The Right To Bear Arms

[expatriate]

Don't have to be in the militia per SCOTUS.

Individual right.

So...40mm AA batteries on everyone's back deck are cool with you?

Cool ? Yes.

Legal ? No.

Why not legal? It certainly seems like an infringement, no?

And, if you say that judges and politicians DO have a role in drawing ANY line, then quit your fucking bitching if the elected officials draw the line somewhere other than you would personally have drawn it. Vote for their opponent in the next election or run for their seat yourself. Otherwise, STFU.

 

[OODA_Loop]

So...40mm AA batteries on everyone's back deck are cool with you?

Cool ? Yes.

Legal ? No.

Why not legal? It certainly seems like an infringement, no?

And, if you say that judges and politicians DO have a role in drawing ANY line, then quit your fucking bitching if the elected officials draw the line somewhere other than you would personally have drawn it. Vote for their opponent in the next election or run for their seat yourself. Otherwise, STFU.

40mm AA batteries are not in common use.

AR-15's are.

 

[expatriate]

Cool ? Yes.

Legal ? No.

Why not legal? It certainly seems like an infringement, no?

And, if you say that judges and politicians DO have a role in drawing ANY line, then quit your fucking bitching if the elected officials draw the line somewhere other than you would personally have drawn it. Vote for their opponent in the next election or run for their seat yourself. Otherwise, STFU.

40mm AA batteries are not in common use.

AR-15's are.

So, when any new weapons technology comes on the market, all it needs is some clever marketing, and it will pass muster?

 

[GuyPinestra]

And I would certainly be all in favor of limiting firearm ownership to only those citizens who agreed to be "well regulated" and participate in regular training as part of a well regulated militia. Are you with me on that one too? Or do you think that everyone should just be able to go down to their local gun shop and buy the biggest, baddest weapon they can buy without any strings attached? THAT doesn't seem congruous with the framer's intent.

You don't seem qualified to determine the Framer's intent, since your determination is so much different from SCOTUS.

You should probably give it a rest.

 

[expatriate]

And I would certainly be all in favor of limiting firearm ownership to only those citizens who agreed to be "well regulated" and participate in regular training as part of a well regulated militia. Are you with me on that one too? Or do you think that everyone should just be able to go down to their local gun shop and buy the biggest, baddest weapon they can buy without any strings attached? THAT doesn't seem congruous with the framer's intent.

You don't seem qualified to determine the Framer's intent, since your determination is so much different from SCOTUS.

You should probably give it a rest.

So you too, are ready to give serious credence to nine judges in the 21st century over the framers from the end of the 18th?

Thanks for playing.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Why not legal? It certainly seems like an infringement, no?

And, if you say that judges and politicians DO have a role in drawing ANY line, then quit your fucking bitching if the elected officials draw the line somewhere other than you would personally have drawn it. Vote for their opponent in the next election or run for their seat yourself. Otherwise, STFU.

40mm AA batteries are not in common use.

AR-15's are.

So, when any new weapons technology comes on the market, all it needs is some clever marketing, and it will pass muster?

Needs more than clever marketing.

 

[GuyPinestra]

And I would certainly be all in favor of limiting firearm ownership to only those citizens who agreed to be "well regulated" and participate in regular training as part of a well regulated militia. Are you with me on that one too? Or do you think that everyone should just be able to go down to their local gun shop and buy the biggest, baddest weapon they can buy without any strings attached? THAT doesn't seem congruous with the framer's intent.

You don't seem qualified to determine the Framer's intent, since your determination is so much different from SCOTUS.

You should probably give it a rest.

So you too, are ready to give serious credence to nine judges in the 21st century over the framers from the end of the 18th?

Thanks for playing.

The intent of the 2nd was and is to make sure the people PRIVATELY possess weapons comparable to those 'standing armies' they were so skeptical of.

Period.

 

[Lakhota]

 

[Lakhota]

 

[emptystep]

You don't seem qualified to determine the Framer's intent, since your determination is so much different from SCOTUS.

You should probably give it a rest.

So you too, are ready to give serious credence to nine judges in the 21st century over the framers from the end of the 18th?

Thanks for playing.

The intent of the 2nd was and is to make sure the people PRIVATELY possess weapons comparable to those 'standing armies' they were so skeptical of.

Period.

We also have the right to carry any weapon any where we go in case the government tries to sneak up on us and oppress us.

 

[percysunshine]

Obama says he supports the individual protection of the 2A.

So do I and most responsible gun owners. It's the extremist views of the NRA gun nuts that many of us don't support.

Lakota is a gun and bible clinging KKK nutjob?

We promise not to rat you out Lak...you are an individual thinker.

 

[GuyPinestra]

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

You would think knowing 'your people's' history, you'd realize what happens when a group has inferior weapons and/or has those weapons confiscated.

Or is it just that you want to see EVERYBODY 'on the rez'?

 

[expatriate]

So you too, are ready to give serious credence to nine judges in the 21st century over the framers from the end of the 18th?

Thanks for playing.

The intent of the 2nd was and is to make sure the people PRIVATELY possess weapons comparable to those 'standing armies' they were so skeptical of.

Period.

We also have the right to carry any weapon any where we go in case the government tries to sneak up on us and oppress us.

So you are completely in favor of letting any citizen own any armament he or she feels necessary... Missile launchers, land mines, tactical nuclear weapons... Not to mention assault rifles and fully automatic weapons? do I have that right?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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

Nope. none of that. You hate 'merica and the 2nd amendment. THe Federal government has no right to tell me what I can and cannot do. Boodaloo, I'm going to go bang my cousin now.

 

[Lakhota]

When the 2nd Amendment was written - there was no "standing army"...

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.

From the OP.

 

[asterism]

So, lacking a definition of tyranny, is it safe to assume that such fears of tyranny and the need to arm against it is nothing more than an esoteric rant with all the credibility and potential of the fears ginned up over fluoridation from way back in the 1950s?

The calls to arms to resist tyranny are empty and ridiculous because no one can say how tyranny manifests itself in modern America. The fact is you idiots know NOTHING of tyranny. You can't even cite examples of American tyranny, in spite of the fact that anyone reading this who is over 55 years old has seen tyranny in action here in America.

A salient point.

That such tyranny has not existed here in a long while does not mean it will never happen again and it most certainly does not mean that vigilance against it are empty and ridiculous. It can mean that so far, the 2nd Amendment as a check against tyranny has worked quite well.

 

[asterism]

So, lacking a definition of tyranny, is it safe to assume that such fears of tyranny and the need to arm against it is nothing more than an esoteric rant with all the credibility and potential of the fears ginned up over fluoridation from way back in the 1950s?

The calls to arms to resist tyranny are empty and ridiculous because no one can say how tyranny manifests itself in modern America. The fact is you idiots know NOTHING of tyranny. You can't even cite examples of American tyranny, in spite of the fact that anyone reading this who is over 55 years old has seen tyranny in action here in America.

I am not clear on what you are requesting? You want a definition of tyranny? Do you think tyranny is something that works like a light switch?

No, i don't think there's instant tyranny. But if the justification to keep a cache of weapons and ammunition so a citizen can hold off tyranny in a three hour fire fight, perhaps we should know what we'
re supposed to be so damn fearful about.

What is tyranny? How does it manifest itself? What is there to fear?

The government is to fear the wrath of a plurality of it's armed citizens deciding to rise up against it. Not Waco, not Ruby Ridge, but millions of armed citizens defending their homes and their way of life.

It's a good check on the power of governments and it's telling that it hasn't occurred.

 

[asterism]

So, the only way to suppress tyranny is at the barrel of a gun? Citizens cannot, nor have they ever, in this country faced real tyranny and freed themselves of it without armed resistance?

Of course it's not the ONLY way, but it's a damn good deterrent....by design.

Again, I ask, what is tyranny? How will we know tyranny is being forced upon us? Has the state ever acted in a tyrannical manner towards its citizens here in the United States?

Yes, but the citizens did not rise up as they should have. The Japanese internment camps of WWII were calamitous.

 

[asterism]

<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?

Only if enough of the armed citizens rise up and rebel.

That's the check on mob rule.

 

[Lakhota]

Tyranny was when Bush lied to us and then invaded Iraq. We should have risen up.