The Right To Bear Arms

[Lakhota]

 

[Harry Dresden]

So people can cite movies, but no one can cite exactly what tyranny means. Are we in the shallow end of the intellectual pool?

The very shallow end...

well at least your admitting your in that part of the pool....

 

[Harry Dresden]

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...?

its been like that for 4 years you dumbass,has anyone taken up arms yet?......no wonder why your in the shallow end of the pool....

 

[Harry Dresden]

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

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

Oooh race card shown. That never happens.

it does with this jerk.....every chance he gets....LaKoota is one of these assholes who say if your against Obama for ANY REASON......its because he is Black....there can be no other reason.....

 

[Harry Dresden]

Chief Justice Berger was a Conservative Republican.

so what?......do you think other Conservative Republicans are going to change what they believe because of what this meatball thinks?......oh wait thats right.....your one of those people in the shallow end of the pool.....sorry....

 

[Harry Dresden]

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

What's so hard to understand?

That part is easy to understand - until you connect it to the word "militia"...

who are....THE PEOPLE?.....

 

[Harry Dresden]

maybe not.....but whether you or i like it or not.....they are part of the PEOPLE.....if they use those guns to commit acts of violence.......then give them a nice long severe jail sentence....

 

[Harry Dresden]

That part is easy to understand - until you connect it to the word "militia"...

It's not connected.
It's in addition to.

Here, I'll post it in it's entirety so you can see the comma:

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.

Hmm all one sentence, starts out as A well regulated militia....
Now if you understand grammer one sentence means....

who are the PEOPLE us?.......

 

[Harry Dresden]

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

so are the People.......

 

[williepete]

We are the militia.

Article 10, US Code - Section 311: Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.

 

[Harry Dresden]

are we suppose to care?
my gawd

Chief Justice Burger means shit. He did not create the U.S. Constitution nor is he allowed to make law from the bench. Laws are made by the legislative branch, this asshole belonged to the judicial branch. Period.

Our founders made it very clear that the 2nd Amendment had no stipulation on type of weapon, magazine capacity, etc. That's why they said "the right to bear arms" and not "the right to bear muskets". Arms go way beyond guns. Arms dealers deal in RPG's, anti-tank technology, and a whole lot more. Of all of which our founders intended us to have to protect us from a tyrannical leader/government (a fear which, sadly, has come to be realized under the Obama regime).

As always Lahkota, you're completely misinformed on the facts and you're getting owned in the debate.

He couldn't anyway. Sorry you didn't get the memo but he's dead.

As for the rest - it always cracks me up that the rw's believe they know more about what is "constitutional" than our SCOTUS.

In point of FACT, it is our Supreme Court that decides what is constitutional. That is the very definition of "constitutional".

Why don't rw's know that?

As for the rest - it always cracks me up that the rw's believe they know more about what is "constitutional" than our SCOTUS.

so why are you not getting on your buddies here on the left who seem to think they know more?.....like LaKota......or are you selective in who you criticize?....

 

[Lakhota]

Defense Secretary: 'I Don't Know Why The Hell People Have To Have Assault Weapons' | ThinkProgress

 

[OODA_Loop]

Defense Secretary: 'I Don't Know Why The Hell People Have To Have Assault Weapons' | ThinkProgress

Cuz 'SCOTUS sayz = Yea!!!

Common usage.

 

[Doc91678]

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

"In many areas of constitutional law the Burger Court produced the most liberal jurisprudence in history—even more liberal than that of its predecessor."​

 

[Si modo]

Defense Secretary: 'I Don't Know Why The Hell People Have To Have Assault Weapons' | ThinkProgress

Betcha didn't know he doesn't make law nor does his opinion on this have any legal significance.

But, you like being irrelevant, and least you must like it because you so often are.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Defense Secretary: 'I Don't Know Why The Hell People Have To Have Assault Weapons' | ThinkProgress

Betcha didn't know he doesn't make law nor does his opinion on this have any legal significance.

But, you like being irrelevant, and least you must like it because you so often are.

The part that gets me is he thinks people don't need armor piercing bullets. One would think a career Army officer would understand that all bullets are armor piercing.

 

[zonly1]

fuck off turd wrestler

 

[Skull Pilot]

Defense Secretary: 'I Don't Know Why The Hell People Have To Have Assault Weapons' | ThinkProgress

A semiautomatic rifle is not an assault weapon.

 

[Dubya]

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The Guilty Conscience of a Drone Pilot Who Killed a Child

Bryant had a sick feeling in his stomach. "Did we just kill a kid?" he asked the man sitting next to him.

"Yeah, I guess that was a kid," the pilot replied.

"Was that a kid?" they wrote into a chat window on the monitor.

Then, someone they didn't know answered, someone sitting in a military command center somewhere in the world who had observed their attack. "No. That was a dog," the person wrote.

They reviewed the scene on video. A dog on two legs?

The United States kills a lot of "dogs on two legs." The Bureau of Investigative Journalism reported last August that in Pakistan's tribal areas alone, there are at least 168 credible reports of children being killed in drone strikes. Presidents Bush and Obama have actively prevented human-rights observers from accessing full casualty data from programs that remain officially secret, so there is no way to know the total number of children American strikes have killed in the numerous countries in which they've been conducted, but if we arbitrarily presume that "just" 84 children have died -- half the Bureau's estimate from one country -- the death toll would still be more than quadruple the number of children killed in Newtown, Connecticut.

The Guilty Conscience of a Drone Pilot Who Killed a Child - Conor Friedersdorf - The Atlantic