The Role of Government in Maintaining a Well Regulated Militia!?!

[AZrailwhale]

Breyer and Stevens were correct. They understood the history of 2nd Amendment rights better than the majority. They actually used historical research and references, whereas Scalia et al. made up their own rationale.

What I think Stevens would have said (may have said - can't remember) is that some gun ownership protections exist under the 9th Amendment, which is what I believe as well.

Breyer and Stevens are far left loons who reliably ruled in favor of any liberal cause regardless of precedent or the Constitution.

 

[AZrailwhale]

it took you a whole 30 minutes to come up with a stupid response

guess you forgot that military just got ran out of another country by civilians,,
that military hasnt won a war since the 40's

youre also assuming all the people in the military will kill fellow americans,,

all that doesnt really matter until you get the constitution changed,, so let me know when that happens,,

The military hasn't lost a major battle since the forties. CIVILIAN politicians have lost the wars since the forties.

 

[progressive hunter]

The military hasn't lost a major battle since the forties. CIVILIAN politicians have lost the wars since the forties.

winning battles doesnt win the war,,

and yes all of it is the fault of the people that run the way wars are fought not the people fighting them,, they just get the blame,,

 

[AZrailwhale]

When has there ever been a recognized right to murder in any human society?

Laws do not grant rights and that is the cornerstone of our governmental philosophy.

Laws protect the rights people inherently possess.

So if we say there is a right to life which we do then of course murder would violate that right.

Justified self defense has never been considered murder and never will be

Samurai had the right to murder any peasant at will. Spartans had the right to murder any Helot at will on a particular day of the year to cull the population of Helots. I'm sure there were others, but those two come immediately to mind.

 

[Failzero]

Samurai had the right to murder any peasant at will. Spartans had the right to murder any Helot at will on a particular day of the year to cull the population of Helots. I'm sure there were others, but those two come immediately to mind.

Cambodia 1975

 

[Blues Man]

In some countries, the killing for what are considered reasons connected to family honor, usually involving killing due to sexual, religious or caste reasons (known as honor killing), committed frequently by a husband, father or male relative of the victim, is not considered murder; it may not be considered a criminal act or it may be considered a criminal offense other than murder.

However, they have rather significantly and consistently occurred in various parts of the Middle East and South Asia, with nearly half of all honor killings occurring in India and Pakistan.

In the 21st century, there was an increased international awareness of honor killing, however, some countries remained reluctant to take the necessary steps to effectively criminalize it.

In some countries, such as Jordan, honor killings are either legal or minimally punished. Article 340 of the Jordanian Penal Code exempts from punishment those who kill female relatives found “guilty” of committing adultery, and Article 76 of the temporary penal code allows defendants to cite “mitigating reasons” in assault crimes.



YES, they do.
See: US CONSTITUTION.

They do NOT inherit "rights"

SO..............."IF WE say"?

SOMEONE has to declare it "justified".
Laws?

Just because there are laws defining what a justified killing is in no way means there is no right of self defense. I don't know how many times I have to repeat this before it sinks into your thick skull.

According to you any state could pass a law stating that you have to allow yourself to be killed because self defense is illegal and you have no right to defend yourself.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

The classic instructional philosophies of how humans form and defend "society" is a long story (back to Plato and Aristotle) and deeply studied and quite well understood by the founders / framers . . . They rejected the absolutists Jean Bodin and Sir Robert Filmer who defended the monarchy and endorsed John Locke and Algernon Sidney and Francis Hutcheson for their governmental model based on the consent of the governed and their conception of inherent and unalienable rights. They quite well understood what constitutes a properly functioning militia and how to achieve it, read Federalist 29 and 46.

.

There are no inherent or unalienable "rights".
Those who gave you those "rights" can easily take them away.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

Well, that there is the bedrock of your fundamental error and the reason for your ridiculous beliefs about the Constitution and rights.

What can you provide that posits that government grants us our rights?

The US constitution, dumbass.

The opposite is well established (even called "self evident"), that our rights are inherent and possessed simply by being capable of reason (See Great Enlightenment).

There are no inherent "rights".
Who gave you inherent "rights"?
GOD?

This is also well represented in the determinations of SCOTUS; the Court has never wavered from the principles that government is not the origin of rights; that rights pre-exist the establishment of the Constitution and that they are reservations of powers not granted to government by the people via that compact (with some rights exactingly, expressly reaffirmed and redundantly secured in the Bill of Rights). Look at the damn dates you goofball . . .

"The constitution expressly declares, that the right of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property is natural, inherent, and unalienable. It is a right not ex gratia from the legislature, but ex debito from the constitution. . ." VANHORNE'S LESSEE v. DORRANCE, 2 U.S. 304 (1795)​

​

That is the COURT.

"The law is perfectly well settled that the first 10 amendments to the constitution, commonly known as the Bill of Rights, were not intended to lay down any novel principles of government, but simply to embody certain guaranties and immunities which we had inherited from our English ancestors, . . ." -- ROBERTSON v. BALDWIN, 165 U.S. 275 (1867)​

​

"Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, and to 'secure,' not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted." -- BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)​

Again, that's the court.
Well then, why even write them down?
Why doesn't EVERYONE in EVERY country have these "rights"?

​

"The first ten amendments to the Constitution, adopted as they were soon after the adoption of the Constitution, are in the nature of a bill of rights, and were adopted in order to quiet the apprehension of many, that without some such declaration of rights the government would assume, and might be held to possess, the power to trespass upon those rights of persons and property which by the Declaration of Independence were affirmed to be unalienable rights. -- UNITED STATES v. TWIN CITY POWER CO., 350 U.S. 222 (1956)​

​

"[N]either the Bill of Rights nor the laws of sovereign States create the liberty which the Due Process Clause protects. The relevant constitutional provisions are limitations on the power of the sovereign to infringe on the liberty of the citizen. . . . Of course, law is essential to the exercise and enjoyment of individual liberty in a complex society. But it is not the source of liberty,. . ." -- DENNIS C. VACCO, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW YORK, et al., PETITIONERS v. TIMOTHY E. QUILL et al. No. 95-1858, (1997)​

What the can you provide that rebuts any of that? All you can do is regurgitate this abject ignorance you maintain and nurture out of a robotic need to service your disgusting anti-liberty leftist shithole politics.

We have "rights" given to us by the government.
Every stupid comment you gave about "rights", is originated in a government court or document.
SO.............................you're dumbass thinks they are "natural", "inherent" or "unalienable".

Marx wasn't a founding father you traitorous leftist manure spreader.

.

Poor teabagger.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

Like what? Explain your passive aggressive bullshit blurbs.



Again, support your bullshit statements. You just writing gibberish doesn't prove anything; try actually supporting your arguments, quote and cite what you think the Court said.

(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.(a) The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause.

The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court's interpretation of the operative clause. The "militia" comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.

The COURT'S "interpretation"?

The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens' militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

No, that's how it was . . . That's how Madison began the process, with a multitude of proposed amendment s from the states. Madison's job was to edit and parse them and present representative expressions of those demands to Congress to debate and then present to the states to ratify.

The states, in their right to arms provisions had the intent of binding government in the area of military affairs in multiple ways, these provisions were three pronged.
a) The citizens retained a right to bear arms,
b) standing armies in time of peace were not to be maintained,
c), the military should always be subordinate to the civil authority.

A typical one was my state's:

· 1790 Pennsylvania: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power.​

The STATE.............Pennsylvania.

Again, the framers were very accustomed to inactive declarations of principle in constitutional provisions; nobody believed these provisions really forbade the forming and maintaining of a standing army; these were state constitutional provisions with zero effect beyond the state line. They were merely stating a principle of republican governance . . .

The declaration, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is inextricably meshed (philosophically) with, "as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up." To the framers each represented the same sentiment . . .

The declaratory clause only re-affirms what once was a universally understood and accepted maxim; that the armed citizenry dispenses with the need for a standing army (in times of peace) and those armed citizens stand as a barrier to foreign invasion and domestic tyranny (thus ensuring the free state).

So without a doubt the inactive, dependent declaratory clause is only a statement of why the AMENDMENT exists and as such it does not create, qualify, condition, modify or constrain the pre-existing right, it only tells us a political reason why the fully retained right is being forever shielded from government interference.

Again................the COURT'S opinion.

Yes, it is and correct as well . . .

The states demanded and ratified the 2nd Amendment because of distrust of the feds and potential abuse of the powers granted to the feds over the militia in Article I, §8. Had there been even a hint that the federal government was granted new, undefined, nebulous powers through the 2nd to dictate to the states as to who were the state's NON-MILITIA arms keepers and bearers, the 2ndA (well, fourth article really) would not have been ratified.

.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

Just because there are laws defining what a justified killing is in no way means there is no right of self defense. I don't know how many times I have to repeat this before it sinks into your thick skull.

No shit, dumbass.
Why?
Because there are laws.
Something you claimed were "natural".

"The right of self defense has been considered a natural right far before the US was even a thought",

According to you any state could pass a law stating that you have to allow yourself to be killed because self defense is illegal and you have no right to defend yourself.

Death row?
WHAT?
Your right to defend yourself were taken away?
But, but, but "They are "Natural".

 

[Blues Man]

Samurai had the right to murder any peasant at will. Spartans had the right to murder any Helot at will on a particular day of the year to cull the population of Helots. I'm sure there were others, but those two come immediately to mind.

And the laws probably didn't define those killings as murders did they?

If we go by the definition we use, murder is the unlawful taking of a life. If it is not unlawful it is not murder.

 

[Blues Man]

No shit, dumbass.
Why?
Because there are laws.
Something you claimed were "natural".

"The right of self defense has been considered a natural right far before the US was even a thought",

Death row?

Who has ever been put to death for justifiable self defense?

Tell you what if you think that state government grant the right of self defense then why don't you try to make self defense illegal and see how far you get.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

Who has ever been put to death for justifiable self defense?

That's the court's decision.
"Justifiable".

Tell you what if you think that state government grant the right of self defense then why don't you try to make self defense illegal and see how far you get.

Me try?
I'm not a politician.

 

[Blues Man]

That's the court's decision.
"Justifiable".

Me try?
I'm not a politician.

No it's a jury's decision

Just because there is a definition of justifiable deadly force in no way means there is no right of self defense.

According to your twisted logic any state could pass a law saying that any and all defensive actions by any person are illegal and anyone engaging in defensive behaviors while under attack will be arrested and prosecuted.

Because you think we have no right to self defense.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

No it's a jury's decision

Just because there is a definition of justifiable deadly force in no way means there is no right of self defense.

There wasn't, moron.
Until laws were passed.

According to your twisted logic any state could pass a law saying that any and all defensive actions by any person are illegal and anyone engaging in defensive behaviors while under attack will be arrested and prosecuted.

You never know with teabaggers twisted logic.

Because you think we have no right to self defense.

We do have a right to self defense because of laws.

 

[Blues Man]

There wasn't, moron.
Until laws were passed.

You never know with teabaggers twisted logic.

We do have a right to self defense because of laws.

There has always been a right to defend yourself ALWAYS from time fucking immemorial.

So you think any state can pass a law that makes any act of self defense illegal and that people could be compelled by state government to stand there and be beaten or killed.

And you call me a moron.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

There has always been a right to defend yourself ALWAYS from time fucking immemorial.

Then why all the laws.? You fucking imbecile.
People don't need laws to drink water or breathe, people have ALWAYS done that.
No laws necessary.

So you think any state can pass a law that makes any act of self defense illegal and that people could be compelled by state government to stand there and be beaten or killed.

Death row, you fucking idiot.

And you call me a moron.

That's only because................YOU ARE.

 

[Blues Man]

Then why all the laws.? You fucking imbecile.
People don't need laws to drink water or breathe, people have ALWAYS done that.
No laws necessary.

Death row, you fucking idiot.

That's only because................YOU ARE.

No state has any law that states there is no right to self defense.

A legal definition of justifiable deadly force is not a negation of the right to self defense. And you have offered absolutely ZERO proof that it is.

 

[progressive hunter]

There are no inherent or unalienable "rights".
Those who gave you those "rights" can easily take them away.

yes god can take them anytime he wants,,

 

[Abatis]

Contract Killer Sentenced to Five Consecutive Life ...

Fail . . . Federal prosecution, not Philly DA . . .

VERDICT: Jury Convicts 'Hitman' of First-Degree Murder for ...

Fail . . . State AG prosecution, not Philly DA . . .

1 convicted, 1 acquitted in Philadelphia Mills murder case

Yay!, you got one --- but it really has nothing to with what I posted.

Yeah, NO enforcement at all.

I didn't say there was no prosecution of gun crimes / murder, my reply to Blues Man and the graphic I posted is specifically addressing Blues Man's comment I quoted about felons in possesion, with the stats showing the results of the Philly DA's program of de-prosecution of prohibited persons (felons) caught / arrested in possession of a firearm.

The graph shows that the number of shootings responds to the percentage of prosecutions of felons in possession (FIP's). . . As the percentage of prosecuted FIP cases rise, shootings fall and as the percentage of prosecuted FIP cases fall, shootings rise.

When Krasner's de-prosecution of FIP's reached over 70%, shootings rose to their highest level at over 225 a month.

De-prosecution costs Philly upwards of 75 homicides a year: