The Right To Bear Arms

[Nosmo King]

Yes. No. Yes, unless the kid is a danger to others. No, no, yes. Depends.

Would you concede that the examples you cited; Japanese internment camps, the suspension of habeus, execution (on the field of battle) of American citizens without due process are all extreme cases born of the fog and turmoil of war? While the cases i cited were sustained and egregious acts of state manifested tyranny?

And when I cited businesses and lunch counters and movie theaters, remember that it was not by the choice of the owner, but by legislative mandate.

You see, the clamor about tyranny is nothing more than an esoteric rant, delivered by people who no NOTHING of tyranny. they have never endured it, they have no real concept of it. And a call to arms to defend freedom in the face of tyranny requires a sound reason. Like the Declaration of Independence. Without a working definition of tyranny and the ability to cite it, ain't it just a couple of drinking buddies, AR-15s slung over their shoulders and a beat up Dodge Durango and the chance to play Army?

The execution of US citizens by Obama was not on any field of battle.

<side bar> I thought you were referring to predator drone strikes against American born Al Qeada militants.

 

[hortysir]

Would you concede that the examples you cited; Japanese internment camps, the suspension of habeus, execution (on the field of battle) of American citizens without due process are all extreme cases born of the fog and turmoil of war? While the cases i cited were sustained and egregious acts of state manifested tyranny?

And when I cited businesses and lunch counters and movie theaters, remember that it was not by the choice of the owner, but by legislative mandate.

You see, the clamor about tyranny is nothing more than an esoteric rant, delivered by people who no NOTHING of tyranny. they have never endured it, they have no real concept of it. And a call to arms to defend freedom in the face of tyranny requires a sound reason. Like the Declaration of Independence. Without a working definition of tyranny and the ability to cite it, ain't it just a couple of drinking buddies, AR-15s slung over their shoulders and a beat up Dodge Durango and the chance to play Army?

The execution of US citizens by Obama was not on any field of battle.

<side bar> I thought you were referring to predator drone strikes against American born Al Qeada militants.

That happened in Pakistan, didn't it???

 

[Nosmo King]

The execution of US citizens by Obama was not on any field of battle.

<side bar> I thought you were referring to predator drone strikes against American born Al Qeada militants.

That happened in Pakistan, didn't it???

I don't want to go down a primrose path with this. I just want to know if we're supposed to be fearful, what are we supposed to be fearful of? And are the examples I cited tyranny or not?

 

[Si modo]

Would you concede that the examples you cited; Japanese internment camps, the suspension of habeus, execution (on the field of battle) of American citizens without due process are all extreme cases born of the fog and turmoil of war? While the cases i cited were sustained and egregious acts of state manifested tyranny?

And when I cited businesses and lunch counters and movie theaters, remember that it was not by the choice of the owner, but by legislative mandate.

You see, the clamor about tyranny is nothing more than an esoteric rant, delivered by people who no NOTHING of tyranny. they have never endured it, they have no real concept of it. And a call to arms to defend freedom in the face of tyranny requires a sound reason. Like the Declaration of Independence. Without a working definition of tyranny and the ability to cite it, ain't it just a couple of drinking buddies, AR-15s slung over their shoulders and a beat up Dodge Durango and the chance to play Army?

The execution of US citizens by Obama was not on any field of battle.

<side bar> I thought you were referring to predator drone strikes against American born Al Qeada militants.

I am referring to drone strikes to kill US citizens without judicial review and not in a combat zone. Obama executed three US citizens without judicial review. And the ACLU is all over his ass for it. Gotta love those who value the US Constitution and American civil liberties.

 

[hortysir]

<side bar> I thought you were referring to predator drone strikes against American born Al Qeada militants.

That happened in Pakistan, didn't it???

I don't want to go down a primrose path with this. I just want to know if we're supposed to be fearful, what are we supposed to be fearful of? And are the examples I cited tyranny or not?

Yes, of a too-far-reaching government.
How long before "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is an "antiquated idea"???

 

[Nosmo King]

The execution of US citizens by Obama was not on any field of battle.

<side bar> I thought you were referring to predator drone strikes against American born Al Qeada militants.

I am referring to drone strikes to kill US citizens without judicial review and not in a combat zone. Obama executed three US citizens without judicial review. And the ACLU is all over his ass for it. Gotta love those who value the US Constitution and American civil liberties.

see post 99

 

[Nosmo King]

That happened in Pakistan, didn't it???

I don't want to go down a primrose path with this. I just want to know if we're supposed to be fearful, what are we supposed to be fearful of? And are the examples I cited tyranny or not?

Yes, of a too-far-reaching government.
How long before "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is an "antiquated idea"???

So you agree that the Jim Crow south was state sanctioned tyranny?

 

[Si modo]

<side bar> I thought you were referring to predator drone strikes against American born Al Qeada militants.

I am referring to drone strikes to kill US citizens without judicial review and not in a combat zone. Obama executed three US citizens without judicial review. And the ACLU is all over his ass for it. Gotta love those who value the US Constitution and American civil liberties.

see post 99

Sticking your head in the sand about Obama's tyranny is futile.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

A distinguished citizen takes a stand on one of the most controversial issues in the nation

By Warren E. Burger, Chief Justice of the United States (1969-86)
Parade Magazine, January 14, 1990, page 4

Let's look at the history.

First, many of the 3.5 million people living in the 13 original Colonies depended on wild game for food, and a good many of them required firearms for their defense from marauding Indians -- and later from the French and English. Underlying all these needs was an important concept that each able-bodied man in each of the 133 independent states had to help or defend his state.

The early opposition to the idea of national or standing armies was maintained under the Articles of Confederation; that confederation had no standing army and wanted none. The state militia -- essentially a part-time citizen army, as in Switzerland today -- was the only kind of "army" they wanted. From the time of the Declaration of Independence through the victory at Yorktown in 1781, George Washington, as the commander-in-chief of these volunteer-militia armies, had to depend upon the states to send those volunteers.

When a company of New Jersey militia volunteers reported for duty to Washington at Valley Forge, the men initially declined to take an oath to "the United States," maintaining, "Our country is New Jersey." Massachusetts Bay men, Virginians and others felt the same way. To the American of the 18th century, his state was his country, and his freedom was defended by his militia.

The victory at Yorktown -- and the ratification of the Bill of Rights a decade later -- did not change people's attitudes about a national army. They had lived for years under the notion that each state would maintain its own military establishment, and the seaboard states had their own navies as well. These people, and their fathers and grandfathers before them, remembered how monarchs had used standing armies to oppress their ancestors in Europe. Americans wanted no part of this. A state militia, like a rifle and powder horn, was as much a part of life as the automobile is today; pistols were largely for officers, aristocrats -- and dueling.

Against this background, it was not surprising that the provision concerning firearms emerged in very simple terms with the significant predicate -- basing the right on the necessity for a "well regulated militia," a state army.

In the two centuries since then -- with two world wars and some lesser ones -- it has become clear, sadly, that we have no choice but to maintain a standing national army while still maintaining a "militia" by way of the National Guard, which can be swiftly integrated into the national defense forces.

Americans also have a right to defend their homes, and we need not challenge that. Nor does anyone seriously question that the Constitution protects the right of hunters to own and keep sporting guns for hunting game any more than anyone would challenge the right to own and keep fishing rods and other equipment for fishing -- or to own automobiles. To "keep and bear arms" for hunting today is essentially a recreational activity and not an imperative of survival, as it was 200 years ago; "Saturday night specials" and machine guns are not recreational weapons and surely are as much in need of regulation as motor vehicles.

Americans should ask themselves a few questions. The Constitution does not mention automobiles or motorboats, but the right to keep and own an automobile is beyond question; equally beyond question is the power of the state to regulate the purchase or the transfer of such a vehicle and the right to license the vehicle and the driver with reasonable standards. In some places, even a bicycle must be registered, as must some household dogs.

If we are to stop this mindless homicidal carnage, is it unreasonable:

1. to provide that, to acquire a firearm, an application be made reciting age, residence, employment and any prior criminal convictions?
2. to required that this application lie on the table for 10 days (absent a showing for urgent need) before the license would be issued?
3. that the transfer of a firearm be made essentially as with that of a motor vehicle?
4. to have a "ballistic fingerprint" of the firearm made by the manufacturer and filed with the license record so that, if a bullet is found in a victim's body, law enforcement might be helped in finding the culprit?
​

These are the kind of questions the American people must answer if we are to preserve the "domestic tranquillity" promised in the Constitution.

More: Ex-Chief Justice Warren Burger in Parade Magazine

Let me take these things one at a time.

1. Why should anyone have to provide information about employment to purchase something if they are paying cash? Should we also require people to provide employment if they buy a computer? I can do a hell of a lot more damage with words than with a gun.
2. You have to prove someone is going to kill you? If I can't prove my son needs a gun will the police guarantee his safety until they get through pretending that they are important?
3. What the frack does that mean? I can give my car to anyone I want without a background check, does that mean I can do the same with a gun?
4. There is no evidence to support the delusion that "ballistic fingerprints" actually work the claim that they can decisively tie a bullet to a gun.

I guess that I can't actually expect Burger, as a statist, to accept that the government is capable of being wrong, but they are wrong more often than they are right

 

[Nosmo King]

I am referring to drone strikes to kill US citizens without judicial review and not in a combat zone. Obama executed three US citizens without judicial review. And the ACLU is all over his ass for it. Gotta love those who value the US Constitution and American civil liberties.

see post 99

Sticking your head in the sand about Obama's tyranny is futile.

I'm building an argument here. We agree that tyranny has happened, right? Let's put a pin in any other issues and get to a conclusion. It's already way past my bedtime and tomorrow is a work day.

 

[ReallyMeow]

These are people, the second amendment does apply.

 

[007]

As Fareed Zakaria pointed out in Time, “Congress passed the first set of federal laws regulating, licensing and taxing guns in 1934. The act was challenged and went to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1939. Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s solicitor general, Robert H. Jackson, said the Second Amendment grants people a right that ‘is not one which may be utilized for private purposes but only one which exists where the arms are borne in the militia or some other military organization provided for by law and intended for the protection of the state.’ The court agreed unanimously.”

There is no 2nd amendment right to own a gun and there never was | Examiner.com

The Case for Gun Control - TIME

Hey commie... why don't you do yourself a great big huge favor and just move to a country that's been disarmed?

Your problems would be over. Get going.

I'll pay your air fare.

 

[Lakhota]

Duh, my people were here first... I think I'll stay...

 

[Lakhota]

The 2nd Amendment is nothing more than a fossil of days long past.

 

[007]

Duh, my people were here first... I think I'll stay...

"Your people?" I'm Cherokee myself shit for brains, but that's got nothing to do with it.

You dodged the question, why don't you move to a country that's been disarmed? It's your wet dream, do it.

 

[zonly1]

The 2nd Amendment is nothing more than a fossil of days long past.

Tanks azzhat, your little world forgets a time the 2nd Amendment was put in place to confront TYRANNY. Quit listening to left loser media in terms of true intent.
Maybe you should let grown ups discuss this manner. IT's apparent you are out of your league.

Stalin posed with children to promote tyranny.

If jews were allowed to have guns, there would be no holocaust.

 

[Skull Pilot]

"Militia" is the subject in the 2nd Amendment sentence. "Militia" is now the National Guard.

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

You can't say that arms are limited to the militia and then say the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.

It's contradictory. In law most contradictions are interpreted in favor of the less restrictive end

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

When was the last time the American people felt compelled to take up arms against their own government?

More to the point; when will be the NEXT time?

When a black man lives in the White House...?

Gotta love it when liberals moves right into the racial comments, no hesitation there.

 

[Si modo]

More to the point; when will be the NEXT time?

When a black man lives in the White House...?

Gotta love it when liberals moves right into the racial comments, no hesitation there.

Lakhota is a racist and an anti-semite. A stormfronter.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

"Militia" is the subject in the 2nd Amendment sentence. "Militia" is now the National Guard.

Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

It was the Founders desire that its citizens be armed to ensure our government never dictates power or rule OVER its people, but rightfully respects that it's the people who rule over their government and its leaders are their "servants" OF the people. The people are to never become "enslaved" through the power of their government, this is guaranteed through the power of the second amendment.

It helps to actually READ what out Founders had desired and established for this country through the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution. Neither of which are "dated" by those who respect the sacrifices our Founders made to establish this great Republic.