than the number of violent criminal gun uses reported by the FBI. Most self-defense uses do not involve discharge of a firearm. In only 0.1% of defensive gun uses is a criminal killed, and in only 1% is a criminal wounded. A Department of Justice-sponsored survey found that 40% of felons had chosen not to commit at least one specific crime for fear their victims were armed, and 34% admitted being scared off or shot at by armed victims. U. S. Department of Justice victimization surveys show that the protective use of a firearm lessens the chance that a rape, robbery or assault attempt will be successfully completed and also reduces the chance of injury to the intended victim. CRIME RATES LOWER IN STATES THAT ALLOW LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS TO CARRY FIREARMS States with favorable concealed carry laws have lower rates of crime than states with restrictive concealed carry laws. Overall, the homicide rate for states with favorable carry laws is 31% lower, and the robbery rate is 36% lower, than for states with restrictive concealed carry laws. States which have recently changed their laws have experienced reductions in homicide rates. Since 1987, when Florida enacted a favorable CCW law, its homicide rate has dropped 22%, even while the national rate has risen 15%. Only .007% of Florida CCW permits have been revoked because of a crime after licensure. BIASED MEDIA POLLS DON'T TELL THE REAL STORY Media polls conducted by national polling firms frequently use biased questions and also limit the responses of those questioned. A Luntz Weber Research & Strategic Services poll reflects an accurate view of public opinion, using open ended questions which allow respondents to express their real opinions, rather than be directed toward a desired result. When given the opportunity to freely express themselves, Americans reveal that they do not believe that "gun control" is effective at fighting crime; they prefer criminal justice reform, stiffer penalties, better enforcement and solutions aimed at the core causes of crime. Some of the significant findings of the Luntz Weber survey are: Which of the following proposals do you believe would be more likely to reduce the number of violent crimes? Mandatory Prison 70% More Gun Control 25% What do you think is the most important cause of violent crime in the United States today? Drugs/Alcohol 36% Breakdown of Family Values 13% Poverty 8% Guns 8% Judicial System 5% In your opinion, what do you think is the single most important thing that can be done to help reduce violent crime in the United States today? Preventative programs 30% Prosecution/Penalties 20% Stronger Values 16% Better Enforcement 16% Gun Control 9% Other than for the police and military, all guns should be outlawed. Total Disagree 78% Total Agree 21% Strongly 58% Strongly 14% Somewhat 20% Somewhat 7% 12 LEADING CAUSES OF DEATH IN U.S. National Center for Health Statistics (latest data) ALL CAUSES 2,169,518 Heart Disease 720,862 Cancers 514,657 Strokes 143,481 ACCIDENTS 89,347 Motor Vehicle 43,536 Falls 12,662 Poisoning (solid, liquid, gas) 6,434 Drowning (incl. water transport drownings) 4,685 Suffocation (mechanical, ingestion) 4,195 Fires and flames 4,120 Surgical/Medical misadventures* 2,473 Other Transportation (excl. drownings) 2,086 Natural/Environmental factors 1,453 Firearms 1,441 Chronic pulmonary diseases 90,650 Pneumonia and influenza 77,860 Diabetes 48,951 Suicide** 30,810 HIV Infections (AIDS) 29,555 Homicide and legal intervention*** 26,513 Cirrhosis and other liver diseases 25,429 * A Harvard University study suggests 93,000 deaths annually related to medical negligence, excluding tens of thousands more deaths from non- hospital medical office/lab mistakes and thousands of hospital caused infections. ** Approximately 60% involve firearms. *** Approximately 60% involve firearms. Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck estimates 1,500-2,800 self-defense and justifiable homicides by civilians and 300-600 by police annually. THE REAL CAUSE OF CRIME - AND REAL SOLUTIONS America fails to incarcerate violent criminals. In 1960, 738 criminals were sent to prison for every 1,000 violent crimes, but by 1980, the number of criminals sent to prison per 1,000 violent crimes dropped to 227, and the crime rate tripled. Over 60,000 criminals convicted of violent crime every year _ murder, rape, robbery or aggravated assault _ are not sent to prison. Of America's 4.3 million convicted criminals, only 26% are in prison. The remaining 74% are serving "sentences" of parole or probation, free on the streets. Since lower incarceration rates are mostly due to prison overcrowding, CrimeStrike lobbied successfully to increase prison capacity in Texas, Mississippi, Virginia and nearly tripled the funds allocated for state prison construction in the 1994 Federal Crime Bill. Criminals who are incarcerated are freed too early, serving on average only one-third of their sentences. The average time served is: for murder, 7.7 years; rape, 4.6 years; robbery 3.3 years; and aggravated assault,1.9 years. Every day in America, 14 people will be murdered, 48 women raped and 578 robbed by convicted criminals on parole or early release from prison. CrimeStrike helped win passage of Truth-In-Sentencing laws in Arizona, Mississippi and Virginia, preventing early release by requiring violent criminals to serve 85% of their sentences. Additionally, CrimeStrike blocked the paroles of individual murderers in Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, Mississippi, Nebraska, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Texas and West Virginia. Juvenile crime has reached crisis proportions: Between 1980 and 1990, the number of juveniles arrested for heroin/cocaine rose 713%. Over the last five years, juvenile gang killings increased 208%. Yet only 1.5% of juvenile offenders were sent to adult or criminal court in 1991 and, of those, 85.3% were not sent to prison. CrimeStrike helped win passage of juvenile justice reform in Arkansas and Mississippi, requiring violent juvenile criminals who do "adult crime" to serve "adult time." Crime victims, or their survivors, are often treated as mere witnesses in court, unfairly barred from participating in the criminal justice process in any way. CrimeStrike worked for passage of Victims' Bill of Rights proposals in Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, Kansas, Maryland, Missouri and New Mexico. Repeat offenders are a serious threat to public safety. The average criminal commits 187-287 crimes a year, resulting in over six million people becoming victims of violent crime _ murder, rape, robbery or aggravated assault _ every year. CrimeStrike was instrumental in helping Washington State Initiative 593, the nation's first "Three Strike, You're Out" law, qualify for the ballot and then win passage by the largest margin in state history. CrimeStrike also provided grassroots support for the California "Three Strikes" law, which also won at the polls. U.S. COMPARED WITH FOREIGN COUNTRIES * All criminologists studying the firearms issue reject simple comparisons of violent crime among foreign countries. (James D. Wright, et. al ., Under the Gun, 1983) "Gun control does not deserve credit for the low crime rates in Britain, Japan, or other nations.... Foreign style gun control is doomed to failure in America; not only does it depend on search and seizure too intrusive for American standards, it postulates an authoritarian philosophy of government fundamentally at odds with the individual, egalitarian . . . American ethos." (David Kopel, "Foreign Gun Control in American Eyes," 1987) * Gun laws and firearms availability are unrelated to homicide or suicide rates. Most states bordering Canada have homicide rates similar to their northern neighbors, despite much higher rates of firearms availability. While the American homicide rate is higher than most European nations, and firearms are frequently involved in American homicides, America's violent crime rates are even higher for crimes where guns are less often (robbery) or infrequently (rape) involved. The difference is violence, not firearms, and America's system of revolving door justice. * England now has twice as many homicides with firearms as it did before adopting its repressive laws, yet its politicians have responded to rising crime by further restricting rifles and shotguns. During the past dozen years, handgun-related robbery has risen 200% in Britain, five times as fast as the rise in the U.S. * Japan's low homicide rate is accompanied by a suicide rate much higher than that of the United States, despite Japan's virtual gun ban. And Japan's low crime rate is attributable to police-state type law enforcement which would be opposed by Americans. * Anti-gunners' comparisons of homicide in Seattle and Vancouver, B.C., ignore the fact that non-Hispanic whites have a lower homicide rate in Seattle than in Vancouver, and that Vancouver's homicide rate, and handgun use in homicide, did not go down following Canada's adoption of a "tough" gun law. SEMI-AUTOMATICS & SO-CALLED "ASSAULT WEAPONS" * In a deliberate effort to have public policy made by deception, anti- gunners invented the "assault weapon" issue, noting that the public could not readily distinguish full-auto firearms _ sharply restricted by federal law since 1934 _ from semi-auto firearms. No legally-owned full auto firearm has ever been used in a violent crime by a civilian. Semi-autos are very difficult to convert to full auto and such conversion is a federal felony. Semi-autos which are "easy to convert" are not approved by the BATF for sale to the public. * Data from states and big cities show that military look-alikes constitute 0-3% of guns used in crime and constitute only 1.5% of guns seized by police. Rifles, including semi-autos, are involved in only 3% of homicides. * BATF traces tell nothing about the types of guns used by criminals, since only 1% of guns used in violent crimes are traced, and even that 1% is not randomly selected.(Congressional Research Service) * Anti-gunners' hypocrisy: Claiming that handguns are not protected by the Second Amendment because they have no militia purpose, they support banning rifles and shotguns which do. Their ultimate goal is total gun prohibition. NOTABLE GUN LAW FAILURES Since enacting a virtual handgun ban in 1976, Washington, D.C.'s murder rate has risen 200%, with a 300% rise in handgun-related homicide, as handgun use went from less than 60% of killings to 83%. No gun law in any city, state or nation has ever reduced violent crime, or slowed its rate of growth, compared to similar jurisdictions. With less than 3% of the U.S. population, New York City annually accounts for more than one-eighth of the nation's handgun- related homicides. Since it became a felony to go outside the city to evade its virtual handgun ban, the homicide rate in N.Y.C has risen three times faster than the rest of the country's. Gun rationing schemes have failed miserably. In 1975, South Carolina limited handgun sales to individuals to one per month. Since then, South Carolina's violent crime rate has skyrocketed over 100%. I think the framers understood that this right was necessary for individuals to protect themselves from tyranny. It is obvious if you consider what they had just went through. Just prior to the revolution the British tried to disarm the colonists. -------------------- Be all and you'll be to end all Edited by mntlfngrs (09/02/02 11:19 PM)
| |||||||
|
Xlea321 Stranger Registered: 02/25/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
|
Technically, in the US vs Miller, the ruling was that the weapons must be in comman usage by the military
And tanks arn't? This is very odd. You've been arguing for the last 20 posts that the reason we are armed is so we can "defend" ourselves against tyrants. Pardon the language but what the fuck are you gonna do against a tyrant in control of an airforce and hundreds of tank divisions with your saturday night special? This point comprehensively destroys your "argument" regarding "defending ourselves against tyrants". Now what were your other points? I may as well destroy those while I'm at it... -------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
| |||||||
|
Xlea321 Stranger Registered: 02/25/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
|
Why do you think I shouldn't be allowed to keep my 12 guage under the bed that I use for home defence and sleep well at night? Why don't you thnk I should be allowed to use that same shotgun to shoot clay disks and rabbits and deer when they're in season? Why do you hate my freedom so much?
Maybe you're an ok guy rail gun. It's the guy who lives down the street from you who'se just been fired from the post office I worry about. In England the most he could do would be to swing a baseball bat at the boss. In America he'll go back with his AK-47 and wipe out 23 of his co-workers. -------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
| |||||||
|
luvdemshrooms Two inch dick..but it spins!? Registered: 11/29/01 Posts: 34,247 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
In reply to: Did you miss this part of my previous reply? *Technically, in the US vs Miller, the ruling was that the weapons must be in comman usage by the military. However, even if we could find someone willing to sell us a tank or a blackhawk, who could afford one. I'd love to have a helicopter.* And we are allowed to own tanks. The military won't sell one with a functional weapons system, but tanks we can buy. In reply to: Wrong again. I've been arguing that the second ammendment protects an individuals right to own firearms. Defense against tyranny was but one of the many reasons that right is so important. But it's no surprise to me that you fail to see the difference. In reply to: Ask anyone of numerous peoples who have fought against a more powerful invading army. Will I run up to a tank with a .38 special and open fire? No, of course not. With armed resistance more powerful weapons can and would be taken from those who posess them. I expected a question from you with at least a touch of thought behind it. You've destroyed no points at all in your posts, be they mine or anyone elses. And you still have not backed up your points. And it would seem you can't count either as I haven't made 20 posts in this thread. You go on believing as you will. Your arguements are invalid as are your methods of presenting them. Many of the posters in this thread have backed up their position from many sources. You have failed to do so. Your opinions are what you wish them to be, even if you can't back them up you're free to have them. There are none so blind as those who will not see. -------------------- 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
| |||||||
|
Xlea321 Stranger Registered: 02/25/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
|
Ask anyone of numerous peoples who have fought against a more powerful invading army. Will I run up to a tank with a .38 special and open fire? No, of course not. With armed resistance more powerful weapons can and would be taken from those who posess them.
OK, lets start with the Taliban. They had rifles and handguns. How effective were they against F16's and daisy-cutter bombs? -------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
| |||||||
|
Winky Stranger Registered: 09/04/02 Posts: 5 Last seen: 21 years, 2 months |
| ||||||
|
Doesn't the U.S. code pretty clearly define "militia"?
I'm not really sure how there can be so much confusion about it since it clearly mentions an "unorganized militia" as well as the national guard. Title 10, Subtitle A, Part I, Chapter 13, Section 311 The 2nd amendment doesn't justify anything (referring to the unfortunate title of this thread), it just allows the citizenry to keep weapons should they be necessary for overthrowing an unspecified foreign or domestic threat. Just because one can constructs a "probable" futile scenario in which the entirety of the US military up against some yahoos with rifles does not negate the value of an armed citizenry. It's like asking somebody why they have a fire extingusher when it is useless for putting out the fire in a house that is fully engulfed in flames. -Winky
| |||||||
|
Ellis Dee Archangel Registered: 06/29/01 Posts: 13,104 Loc: Fire in the sky Last seen: 5 years, 1 month |
| ||||||
In reply to: Basically, you want to take away my freedom because of what someone else *might* do. At least that's an honest answer... -------------------- "If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do."-King Solomon And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
| |||||||
|
mr freedom enthusiast Registered: 02/25/01 Posts: 232 Last seen: 18 years, 11 months |
| ||||||
|
I won't bother you with my own constitutional research; it has been given, perfectly I might add, by others.
The taliban was able to kill over 3000 people without firing a single shot. What would have happend with an armed pilot? School shootings: I am in a hurry so I will include a link and a few short lines of just one school shooting where the body count was greatly reduced because someone else, someone NOT considering killing innocent people, was armed. http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/1/25/153427.shtml Writing in Friday's edition of the New York Post, Lott reported on last week's shooting at Appalachian School of Law. Nigerian student Peter Odighizuwa is accused of killing the dean, L. Anthony Sutin, 42 – a former acting assistant U.S. attorney general and campaign worker for Bill Clinton – professor Thomas Blackwell, 41, and student Angela Denise Dales, 33. Noting that the rampage was widely covered in the world's media, Lott wrote: "As usual, there were calls for more gun control. "Yet in this age of 'gun-free school zones,' the vast majority of news reports ignored the fact that the attack was stopped by two students who had guns in their cars. The quick response by two of the students, Mikael Gross, 34, and Tracy Bridges, 25, undoubtedly saved multiple lives," Lott reported. Almost forgot. To the topic at hand. No, the second ammendment does not give the individual the right to shoot any official engaged in the lawful carrying out of their jobs. This does not preclude armed rebellion, but does limit that to a concensus of the majority of citizens, I think. Until such time, we are limited to closet rebellion. Considering the nature and scope of the government propeganda machine, I doubt that there are more than several hundred thousand people in this nation, that would be willing to fight for thier rights; the rest are cowards in need of protection from the slave owners.
| |||||||
|
Xlea321 Stranger Registered: 02/25/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
|
Basically, you want to take away my freedom because of what someone else *might* do. At least that's an honest answer...
So why are you so keen on taking away Saddams freedom for something he "might" do? -------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
| |||||||
|
Xlea321 Stranger Registered: 02/25/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
|
The quick response by two of the students, Mikael Gross, 34, and Tracy Bridges, 25, undoubtedly saved multiple lives," Lott reported.
That's cool. I just don't want my kids lives dependent on a couple of students opening fire around him. I want him in a country like England where school shootings havn't happened since the gun control laws were tightened. -------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
| |||||||
| |||||||
[Re: 
Edit 
Reply 
| Shop: Buy Bali Kratom Powder Kratom Capsules for Sale, Red Vein Kratom Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order |
|
| Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
 |
 |
What does the 2nd Amendment mean? |  SoopaX |
2,334 | 16 | 12/11/04 03:09 PM by SoopaX |
|
|
for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment (  1 2 3 all ) |
 Anonymous |
7,391 | 58 | 01/23/04 04:34 PM by luvdemshrooms |
|
|
Blind allegiance to the 2nd Amendment by Bush ( 1 2 all ) |
1stimer |
3,201 | 20 | 09/09/04 07:35 PM by unbeliever |
|
|
2nd Amendment Quote |  MagicalMystery |
374 | 0 | 10/19/05 02:28 PM by MagicalMystery |
|
|
The 2nd Amendment | Anonymous |
660 | 2 | 08/02/03 10:31 PM by Anonymous |
|
|
Confiscation of registered firearms has begun |  Ellis Dee |
1,535 | 13 | 09/06/01 12:14 AM by MrKurtz |
|
|
Which amendment to the bill of rights is your favorite? ( 1 2 all ) |
 Senor_Doobie |
2,417 | 34 | 01/30/03 10:52 AM by Sinistar |
|
|
Police shoot demonstrators |  mm. |
2,660 | 15 | 10/12/18 06:26 PM by christopera |
| Extra information | ||
| You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa 13,936 topic views. 2 members, 5 guests and 7 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||