should these kind of guns be legal for any given person to own?

[UpsideDownFlag]

Poll question: should these kind of guns be legal for any given person to own?

[goju]

1. What do you mean by "any given person"?

Clarify if you are not including felons, mentally ill, minors, or any other group that is already proscribed from owning firearms.

[UpsideDownFlag]

2. i mean like

joe blow.

travis bickle.

anyone who isn't a felon, who would normally be allowed to buy a gun.

[goju]

3. Thank you

Especially for the Travis Bickle reference. :eyes:

Clearly the answer to your poll is yes. They are firearms. The bill of rights protects our right to keep and bear arms. No brainer.

[xPayback]

4. Yes

Those just "look scary" but in actuality I could go buy a hunting rifle with more power than any of those weapons you have shown there. It seems to me no one ever has problems with hunting rifles..

[UpsideDownFlag]

5. hunting rifles were designed to kill deer.

the m16 in the pic is designed explicitly for killing "the enemy".

[Columbia]

7. M16? I don't see any M16's up there.

[UpsideDownFlag]

9. ..ar15. whatever you want to call it.

[Columbia]

10. That's not an AR-15 either.

[UpsideDownFlag]

11. what is it, then?

[Columbia]

16. It is an automatic M4 Carbine with M203 grenade launcher

Which requires TWO NFA tax stamps to own legally.

[xPayback]

12. ar15 does not equal m16.

big difference between select fire and semi auto. are you terrified of a ruger mini 14? its just like an AR only without a pistol grip and its wood and not plastic. what if i put a wooden stock on my AR? what about a semi-auto 308 hunting rifle that isn't black?

Anyway, one can only assume that its a picture of an AR15 and a semi auto AK, being that the discussion is geared towards the AWB..and we all know the AWB has no imapact on full autos at all...

[goju]

13. What does "design" have to do with anything?

Are you implying that a deer rifle, though "designed" for hunting, couldnt be used for something esle? I dont see how "design" has any bearing on this question.

All guns are "designed" to fire a projectile, that is it. What one chooses to use that weapon for is not a design issue, its a sporting, hunting, criminal, etc issue.

[akodo1]

60. wrong again

"hunting rifles were designed to kill deer. The M16 in the pic is designed explicitly for killing "the enemy".

False on both accounts

Bolt action hunting rifles of today are direct decendants of the WWI bolt action rifles such as the mauser and springfield.

The M-16 is the military name for the AR-15, which was originally designed for the .222, and was to be sold as a hunting/fun shooting gun. It was only afterwards that armalite showed it to the military and made the changes they wanted before adopting it as a military arm.

[UpsideDownFlag]

69. look at that picture of the AK's or M4 and tell me it's for hunting deer.

seriously.

[expatriot]

88. it's for the hunter on the go... makes 'instant deer soup'

[DoNotRefill]

133. Most AK-47s come factory with a 5 round hunting magazine...

and they kick ass to hunt deer with. It's even legal in most places.

[goju]

6. Not yet they dont

Once they get a re-invigorated AWB passed, and they will, the next step will be all semi autos, or pistols. Slippery, aint it?

[DinahMoeHum]

8. What is it Gen. Wesley Clark likes to say?

"...If you want to use these weapons, join the Army..." or something like that?

:nuke:

[Columbia]

14. No, I think it was Heinrich Himmler who said that

[Paladin]

32. Keeping In Mind......

...that Heinrich Himmler and Democratic presidential candidate Clark have been clumped together more than once in this forum by some of our gun-worshipping "Democrat" posters......

[FeebMaster]

34. Nice to see someone get the quotes right, for a change. (nt)

[Columbia]

35. You'd think Clark would have reviewed his history before speaking such

He was a 4-star General after all.

[UpsideDownFlag]

44. you'd think our RKBAers wouldn't be so eager to criticize dems.

or clump them in with frigging NAZIS.

[Columbia]

46. He dug his own grave with that quote

Which is among the reasons why he was my last choice in the primaries. That and because he voted GOP pretty much his whole life.

[UpsideDownFlag]

50. he didnt dig his own grave

i wasn't a clarkie, but try telling his supporters that that's what killed him and see what happens.

[Columbia]

51. I wasn't talking about anyone else

I was talking about myself.

[DoNotRefill]

134. What killed Clark...

was the fact that he wanted to be a Republican, but they wouldn't let him in.

[library_max]

53. Why would you think that?

They bash Dems all the time.

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[UpsideDownFlag]

43. it is interesting, isn't it? nt

[library_max]

52. Source? Or is this just a humorous fiction? /nt

[Columbia]

64. Google "Heinrich Himmler german firearms"

[library_max]

71. Source? Or is this just humorous fiction?

Or do you believe everything you find through Google?

[Columbia]

74. Nope, real

It's quite a well known quote. I'm surprised you haven't heard of it.

[library_max]

79. Every quote that is "well known" among RKBAers

is not necessarily accurate. We had an Adolf Hitler quote that was "well known" among RKBAers in this forum that was demonstrated to be bunk.

[Columbia]

82. Yes, and I was the one who debunked it

And this one has not been debunked.

[library_max]

91. Nor has it been supported.

You are depending on me to prove a negative here?

[Columbia]

92. Not at all

I don't really care whether you even believe the quote or not. Even if it was fake, it doesn't make the idea any less palpatable.

[library_max]

102. So even if your statement is a lie, what you say is true?

Yeah, that makes sense.

:crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

[Columbia]

225. No

The statement/quote is horribly authoritarian either way, no matter who said it or whether they said it at all.

[library_max]

233. So if you made it up, the "authoritarian" in question would have to be you

Right?

[Columbia]

237. No

If a person stated such an authoritarian position, that person would be authoritarian.

[DoNotRefill]

98. Clark's made some doozies...like

"I would have been a Republican if Karl Rove had returned my phone calls."

this was widely reported.

[Kali]

15. jeez, the way things are going

even the control folks might want to consider arming themselves! Put on the foil hat and think about it for a minute. Is it possible you might have to defend yourself from a rogue government? Your own?

[UpsideDownFlag]

17. try defending yourself against a government with tanks, missiles, etc.

with an ak-47. you'd go out in a blaze of glory, i'd imagine..


(but that is sort of a secret RKBAer fantasy, i suspect)

[Columbia]

18. Insurgents in Iraq seem to be holding their own

[UpsideDownFlag]

20. iraq, i think you'll admit, is a little different that the US.

[Columbia]

21. How so?

[UpsideDownFlag]

22. well.

picture the streets of fallujah.

and then picture american suburbia.

[Columbia]

23. I've seen both

Besides it being a lot more dirty in Fallujah, and American suburbs having a lot more people with more space, I don't see much of a difference.

[library_max]

54. First of all, the US army still controls a hell of a lot more of Iraq

that the insurgents. Second, what's the insurgent's long-term strategy? To make the US army go home, right? Well, if we're the insurgents in the US, what "home" is the army supposed to go to? It'll be kill or be killed. It's not even close to being the same.

[Columbia]

58. And you think a majority of the US Military would fire on civilians?

Some would, but many would desert and join their fellow citizens and bring their weapons with them.

"It's not even close to being the same."

You are correct. We would fare much better here than the insurgents.

[library_max]

59. Suppose they wouldn't - for what, then, do you need your gun? /nt

[Columbia]

61. Me? Or a theoretical anti-tyranny reason?

If the latter, so the government knows not to over-step its bounds for fear of rebellion.

[library_max]

62. Let's try it again, a little slower.

Theory #1 - the US will go fascist and the US military will support the fascist government. What good will your gun do against tanks, planes, missiles, etc.?

Theory #2 - the US will go fascist and the US militiary will not support the fascist government. What relevance does your gun have to this scenario at all?

And then there's good old theory #3, that all this catastrophizing about the US government going fascist is paranoid drivel, and that the best cure is a vote, not a gun, anyway.

[Columbia]

63. Or...

Theory #4 - the US will not go fascist because the whole body of the citizenry are well armed.

[library_max]

72. Kindly explain your logic, if we can call it that.

How does the whole body of the citizenry being "well armed" (again, the standard of comparison being tanks, planes, missiles, etc.) keep the US from going fascist? Or is this just a superstitious belief? Or are you just keeping the elephants away?

Q: Why are you whistling like that?
A: I'm keeping the elephants away.
Q: There isn't an elephant within a thousand miles of here!
A: See how well it works?

Also, how in sam hell do you expect to have the "whole body of the citizenry" well armed when a great many of them would never even consider owning a gun?

[Columbia]

81. Federalist 46

"Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit...

Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it."

[library_max]

84. We are talking about reality in the year 2004.

Unless Nostradamus wrote Federalist 46, I can't see how it could possibly be relevant to our conversation.

You are aware, I am sure, that one or two matters of military technology have changed since the Eighteenth Century.

[Columbia]

86. Some things never change

Governments hungry for greed and power and the common people who resist them are among those.

[library_max]

90. And some things, such as military technology, do.

In the 18th Century when the Federalist Papers were written, battlefield ordnance was muskets, sabers, and horse pistols. Any farmer could own as good a musket as any soldier in King George's army. There was no serious technology gap between colonial minutemen and the professional soldiers fighting against them.

This is no longer true, as should be painfully obvious. With computer-targeted missiles, stealth planes dropping smart bombs, unmanned drones, etc. etc., civilians cannot hope to accumulate ordnance to defy a modern military. The "common people" wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell of resisting the modern US military, unless the military divided and fought itself, in which case citizens could arm themselves from the friendly part of the military. Either way, privately-owned firearms would be irrelevant and futile.

And of course that's without commenting on the paranoid insistence that the world's oldest constitutional democracy is in immediate peril. Oh, that's right, I forgot, you and your rifles are keeping the elephants away. Do carry on.

[Columbia]

94. Well, if you think that way

Then you must join us in advocating the repeal of all gun control up and including NFA 1934.

[library_max]

103. Wrong again. Try reading the entire post next time.

"And of course that's without commenting on the paranoid insistence that the world's oldest constitutional democracy is in immediate peril. Oh, that's right, I forgot, you and your rifles are keeping the elephants away. Do carry on."

[DavidMS]

95. To fight an insurgency...

one doesn't need guns, one needs money to buy (and smuggle) guns.

Look at the mess in Chechnya, local rebels have given the Kremlin fits since 1994 currently there are between 700 and 2000 or so. They don't have tanks or fighter jets. For a sucessfull modern gurella war, the most expensive weapon system needed is a Stinger Missle (or SA18, the Russian Equivilent).

Terrain, a symphetic populace and international support matter much more than weapons availiability.

[DoNotRefill]

97. yer right. It's not the same.

In Iraq, the troops can justify shooting them by using the racial epithet du jure. "I's OK, i's only a sand N-word, they ain't Americans or even really human." They can't do that here.

[library_max]

104. Once again, if the military would not cooperate

with a fascist government, then where does your privately-owned gun fit in? Either you won't need it or it won't be nearly good enough.

[DoNotRefill]

112. How do you figure it will not be good enough?

I thought that's why they had been banned, because they were so lethal?

You can't have it both ways.

[library_max]

113. Too lethal against unprotected citizens such as children,

crime victims, innocent bystanders, and so on. Not lethal enough to stand up to tanks, planes, missiles, etc. This is really not as complicated as you're trying to make it.

[WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot]

123. Hypothetically speaking

you do realize that a tank crew has to come out sometime to take a piss, right? There ends the effectiveness of most rifles against a tank.

As to aircraft and missiles, maybe in some far off world someone might try to take down military aircraft with an AR-15. In mine it's ludicrous. On this planet that is what "foreign aid" would be for.

You know that the world's militaries are not only comprised of armor and air power, you are a smart guy/gal. Would you also submit that it takes boots on the ground to hold that ground?

[library_max]

126. If you will admit that it's idiotic to pretend that Uncle Jimbo and Ned

can take on the US military, I'll consider it.

[DoNotRefill]

132. The most inpenetrable armor system out there...

still has a crew that has to get out to take a leak and stretch every now and then. And most tank crews don't wear bulletproof vests, know what I mean? Also, aircraft, as a rule, not only have pilots that make wunnerful targets while on the ground, but are susceptable to what's referred to as the "golden BB": a small round of ammunition from any gun which happens to hit a mission-critical item causing major things to go "BOOM!" Example: Take a bullet through a spinning turbine, and you've got scrap metal of a plane left. Do it with live ordinance on board, and you may not have ANY plane left at all. And you REALLY don't want to see what happens when a missile body takes a round through it...remember, it's built to go "BOOM!" right from the factory, that's it's purpose. Just like you wouldn't go up to a MOAB and start beating on the nosecone with a sledgehammer unless you had some SERIOUS issues...

[library_max]

136. Spin all you like.

You're talking about miracle shots and wildly hypothetical scenarios. The tank crews can jolly well wait until they've eliminated all resistance on the field before they take their whiz, for example. Or they can use bottles. Handguns and hunting rifles do diddley-squat against tanks, missiles and airplanes.

[DoNotRefill]

140. heh.

miracle shots? Ever hear of a spider hole and a Laager? How hard is it to sit at the end of a runway and wait for a plane to start taking off, and then make a head-on shot into the turbine? They're pretty big, ya know. I'm sure all the people in Vietnam that caught "golden BBs" wouldn't agree with you...well, at least the people who survived the crashes...

[Lefty48197]

37. You're providing "aid and comfort" to the enemy, Jane Fonda.

.

[Columbia]

47. How is that?

[TX-RAT]

166. If you count road side bombs.

A weapon of cowards.

[Kali]

25. I'll take a couple of those too!

I could use a tank. Man if you knew how many flat tires I get in a year......

[Columbia]

28. You should get one then

I'd rather get a fighter jet myself. There was one up on a Ebay awhile back. Unfortunately, I didn't have enough simoleans to get it. :-(

[Lefty48197]

36. Yup. If gun nuts die martyrs like McVeigh, Koresh, and Randy Weaver did

then then get to go to heaven and spend eternity with 75 fully automatic assault rifles. What an orgy that would be.

[goju]

48. Clarification

Weaver didnt die. They killed his son and his wife, but he made it out alive.

[enfield collector]

mcveigh used a bomb not a gun.

[UpsideDownFlag]

89. his buddies in the michigan militia prefer the kind of weapons

shown in the original post.

[goju]

19. They would consider that "illegal"

From HCI

"The idea that the Founding Fathers would have included within the Second Amendment a "suicide" provision — one that empowers citizens to overthrow the very government the Constitution seeks to create and protect — is ludicrous and has been widely discredited."


They flat out deny what the founding fathers have said on this issue.

[Kali]

27. huh?

what does legality have to do with it?

Frankly I would think the "founding fathers" probably were PAINFULLY aware of the possibility of defending themselves against their own government...

[goju]

29. Youre right

Now try explaining that to the controllers.

[FeebMaster]

24. Wow. You couldn't even come up with a list of features

that make them bad like the AWB did. Just random pictures of rifles. Machine guns, semi-autos? 37mm flare gun, 40mm grenade launcher? Who knows? Who cares?


Well to answer the question, yes they should be legal for any given person to own. Yes regardless of whether they're machine guns or not.

[Columbia]

26. The only way I could tell

Is by checking picture properties to see where they came from. Of course, even that can be pretty sketchy.

[FeebMaster]

30. More than likely the top three are machine guns

with the M4 having an actual grenade launcher. I doubt http://kalashnikov.guns.ru or www.globalsecurity.com would feel a particular need to use pictures of semi-auto AK and M4 clones or 37mm launchers instead of a grenade launcher.

It appears, after following the FAL picture back to its ad, that the FAL is a pre-ban semi-auto, assuming, of course, that his new receiver is 10 years "new."

http://www.gunsamerica.com/guns/976496673.htm

[UpsideDownFlag]

31. i would imagine they're the real deal.

i googled AK-47, FN-Fal, and Ar-15 pics and that's what showed up.

[FeebMaster]

33. Sadly you didn't get any AR-15s

and your FAL appears to be a semi-auto knockoff.

I don't understand what you were trying to ask with this poll. If you wanted to ask 'should people be allowed to own machine guns' then why post pictures of some machine guns and some semi-autos? If you wanted to ask 'should people be allowed to own these semi-auto rifles' then why did you post pictures of machine guns? Why post pictures at all when you don't even know what you're posting pictures of?



on edit: typo

[Lefty48197]

39. You must have missed his previous post

where he said the pictures were of an ar15, fn whatthehellever, and that other one.

[FeebMaster]

66. I read his post.

He was wrong.

[enfield collector]

87. gun porn

[Lefty48197]

38. Why should they be legal to own?

Does the 2nd amendment mean that any weapon of warfare can be legally owned by ordinary citizens?

[UpsideDownFlag]

41. blasphemer! i can own any weapon i want!

me and my militia!

(sarcasm)

[goju]

49. I believe the 2nd amendment

Mentions specifically, "the right to keep and bear 'arms'". As we have read ad nauseum and backed up by Miller, "arms" means a weapon that has some reasonable relationship to the preservation of the militia.

"Weapons of warfare" is a very vague term but, if you had something specific in mind, please clarify.

[FeebMaster]

68. Why shouldn't they?

They are and they should be.


Does the 2nd amendment mean that any weapon of warfare can be legally owned by ordinary citizens?

Who the hell cares about the 2nd amendment? What does it have to do with anything?

[S_B_Jackson]

40. I believe that US v. Miller set the bar...

At demonstrated military utility...now each of these weapons, or it's American counterpart, would normally be issued to an infantryman in the US Armed Forces. As such, then as a member of the UNORGANIZED MILITIA, as defined under current US Code, I should be able to purchase, keep and bear those weapons.

[UpsideDownFlag]

42. the unorganized militia?

is that what those guys in michigan call themselves now? it doesn't have as nice of a ring to it.

[S_B_Jackson]

45. As I said, current US Code...

clearly defines who and what "the militia" is, and one of those classes is the unorganized militia...but don't take my word for it...

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/311.html

Sec. 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

[library_max]

57. That's obsolete, for all practical purposes a "blue law." /nt

[slackmaster]

70. There you go again library_max

Saying any law you don't like is obsolete.

If it's obsolete it should be stricken from the books; repealed. Until that happens it's still the law.

[library_max]

73. We've had plenty of threads about obsolete, uninforced, irrelevant laws.

You can say "it's still the law" all you want. There is no such militia, hence decisions such as Silveira.

[slackmaster]

75. The law says the militia is still there

You have no authority to declare a law null and void. Only a legislative body or court can do that.

[library_max]

77. You mean like, oh, say, the Ninth District did in the Silveira decision?

[slackmaster]

78. Red Herring

n/t

[library_max]

80. Saying so doesn't make it so. /nt

[slackmaster]

83. The topic was federal law

You tried to switch the topic to a state court's decision regarding a state law.

No dice, max.

[library_max]

85. If the Silveira decision was in conflict with federal law,

it would have been overturned. The Ninth Circuit is not a California state court, and it was not ruling on California state law.

[DoNotRefill]

99. Come on, you know better than that.

Just because a ruling in a case is contrary to Federal Law does NOT guarantee cert, and you KNOW that.

Just out of curiosity, if the 9th Circuit's ruling in U.S. v. Stewart isn't granted Cert, would you say it is the law of the land?

[library_max]

105. The Supreme Court hears cases that require correction.

If they don't hear a case, then the principle is stare decisis.

As for US v. Stewart, Lexis-Nexis won't complete the search because it retrieves more than 1,000 entries. Could you be a bit more specific, since you brought it up?

[DoNotRefill]

111. You're wrong.

Just because a case requires correction doesn't mean cert will be granted, and just because cert is granted doesn't mean that the subordinate court was wrong. You've heard of ripeness, right?

Here's a link to Stewart:

http://c-67-166-225-228.client.comcast.net/legal/us-v-stewart.html

[library_max]

114. Stewart was a federalism case, not a Second Amendment case.

Here's exactly what the Stewart decision said about the Second Amendment:

"Finally, Stewart argues that the Second Amendment guarantees him the right to possess machineguns, as well as the right to possess firearms generally despite his former felony conviction--as charged in count one of Stewart's indictment. We have held that the Second Amendment "was not adopted in order to afford rights to individuals with respect to private gun ownership or possession." Silveira v. Lockyer, 312 F.3d 1052, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002). Thus, there is no Second Amendment limitation on "legislation regulating or prohibiting the possession or use of firearms." Id. Stewart's Second Amendment argument must therefore fail."

Regarding cert, I should clarify. I mean that the Supreme Court will hear a case if they think it requires correction, not if you think it requires correction. I suspect that they don't give a damn what you personally think of Silveira v. Lockyer. And yes, I'm familiar with the concept of ripeness. I'm also familiar with the concept of stare decisis. Are you?

[DoNotRefill]

135. Sure, we went over it in Law School.

and if you didn't understand Kozinski's unspoken reasoning in Stewart, you're clueless. But you STILL haven't commented on the status of §922(o), which was the point.

Hey, you seem smart, for a paralegal. Want a job?

:evilgrin:

Just kidding

[library_max]

137. Oh, so now we're down to "unspoken reasoning."

I guess that fits in well with imaginary rights and nonexistent facts.

[DoNotRefill]

139. I suspect there's a reason why you cannot practice law....

do you REALLY claim that you don't understand the entire "gist" of Stewart? TRULY???

[library_max]

143. No, I do understand the entire gist of Stewart.

But I suspect that I don't agree with your spin on it.

But I guess I should be embarrassed by the insignificance of what I know out of law school. Because the only thing I know from law school is you.

[DoNotRefill]

154. It's not surprising that you don't understand it....

since you don't have the specialized education. No shame in that...

[library_max]

155. Do not! Do too! Do not! Do too!

Did your much-vaunted law school education teach you how eight-year-olds argue on the playground, or does that just come naturally?

I said that I understand the case. You understand it differently. Fine. That's your prerogative. Neither your understanding nor mine is binding or dispositive. Nor does it matter a hill of beans about RKBA or the Second Amendment, regardless of interpretation. The Stewart decision explicitly said that the Second Amendment did not apply.

[slackmaster]

101. Federal law allows states to do as they please with their own militias

Silveira v. Lockyer has no bearing whatsoever on the federal definition of unorganized militia.

[library_max]

106. Silveira still applies.

From Silveira:

"Our conclusion that "militia" refers to a state entity, a state fighting force, is also supported by the use of <**41> that term in another of the provisions of the Bill of Rights. The Fifth Amendment, enacted <*1071> by the First Congress at the same time as the Second Amendment, provides that a criminal defendant has a right to an indictment or a presentment "except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger . . . ." U.S. CONST. amend. V. The inclusion of separate references to the "land or naval forces" and "the Militia," both of which may be in "actual service" to the nation's defense, indicates that the framers conceived of two formal military forces that would be active in times of war -- one being the national army and navy, and the other the federalized state militia. Certainly, the use of "militia" in this provision of the Bill of Rights is most reasonably understood as referring to a state entity, and not to the collection of individuals who may participate in it."

And Hickman specified that the Second Amendment protects the right of states to organize a militia, but does not confer an obligation for them to do so. And there is not a single state which has an active armed citizen militia. Again, the militia refers to active members, "and not to the collection of individuals who may participate in it."

[hansberrym]

119. Certainly not ....

Judge Reinhardt's claim that "the use of 'militia' in this provision of the Bill of Rights is most reasonably understood as referring to a state entity, and not to the collection of individuals who may participate in it" is 180 degrees from the truth. The impetus for this right was the claim that the federal government would use the ordinary man's enrollement in the militia as a pretense for trying them in military courts, and thus depriving them of their right to trial by jury, indictment by grand jury, etc.


(Excerpted from the Address of the Pennsylvania Minority)
The absolute unqualified command that congress have over the militia may be made instrumental to the destruction of all liberty, both public and private; whether of a personal, civil, or religious nature.

First, The personal liberty of every man probably from sixteen to sixty years of age, may be destroyed by the power congress have in organizing and governing of the militia. As militia they may be subjected to fines to any amount, levied in a military manner; they may be subjected to corporal punishments of the most disgraceful and humiliating kind, and to death itself by the sentence of a court martial: To this our young men will be more immediately subjected, as a select militia, composed of them, will best answer the purposes of government.

Secondly, The rights of conscience maybe violated, as there is no exemption of those persons, who are conscientiously scrupulous of bearing arms. These compose a respectable proportion of the community in the state. This is the more remarkable, because even when the distresses of the late war, and the evident disaffection of many citizens of that description, inflamed our passions, and when every person, who was obliged to risque his own life, must have been exasperated, against such as on any account kept back from the common danger, yet even then, when outrage and violence might have been expected, the rights of conscience were held sacred.

At this momentous crisis, the framers of our state constitution, made the most express and decided declaration and stipulations in favor of the rights of conscience: but now when no necessity exists, those dearest rights of men are left insecure.

Thirdly, the absolute command of congress over the militia, may be destructive of public liberty; for under the guidance of an arbitrary government, they may be made the unwilling instruments of tyranny. The militia of Pennsylvania may be march to New-England or Virginia to quell an insurrection occasioned by the most galling oppression, and aded by the standing army, they will, no doubt, be successful in subduing their liberty and independency; but in so doing, although the magnanimity of their minds will be extinguished, yet the meaner passions of resentment and revenge will be increased, and those in turn will be the ready and obedient instruments of despotism to enslave the others; and that with an irritated vengeance. Thus may the militia be made the instruments of crushing the last efforts of expiring liberty, of riveting the chains of despotism on their fellow citizens and on one another. This power can be exercised not only without violating the constitution but in strict conformity with it, it is calculated for this express purpose, and will doubtless be executed accordingly."




Furthermore the judge butchers the syntax of the 5th amendment.


Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


The setting off of the "militia" from the "land or naval forces" makes clear that the qualifier that follows is to apply only to the "militia". Otherwise the use of "or" twice makes no sense.

Example 1) Except in cases A,B, or C, when in actual service...
This would mean that the exception applies to cases A, B, or C when A,b, or c are in actual service.
This is the meaning that Judge Reinhardt urges, but which does not match the actual text.

Example 2) Except in cases A or B, or C, when in actual service...
This would mean that the exception applies in cases A or B, or in case C, when case C is in actual service.


It is should be noted that persons in the regular Army or Navy are always subject to military justice when on duty, whether in time of war, or peacetime. The judge can not be unaware of this.

[library_max]

127. All this means bubkes.

When you get on the Supreme Court, you can review Silveira. Until then, it's just noise.

[hansberrym]

185. Or maybe you don't have a counter-argument ? n/t

[library_max]

192. I don't know how to refute "Bblblblblblblblblblblblbl".

But I do know that it isn't an argument that anyone is required to respect, much less an argument that carries any actual legal weight.

[hansberrym]

195. I was sure that you didn't, the question was merely rhetorical. n/t

[library_max]

196. No one can refute noise. /nt

[hansberrym]

197. That explains why you post nothing but noise, eh? n/t

[library_max]

200. "I am rubber, you are glue." Very mature, hans.

So is that what you've come down to - playground taunts?

Give it up. The law means what the courts have said it means. And the courts have clearly said that the Second Amendment has no meaning outside the context of the militia, which (as recent cases have acknowledged) no longer exists.

[hansberrym]

202. Post #127 belongs to you. n/t

[library_max]

205. Yes, in that post I indicated how little legal weight your opinion carries

What about it?

[hansberrym]

207. Post #127 - name calling, taunts, but no counter-argument n/t

[library_max]

210. Simply the rock-solid fact that your opinion is just your opinion.

How is that a taunt? How is that name-calling? And this from a guy who presents himself as an expert in the meanings of words!

[hansberrym]

212. What is the meaning of "bubkes"? Is that not name calling? n/t

[library_max]

214. God, I thought you knew what ALL the words meant.

Bubkes is a Yiddish word which means "nothing, zilch." What I said was that all the sound and fury about phraseology and feigned ignorance means nothing because your opinion (and mine likewise) have no weight of authority in law. In what universe is that name-calling? What name, exactly, do you think I called you?

If facts upset you, I'm sorry, but pointing out a fact (that your opinion, like mine, carries no legal weight) is still not name calling.

[hansberrym]

221. One learns something new every day. Your counter-argument is bupkes!

Meaning non-existent.

[library_max]

222. Holy mom - a false statement, and he can't even spell it right!

My counter-argument is that your grammatical quibbles are irrelevant to the law and to the court decisions that interpret that law. Do I have a quibble in response to your quibble? I've answered it before and frankly I don't care any more. The decisions stand, the law remains the law, and all the quibbles in the world won't change it.

[hansberrym]

224. That is not a counter-argument, it is a rhetorical dodge...

(appeal to authority) and an attempt to avoid responding to what was presented. But that is just about all you do.

[library_max]

234. I won't be matching you useless quibble for useless quibble, that's true.

I have better things to do. If you say that twenty-seven angels can dance on the head of a pin, don't hold your breath waiting for me to "counter" your argument with a long-winded explanation of how it's really seventy-two angels. It's a useless, pointless waste of time. The case law is established and authoritative. Picking at grammatical nits is utterly irrelevant. Your opinion and mine carry no weight as a matter of law. And I can't help you if you can't distinguish between your opinion and fact. Calling Judge Reinhardt et al liars because your opinion differs from theirs is foolish, pointless, and false.

[hansberrym]

120. Certainly not ....

Judge Reinhardt's claim that "the use of 'militia' in this provision of the Bill of Rights is most reasonably understood as referring to a state entity, and not to the collection of individuals who may participate in it" is 180 degrees from the truth. The impetus for this right was the claim that the federal government would use the ordinary man's enrollement in the militia as a pretense for trying them in military courts, and thus depriving them of their right to trial by jury, indictment by grand jury, etc.


(Excerpted from the Address of the Pennsylvania Minority)
The absolute unqualified command that congress have over the militia may be made instrumental to the destruction of all liberty, both public and private; whether of a personal, civil, or religious nature.

First, The personal liberty of every man probably from sixteen to sixty years of age, may be destroyed by the power congress have in organizing and governing of the militia. As militia they may be subjected to fines to any amount, levied in a military manner; they may be subjected to corporal punishments of the most disgraceful and humiliating kind, and to death itself by the sentence of a court martial: To this our young men will be more immediately subjected, as a select militia, composed of them, will best answer the purposes of government.

Secondly, The rights of conscience maybe violated, as there is no exemption of those persons, who are conscientiously scrupulous of bearing arms. These compose a respectable proportion of the community in the state. This is the more remarkable, because even when the distresses of the late war, and the evident disaffection of many citizens of that description, inflamed our passions, and when every person, who was obliged to risque his own life, must have been exasperated, against such as on any account kept back from the common danger, yet even then, when outrage and violence might have been expected, the rights of conscience were held sacred.

At this momentous crisis, the framers of our state constitution, made the most express and decided declaration and stipulations in favor of the rights of conscience: but now when no necessity exists, those dearest rights of men are left insecure.

Thirdly, the absolute command of congress over the militia, may be destructive of public liberty; for under the guidance of an arbitrary government, they may be made the unwilling instruments of tyranny. The militia of Pennsylvania may be march to New-England or Virginia to quell an insurrection occasioned by the most galling oppression, and aded by the standing army, they will, no doubt, be successful in subduing their liberty and independency; but in so doing, although the magnanimity of their minds will be extinguished, yet the meaner passions of resentment and revenge will be increased, and those in turn will be the ready and obedient instruments of despotism to enslave the others; and that with an irritated vengeance. Thus may the militia be made the instruments of crushing the last efforts of expiring liberty, of riveting the chains of despotism on their fellow citizens and on one another. This power can be exercised not only without violating the constitution but in strict conformity with it, it is calculated for this express purpose, and will doubtless be executed accordingly."




Furthermore the judge butchers the syntax of the 5th amendment.


Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


The setting off of the "militia" from the "land or naval forces" makes clear that the qualifier that follows is to apply only to the "militia". Otherwise the use of "or" twice makes no sense.

Example 1) Except in cases A,B, or C, when in actual service...
This would mean that the exception applies to cases A, B, or C when A,b, or c are in actual service.
This is the meaning that Judge Reinhardt urges, but which does not match the actual text.

Example 2) Except in cases A or B, or C, when in actual service...
This would mean that the exception applies in cases A or B, or in case C, when case C is in actual service.


It is should be noted that persons in the regular Army or Navy are always subject to military justice when on duty, whether in time of war, or peacetime. The judge can not be unaware of this.

[library_max]

128. It didn't get any better the second time. /nt

[library_max]

55. You've missed some more recent decisions.

Silveira, for example. The "unorganized" armed citizen militia no longer exists in this country. There hasn't been a militia called out for almost a hundred years. It's militarily obsolete.

[S_B_Jackson]

65. Beg to differ...

First, the ruling in Silveira, only has bearing upon the 9 states which comprise the 9th Circuit's jurisdiction.

Second, Silveirawas decided on the basis of the California constitution's lack of 2nd Amendment protections for its citizens. In the other 8 states which comprise the 9th Circuit, the state constitutions recognize, to one degree or another, an individual right to keep and bear arms by their citizens. Thus, this ruling only has meaning in California. And just for grins, you really would love what the 9th Circuit also ruled in US v. Stewart http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/90B5FFB18A092A6F88256DDD000000FE/$file/0210318.pdf?openelement :evilgrin:

Third, whether it's militarily obsolete or not - and with the effectiveness of the militia organizations in both Iraq and Somalia, I think this premise is a bit weak - doesn't change the fact that until changed or amended, Section 311 is the law of the land.

Fourth, I can think of at least two militia organization in the current & modern era which hold the imprimateur of officialdom as both the Texas & Arizona Rangers have retained their militia status as well as their law enforcement funtions.

Frankly, I see no reason why our party must gift wrap this issue, and the voters for whom this single issue is the most important factor in deciding for whom to vote, for Rethugs. The issue shouldn't be that I, or anyone else, have firearms, the issue should be what I do with those firearms. If I act outside of the law, then I am subject to criminal sanction, so long as I act within the bounds of the law, I should be free from governmental interference with my exercise of my rights.

[library_max]

76. Beg to correct . . .

First, Silveira is the only current ruling on the issue. If it were in error, SCOTUS would have heard the appeal. They didn't.

Second, Silveira has nothing to do with California's constitution. The Ninth Circuit is more than just California, and state constitutions have little or no weight in case law.

Your link doesn't work, by the way.

Third, case law is based on legal facts, not just your interpretation of Section 311. If it's obsolete, the courts are not obligated to consider it. Again, if Silveira was in error, it would have been overturned on appeal.

Fourth, I can't tell you anything about the Arizona Rangers, but the Texas Rangers are definitely NOT a group of self-appointed citizens. They are a law enforcement agency. You can't just say that you're a Texas Ranger because you live in Texas and own a gun.

If you act outside the law and kill a bunch of people, it'll be too goddam late to take your firearm away, won't it? That kind of thinking is called "locking the barn door after the horse is gone."

[WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot]

96. I beg to differ

The Texas State Guard is active.

http://www.agd.state.tx.us/stateguard/welcome/

It has been recognized by the state, reports to the Adjutant General of Texas and has been decorated by the governor more than once in its history.

The Texas Air Guard was formed in 1997.

Note that the Texas State Guard is not subject to being federalized the way the National Guard can be.

From the website regarding the batallion in my area:

The modern unit has received two Governors Unit Citations. The first in 1984 for meritorious achievement by Co. A, 208th MP BN and then for the period 1 JUN 1986 to 1 JUL 1988 to the 205th MP BN for exceptionally meritorious service.

[slackmaster]

107. How dare you introduce facts into this discussion?

Shame on you. (It's not the only state with an active militia BTW.)

:dunce:

[library_max]

109. But that's not a militia the way you've been defining it.

It's not every able-bodied male citizen in the state. It's a state version of the National Guard. I have no objection whatsoever to members on active duty keeping and bearing weapons. But that's hardly what we've been talking about.

[slackmaster]

110. Every able-bodied Texan is a member of the state's unorganized militia

It's a state version of the National Guard.

Why do you say that? Because they have uniforms and are armed?

[library_max]

115. Every able-bodied Texan is NOT a member of the Texas State Guard.

You are playing a particularly scummy game of bait-and-switch here. I suppose shame is a luxury if you defend the RKBA point of view.

[WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot]

122. I know

Off the top of my head Alaska has a similar organized militia in service. I'm not sure about any others, but I haven't done a thorough search.

[library_max]

108. Fine. So members of the Texas State Guard can keep and bear arms

While they're active members. I don't have a problem with that. Are you a member, just out of curiosity? Because it certainly does not consist of all the able-bodied male citizens of Texas.

[hansberrym]

121. Was Mr. Miller of US v. Miller a member of the National Guard?

Did the Supreme Court even ask whether this was so, or even suggest that the second amendment guaranteed the right to possess or use weapons ONLY to active duty members of a state national guard?

No, they wrote something very different:

With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view. The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they <307 U.S. 174, 179> were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. ‘A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.’ And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time. Blackstone’s Commentaries, Vol. 2, Ch. 13, p. 409 points out ‘that king Alfred first settled a national militia in this kingdom’ and traces the subsequent development and use of such forces.(end quote from Miller) (my emphasis)

[library_max]

129. Why, no, he wasn't. And the court ruled against his RKBA.

If you would stop fixating on King Alfred for a second, you would see that the Miller decision was against Miller and his RKBA. What you need is a standing court decision affirming somebody's RKBA under the Second Amendment. Unfortunately, there is no such case. So I guess you have to keep picking at verbiage and torturing hypotheticals to pretend that you have an argument.

[hansberrym]

156. So you WERE just tossing out red herrings again.

(From US v. Miller)
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158. (end quote) (my emphasis)


More "tortured Hypotheticals":

One might ask after reading the ruling above, what purpose could the Supreme Court have for questioning whether there was right to keep and bear a PARTICULAR weapon, if Mr Miller had NO right to possess ANY weapon as the Collective Rights advocates claim?

The Miller ruling is pointless from a Collective Rights perspective. But hey, why try something on to see if it fits, that would be silly, eh?

Also the ruling implicitly supports an individual right to keep and bear SOME weapons, since the statement makes no sense absent that underlying assumption. Furthermore there is the citation of Aymette which supports what is implied, that the people (citizens) have a right to keep and bear arms that are of the type suitable for military use. Now maybe they cited Aymette just for the hell of it, but maybe the Supreme Court cited it for the obvious reason.

The Supreme Court equated "keep and bear" with "possession or use" in the ruling above. Again this supports the Individual rights interpretation since possession and use are the actions of individual's.


(you said)
"you would see that the Miller decision was against Miller and his RKBA." (end quote)

But was the Supreme Court finding against an individual right to keep and bear arms?, or were they simply ruling against a right to keep and bear "a shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length"?

[library_max]

157. The Miller decision was decided against Miller.

The court is not obligated to pile on every reason they can think of why an appellant's action is not valid. One reason is enough. The point of Miller is that it ruled that the Second Amendment can be applied and interpreted only in the context of the militia. That is the precedent that has been quoted in all the subsequent Second Amendment cases.

You may opine otherwise, but that's just your personal opinion. It doesn't invalidate standing court precedents such as Hickman and Silveira.

[hansberrym]

163. But lower courts are bound by that one reason given by the Supreme

Court. And that one reason makes no sense from a Collective rights perspective.


1) The Supreme Court equated "keep and bear" with "possession or use".

2) Also it makes no sense to question whether the possession of a PARTICULAR weapon is protected by 2A, if the possession of NO weapon is protected.


You do not deny these statements are correct, you simply evade, spin, or play the game of characterizing them merely as opinions.


The Silveira/Hickman rulings simply assert that citation below in boldface strongly implies a collective right - though the courts feign ignorance of the plain-as-day, obvious as hell, the parrot is not sleeping, it is dead, meaning of the ruling.





From Miller:
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158.

The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power- ‘To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; 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.’ U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, 8. With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view

[library_max]

164. Is a militia one person, or more than one person?

How can a right be individual if it can only be applied and interpreted to the end of continuing and rendering effective the militia?

Miller's status vis a vis the militia, should his state have decided to activate one, was changeable. The state could have enrolled him if it so desired. But the weapon was obviously not a battlefield weapon. The court simply chose the easiest and strongest path to their conclusion. As I've explained before, the court is not obliged to pile on every reason they can think of why an action should be denied. One compelling reason is sufficient.

The rest is just your opinion. And as I've also explained before, your opinion plus $1.29 will get you a coke at the Circle K. Your opinion (and mine, for that matter) carry no authority, unlike the decisions in the Hickman and Silveira cases. When you get your seat on the Supreme Court, you can review them. In the meantime, you're just spouting off.

[hansberrym]

184. How can a right to assemble be an individual right? Duh!

Is "the people", just one of us, or is it each and every one of us? Duh!


How can a right be exclusively collective if the actions that are protected are the actions of individuals? The keeping of arms was to be done by individuals, the bearing of arms was an individual's action. But Judge Reinhardt says the right to keep and bear arms is an exclusively collective right -nonsense!

A disarmed militia is not very effective. DUh! But that's just my opinion.
On the opther hand the Supreme COurt did descibe the militia as being all persons capable of bearing arms, and that ordinarily they would arrive bearing armsd provided by themselves.


The Supreme Court in Miller chose a single path, one that is absolutely pointless from a Collective rights perspective.

1) It is Pointless to question the right to possess of use a PARTICULAR weapon IF there is NO right to keep and bear ANY Weapon.

2) It is pointless to equate "possession or use" with "keep and bear", IF "keep and bear" means to "maintain a state militia" as the Collective Rights advocates claim.


3) The Miller Court made its ruling based on the type of weapon, NOT Miller's status vis-a-vis the Militia. The Aymette case, also decided on the basis of the type of weapon, and NOT the enrollment status of the defendant. Neither the Miller Court, nor the Aymette court, said that a person must be enrolled to have standing to bring a second amendment defense, in fact the Suprem Court sent Miller's case back for further proceedings. It is pointless to send a case back for further proceedings in which the defendant does not have standing.





The collective right = state's rights argument made in Hickman doesn't hold any water on even a cursory examination.

1) The right whose non-infringement is guaranteed by the second amendment is NOT a "right of the state", it is a "right of the people".

2) The Fourteenth amendment prevents states from passing laws abridging the liberties of the people. This amendment was largely ignored by the post civil era Supreme Court, but of all the things that did actually did CHANGE since US v. Miller(1939), the acceptance of the Incorporation of the Bill of Rights under the Fourteenth Amendment really is a significant change with respect to a citizens rights vis-a-vis the state governments. Note that Hickman was a state case with state laws regarding carrying of weapons the issue, but Miller was concerned only with a Federal law -so the issue of state laws did not arise in Miller.


3) The RKBA of the Second Amendment ALWAYS was an individual right, but like all the other provisions of the federal Bill of Rights its protection against abuse by the state governments depended on those same State governments since only the Federal government was bound by the federal BIll of Rights(Barron v. Baltimore). A citizen could make a defense against the Federal government for its abuse of one of those rights, but it could not force a State government to abide by the federal BIll of Rights.


(From Presser v. State of Illinois)
We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities <116 U.S. 252, 265> and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms. But a conclusive answer to the contention that this amendment prohibits the legislation in question lies in the fact that the amendment is a limitation only upon the power of congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state. It was so held by this court in the case of U. S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 , 553, in which the chief justice, in delivering the judgment of the court, said that the right of the people to keep and bear arms 'is not a right granted by the constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes to what is called in City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. <116 U.S. 252, 102> 139, the 'powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was perhaps more properly called internal police,' 'not surrendered or restrained' by the constitution of the United States.' See, also, Barron v. Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243; Fox v. State, 5 How. 410; Twitchell v. Com., 7 Wall. 321, 327; Jackson v. Wood, 2 Cow. 819;Com. v. Purchase, 2 Pick. 521; U. S. v. Cruikshank, 1 Woods, 308; North Carolina v. Newsom, 5 Ired. 250; Andrews v. State, 3 Heisk. 165; Fife v. State, 31 Ark. 455.
(end quote)


And please do spout off yourself, that is what forums are for, to debate and to discover truth, not to try to hide it behind black robes and appeals to authority. This is not the Dark Ages, and Progressives do not hold fast to Papal Infailibility or any such doctrine of truth revealed only to certain persons.


"But, still it moves" ought to be the motto of Progressives.


Judge Reinhardt says two plus two is five. But it doesn't, and one does not have to be a Supreme Court Justice to see that it doesn't.

[library_max]

189. Your opinion is only your opinion,

and one does have to be a Supreme Court Justice to have one's opinion make any difference in the Silveira decision.

I wish you could get over this idea that your opinions and interpretations are facts. They aren't. Your interpretation of the language of the Miller decision is not equivalent to two plus two equals anything. It's just your interpretation. It doesn't carry any more weight or authority than mine. You know whose opinion does carry some legal weight and authority on that subject? Judge Reinhardt's.

The Miller decision says quite plainly that the Second Amendment can only be applied and interpreted with the end in view of continuing and rendering effective the militia. There is no such case law limitation on the right of peaceful assembly that I am aware of. If you are aware of one, please cite it. Otherwise, there's no argument to be made that the right of states to support their militias by allowing potential militia members to keep and bear arms is equivalent to the right to peacefully assemble.

Only my opinion, of course. Neither more nor less authoritative than yours. For authoritative opinions, read Hickman and Silveira.

[hansberrym]

191. "The right of states" is NOT "the right of the people"

those two statements are not the same thing. And the judges in Hickman might as well be saying two plus two equals five. No matter how often they say it, it will not become true.


(you said)
Otherwise, there's no argument to be made that the right of states to support their militias by allowing potential militia members to keep and bear arms is equivalent to the right to peacefully assemble.
(end quote)

But what are you saying!?
Does "keep and bear arms" in your above question mean to "possess or use weapons" as the Supreme Court said, or did you write "to keep and Bear arms" meaning "to support their militia" as per Hickman? It is obvious that you have used "to keep and bear arms" the way the Supreme Court did in Miller, but then it is pretty hard not to use that phrase that way, since that is the Plain-as-day meaning.

Just like Judge Reinhardt, you are unable to uphold your own "interpretation". Judge Reinhardt insisted "militia" was a reference to an "entity", but could not help himself when he wrote that Art 1, Sec 8 gave the states the authority of training the "militamen". But then the truth will out, as Lardner said.



It is a plain fact that the Supreme Court equated "keep and bear" to "posession or use" in its holding. Do you, as a teacher of the English language, deny that they used the language in that way?, or will you continue with your diversionary banter rather than responding directly?


If Mr. Miller had no right to keep and bear ANY weapon, why question why he had the right to possess or use a PARTICULAR weapon?

[library_max]

193. Amazingly enough, your opinion is STILL only your opinion.

That's not "diversionary banter," it's a rock-solid fact, one which you desperately need to grasp.

No matter how firmly you believe that the language in Miller or in the Second Amendment means this or that, that's just your opinion. It is not a fact. It carries no legal weight. Neither Judge Reinhardt nor anyone else is bound to respect it or be influenced by it.

Can you grasp that? No matter how interesting a quibble over this or that bit of language might be, it has no actual consequence in the real world unless you actually have the authority to interpret the law, which you and I don't.

I've answered most of your points many times, such as "If Mr. Miller had no right . . ." It's really futile to continue to wrangle about it. Its entertainment value is thoroughly exhausted, at least for me. But you need to get over the idea that all these endless semantic wrangles make a whoop's worth of difference in the law. They don't. Period.

[hansberrym]

194. Do you deny that the Supreme Court in Miller equated...

"possession or use" with "keep and bear" ?

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158.



It is a plain-as-day fact.

[library_max]

198. No, your opinion is still not "plain-as-day fact."

I'm really starting to worry. Has nobody ever explained to you the difference between opinion and fact?

Also, what do you think it does to your credibility when you fixate on the relationship between the phrase "possession or use" and the phrase "keep and bear" while ignoring the main import of the passage you quoted - which is that the court ruled that Miller had no Second Amendment right to keep and bear such a weapon?

Do you honestly think you're impressing anyone who doesn't already agree with you with these semantic quibbles? Or is the name of the game to try to fabricate a legal justification for those who mistakenly believe that the Second Amendment grants an individual RKBA outside the context of the militia?

[hansberrym]

199. Do you deny it ? n/t

[library_max]

201. I don't deny that it's your opinion. I just did deny that it's a fact.

Do you read my posts before you reply to them?

[hansberrym]

203. Run it by your pals at the university n/t

[library_max]

204. My pals at the university all know the difference between opinion and fact

[hansberrym]

208. I bet they also know what "equate" means, and what equivocation means n/t

[library_max]

211. So do I, for that matter. It doesn't make your opinion into a fact.

[hansberrym]

213. It is a plain fact, regardless of my opinion. But I do enjoy watching ..

you, a holder of an advanced degree in English, deny such a plain-as-day fact.

[library_max]

215. And yet I continue to worry about your inability to tell fact from opinion

So I guess you're having all the fun here.

[MrBenchley]

216. At least hans has stopped pretending that all the judges are crooked

except a few honest ones (like Rehnquist and Scalia)...

That was an amusing phase....

[hansberrym]

218. What good does your advanced degree in English do you if you

can not assertain the simplest facts, especially when the question concerns your supposed area of expertise?



What is the relationship between "keep and bear" and "posession or use" in the ruling?

[library_max]

220. Answered below. /nt

[hansberrym]

206. Why did the Supreme Court even consider whether Mr Miller

had the right to keep and bear "such an instrument", IF he had no right to possess or use ANY weapon?



The feigned ignorance of the Collective Rights crowd speaks volumes as to their credibility.




Two plus two is four (I say)

that is just your opinion (you say)

And your opinion is not the same as fact (you say)

Therefor two plus two is not a fact (you say)


Equivocation alert!

[library_max]

209. Well, I hope you can keep numbers and opinions straight

when you balance your checkbook. I'd sure hate to see you arguing that the use of the decimal point couldn't possibly justify carrying the four while your checks go bouncing all over town.

Math is fact. Your opinion is your opinion. This is not equivocation. It is, in fact, fact. And you can blather about "feigned ignorance" all you want, but it won't change the fact that the Miller decision established the principle that the Second Amendment means nothing outside the context of the militia. And that's not my opinion. It's the way it has been used in all the authoritative cases, not one of which (by the way) picked up on any of the inane grammatical quibbles you keep raising.

[hansberrym]

217. It is a fact the Supreme Court equated "keep and bear" with

"posession or use", and it would be a fact regardless of whether I or you ever existed or not.


It's being factual really has nothing whatever to do with me or you, but then you must play the game of equivocation and feigned ignorance, because if you, or rather your Judge Reinhardt, were to admit the obvous, the game would be up.




Your equivocation:

That's just your opinion,

and your opinion is not the same as a fact,

therfore that is not a fact.



your feigned ignorance:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158.


What is the relationship between "keep and Bear" and "possession or use" in that ruling?

[library_max]

219. One is the subject of a subordinate clause in the introductory clause,

and the other is the object of a prepositional phrase that modifies the object of a subordinate clause that is itself the direct object of the main verb of the sentence. So? So far are they from parallel structure that they do not even perform the same grammatical function in the sentence. And even if they were parallel grammatically, that wouldn't mean that they are "equated."

Your saying that they are "equated" is just your opinion, your interpretation of the logic of the passage. It is not a fact, no matter how sure you are that your opinion is correct. I don't know how to make that any plainer to you.

And here's another fun question. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that they were "equated"? So what?

[hansberrym]

223. Or more simnply put, in each case a verb form followed by an object.

1) tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel...
2) the right to keep and bear such an instrument


"possession or use" equates to "keep and bear",
and "Shotgun having..." equates to "such an instrument" .




(you say)
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that they were "equated"? So what?
(end quote)

Since "keep and bear" means the same as "possession or use" then the Collective Rights Adcvocates claim that "the right to keep and bear arms" means "right of the states to arm their militias" is incorrect.




Notice how Reinhardt simply ingnores that "keep" does mean "possession".




In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158.



(From Silveira)
We reaffirm our earlier adherence to the collective rights
interpretation of the Second Amendment, although for reasons
somewhat different from those we stated in Hickman. Hickman
rested on a canvass of our sister circuits and a summary
evaluation of Miller. Miller did not, however, definitively
resolve the nature of the right that the Second Amendment
establishes. As we observed earlier, the relevant statements in
Miller are all expressed in negative terms. Although those negative statements rule out the traditional individual rights
model, the Court took no specific affirmative position as to
what rights the amendment does protect. Thus, our decision
regarding the nature of the rights guaranteed by the Second
Amendment must be guided by additional factors — the text
and structure of the amendment, an examination of the materials
reflecting the historical context in which it was adopted,
and a review of the deliberations that preceded the enactment
of the amendment — considered in a manner that comports
with the rationale of Miller.
<10> After conducting our analysis of the meaning of the
words employed in the amendment’s two clauses, and the
effect of their relationship to each other, we concluded that
the language and structure of the amendment strongly support
the collective rights view. The preamble establishes that the
amendment’s purpose was to ensure the maintenance of effective
state militias, and the amendment’s operative clause
establishes that this objective was to be attained by preserving
the right of the people to “bear arms” — to carry weapons in
conjunction with their service in the militia. To resolve any
remaining uncertainty, we carefully examined the historical
circumstances surrounding the adoption of the amendment.
Our review of the debates during the Constitutional Convention,
the state ratifying conventions, and the First Congress,
as well as the other historical materials we have discussed,
confirmed what the text strongly suggested: that the amendment
was adopted in order to protect the people from the
threat of federal tyranny by preserving the right of the states
to arm their militias. The proponents of the Second Amendment
believed that only if the states retained that power could
the existence of effective state militias — in which the people
could exercise their right to “bear arms” — be ensured. The
historical record makes it equally plain that the amendment
was not adopted in order to afford rights to individuals with
respect to private gun ownership or possession. Accordingly,
we are persuaded that we were correct in Hickman that the
collective rights view, rather than the individual rights mo


ALSO:


, a careful review of the ratification debates demonstrates beyond question that opponents of the new Constitution sought amendment
of the Militia Clauses in order to preserve the people’s
right to maintain an effective military force for their self defense, and not to afford individuals a constitutional right to
possess weapons

[library_max]

235. As a matter of fact, "possession" and "use" are nouns, not verbs.

"Keep" and "bear" are verbs. I wrote hastily last time - they are actually the verbs in an infinitive construct which modifies the word "right." But they don't equate to anything. They aren't even the same part of speech. If your going to base book-length answers on grammar, it helps to know a little something about grammar. "Possess" and "use" (vocalized s) are verbs; "possession" and "use" (hard s) are nouns. Look it up if you don't believe me.

And again, even if they meant the same thing, that does not in any way refute the collective rights argument. You give no explanation of why you think it does so. You just use that statement like a magician might use "Alakazam!" before he pulls a rabbit out of his hat.

And as always, whatever you think of the Silveira decision, you have no standing or authority to review it, so your opinion plus $1.29 will get you a coke at Circle K.

[jack99]

56. I own them already (except the M203)

And have owned them for several years (semi autos versions of course).

I have a:
1. 1x Norinco semi auto AK47 bought in 87 for $300
2. 2x WASR10s (semi auto AK47s)still only $300 bought this year.
3. 1x pre/no ban bushmaster M4 (paid $1000 in 1990) (no M203 the $200+$2500 for the M203 is too much)
4. 1x Century arms FAL $600 bought in 2001.

As you can see the AW ban never stopped the ownership of any of the rifles in the above pic.

And yes everyone should be allowed to own one.

Jack

[DavidMS]

93. Any Qualified* Person,

Yes.

*Qualified = Of 18 years or older or under prenteal supervision. Not Adjudicated Insane, a habitual criminal, unrehabiliated fellon, wife beater. Also corporate white collar criminals should be bared from firearms ownership.

[FatSlob]

100. WOOOOOOHOOOOOOOOO!

The ban is OVER! Mike DeSwine and Feinstein can KMA! Happy days are here again. Welcome to the slippery slope to freedom. Yes, we should be able to have unlimited amounts of the pictured weapons.

[UpsideDownFlag]

138. "Mike DeSwine and Feinstein can KMA!"

thanks for re-affirming my views about the gungeon's RKBAers.

[FeebMaster]

116. Uh oh.

Looks like this poll didn't go well. Guess that makes it another meaningless online poll.

[library_max]

117. OMIGOD! RKBAers make up the majority in JPS!

And this is news because . . . ?

:shrug:

[FeebMaster]

118. Are we back to this again?

This isn't going to turn out to be another "you don't have the guts to post this poll in GD" subthread, is it? Those never seem to end well for the pro-control folks.

[slackmaster]

124. I double-dog dare library_max to post it in GD

:evilgrin:

[FeebMaster]

125. I don't know.

It was sort of a mess from the start if you ask me. Pictures of machine guns and grenade launchers along with pictures of pre-awb weapons. Given all the confusion over the AWB and machine guns, who knows what the poll was asking. It's a good thing I don't want any regulations on guns at all or I wouldn't have been sure how to vote.

[library_max]

130. Nope.

Just stating the obvious - that a gun poll in the Gungeon is every bit as representative of Democrats generally as a gun poll at an NRA meeting would be of the American electorate. And remember, I'm not the one who started this subthread.

[FeebMaster]

131. Right.

Gun polls in GD turn out so much better for you.

And remember, I'm not the one who started this subthread.

That's right. I started it. You responded.

[anonymous44]

141. Here's my take on what people should own.

I see a lot of bitching from soccer moms and such so here is my belief on what a citizen should own.

Any firearm which is designed to fire a projectile. If you can hold it in your hands off the ground, then you should be able to own one. This includes everything full autos etc.

Now, onto grenades and such. You cannot own the grenade because at the time of using it you manually throw it away from yourself. If you shoot a gun you don't throw it away after you shoot. I know it's confusing. If you are stupid and think that you can use a nade while it explodes in your hands, then be my guest. This includes nukes too. If you arm a nuke, then it explodes in your hands. You must have a weapon in your arms while firing it. I guess this is more clear now.

You can't own a howitzer because this is too heavy and you cannot hold it in your hands off the ground.

Anyway, I'm finished. If the 2nd amendment was worded this way, then we wouldn't have all this bitching and comparing arms to nukes and nades.

[FeebMaster]

142. What about grenade launchers? (nt)

[anonymous44]

144. Hmmm (You got me)

I would say let them have it. According to my definition it would be okay.

[UpsideDownFlag]

145. rocket launchers?

shoulder fired missiles?

grenade launchers?

[anonymous44]

146. Definitely

If it's a gun, then you should be able to own one. It does fire a projectile so you should own one.

[UpsideDownFlag]

147. yes, i think that makes sense.

rocket launchers serve a definite hunting/home defense/target shooting role.

jesus christ.

[anonymous44]

148. Who says that it's for hunting?

Collecting maybe?

Btw why even have this argument?

It's the bill of rights -- not the bill of needs. I don't need a lot of stuff, but I choose to have it.

[UpsideDownFlag]

149. why do you want a rocket launcher?

seriously. with the money you spend on a rocket launcher, you could by a used car. but i'll bet they're nice to have when the time comes to blow up those damn FBI vehicles storming your house.

[anonymous44]

151. yeah i could

Yes, I could buy a car. If I had a chance to buy a rocket launcher, I probably wouldn't unless it was really rare.

[library_max]

150. All the US case law on the Second Amendment

concludes that there is no individual RKBA outside of the context of the state-run militia. And the more recent decisions (Hickman, Silveira) have clarified that one must need to be an active member of an active state militia (hint - they don't exist any more) to bring action on Second Amendment grounds. So what right were you talking about?

[anonymous44]

152. 2nd amendment

it's in the bill of rights and it was like that since this country was created. at the time that constitution was created all able bodied men were considered militia. a farmer or carpenter was considered a militiaman if he was able bodied man. he could be called up to defend usa any time just like if we had a draft. we are considered able bodied men. if we werent then we wouldnt be called up for draft. therefore, we can arm ourselves because were are "militia" because we are of age and able bodied men.

[library_max]

153. If I could redirect your attention from the 18th Century to the present,

the entire body of US case law on the subject of the Second Amendment contradicts your premises and your conclusion. The Hickman and Silveira cases specifically ruled that if you are not an active member of an active state militia (hint - there aren't any of those), you cannot claim an RKBA for being an "able-bodied man" capable of serving in such a militia. And by the way, you may not have noticed this, but the draft ended some time ago.

In every standing US court case concerning the Second Amendment, the RKBA of the appellant was denied and the gun control measure was upheld. That's every - single - case.

[MrBenchley]

158. By the way, you might have noticed

that pResident Toot said yesterday that the militias of the past became the National Guard of today...and that thus every real President in the past who had taken part in a militia could be considered by those of us today a National Guardsman.

Funny how there's not even a murmur of disapproval from the gun-crazy on the web over that OBVIOUS fact. Imagine the uproar if Kerry had said such a thing?

[anonymous44]

159. well why don't you go ahead and repeal the 2nd

this way gangs will have even more products to make more profits. we'll see how it will work out.

btw it says in the 2nd "the right of the people" so unless im an animal i should not have a gun if i choose to have one. do you always agree with court decisions? i remember there were quite a few bad ones. abortion comes to mind.

[library_max]

160. Fortunately, the Constitution is interpreted by the courts,

and not by you or me. And the courts have ruled that the Second Amendment can only be interpreted and applied in the context of the armed citizen militia (US v. Miller), and that that means active enlistment in an active militia, not just being an able-bodied male that is eligible for service (Hickman v. Block), and that active militias do not exist outside the National Guard and state guards (Silveira v. Lockyer). So actually, nothing needs to be repealed at all. The issue has already been decided by the courts, against the RKBA point of view.

[anonymous44]

161. Well

then why am I able to still buy a gun? By your reasoning im not in militia and therefore should not be able to buy one. Yet, I can still buy a gun legally. Clearly, something is wrong because if those decisions were right, then USA would ban guns a long time ago as well as states, municipalities etc. This is proof that RKBA side is right rather than wrong because only a couple of judges (who are probably scared of guns) decided that way while most local, state and federal governments don't agree with them.

[library_max]

165. Many things are legal but not Constitutionally protected.

In a lot of towns, it's not against the law to spit on the sidewalk. Does that mean you have a Constitutionally-protected right to spit on the sidewalk? No. Your town could pass an ordinance against it and that would be that. But if your town passed an ordinance against, say, flag-burning, that would be ruled unconstitutional under the First Amendment. To make such an ordinance work would require a Constitutional amendment. See the difference? This is eighth-grade civics, ownt.

[anonymous44]

167. As I said

if all courts agreed on it, then we wouldn't be able to buy guns. They don't and therefore it proves that we are right.

[library_max]

170. You're not listening.

The courts have all agreed that RKBA is not Constitutionally protected. That's not the same thing as saying guns are illegal. It means that it is constitutionally possible (without amendment) to illegalize private ownership of guns. It CAN be done - that doesn't mean that it HAS been done.

[MrBenchley]

171. Remember, you're conversing with a "pro gun democrat"

who wants to own a slave and sees nothing wrong with sales of anthrax to patriots such as himself.

[anonymous44]

174. lol

i wouldnt mind having a slave. you could be a good one lol

i figured you out. you hate guns because you probably are a victim of gun related shooting. maybe your son or daughter got shot and killed. that's why you show all this anger. no need to come up with stupid bullshit. just admit it.

[UpsideDownFlag]

186. whoa, dude. "maybe your son or daughter got shot and killed."

zap.

[anonymous44]

173. first of all

was it a supreme court decision?
how can you say it's not constitutionally protected when it's in the bill of rights? it's right there.

[library_max]

178. Look, ownt, the courts interpret the law, not you and not me.

You can say "it's right there" until you're blue in the face, but the Second Amendment (and any other portion of the Constitution you might care to name) means what the courts say it means, period. The law has to be interpreted by somebody, and better the courts than people who can't even write a simple sentence in English.

US v. Miller (1939) was a Supreme Court decision, yes. It is the watershed decision on the Second Amendment, the one that has been quoted in all the Second Amendment decisions since 1939, to the effect that the Second Amendment can only be interpreted or applied in the context of the militia.

[anonymous44]

179. so what are they waiting for

why not just do away with the 2nd
there are 50+ million gun owners and most of them are not in militia

[library_max]

180. In fact, none of them is in a militia,

there being no militia (as defined in Miller) for them to be in.

I agree with you, the Second Amendment has become a useless relic of the past, like the Third Amendment - something that must have seemed important in the 18th Century but not relevant today. However, the courts interpret the law - they can't "do away with" (i.e. repeal) any amendment. That would require a new amendment, passed in Congress and ratified by three-fourths of the states.

[anonymous44]

181. and that's not going to happen

because most feel that the people should be able to own firearms

[library_max]

182. It doesn't have to happen.

The Second Amendment, as interpreted by the courts, is meaningless now.

[anonymous44]

183. aww jeez

so if it's meaningless, then why are all the anti's always on its balls. if it's meaningless, then uncle sam can walk in my door and just take my guns. hell, if it's meaningless, then why are we even having this discussion? if it's meaningless, then i'm basicly a felon just like around 50 million other people in this coutry.

[UpsideDownFlag]

187. "if it's meaningless, then i'm basicly a felon..."

touche.

[library_max]

190. Once more with feeling.

The fact that the Consitution allows federal, state, and local legislators to proscribe an item or act does not mean that that item or act is already proscribed. Please try to grasp this extremely simple concept. Something that is not against the law in a given state or locality is legal there. That doesn't mean that it is Constitutionally protected. There are many places where spitting on the sidewalk is not against the law. That doesn't mean that there is a Constitutional right to spit on the sidewalk. There are currently a variety of federal, state, and local restrictions on the right to own a gun. If your gun ownership passes all the restrictions that apply to you where you live, then it's legal. But it isn't Constitutionally protected. Your local or state government could change the law tomorrow.

[anonymous44]

226. Rights of the people

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment II

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.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment VII

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

[library_max]

236. Yes, and the amendments are interpreted by the courts.

And the courts have unanimously interpreted the Second Amendment as providing for the continuation and effectiveness of the militia, and not as a guarantee of any individual RKBA.

[EDT]

162. Let's ban alcohol first, we'll save 1000's of times more lives in the US

For every innocent person you can say was shot with an assault rifle, 1000's are killed by alcohol in drunk driving accidents, domestic murders, chronic liver failure, drownings, etc...

If you really care about saving lives, let's ban alcohol first, then once we succeed with that, let's take on fatty foods, THEN we can look into guns, being so much further down on the list as a major killer.

Then after that was done, it wouldn't seem like a very free country. I'll take my guns with a Federal background check, my alcohol with an id check, and my snacks with a fatty food label- and that's all.

[DamnSkippy]

168. We've got to ban cars first....

Ater all, who needs this much power? Should just ANYONE be allowed to own one of these "killing machines"?









If we can get these killers off the streets it will save hundreds of thousands of lives each year. It will prevent injuries by the millions. Thousands of children will be safer in our streets if we can stop these monsterous machines from flooding our streets.

After all, what do you need one of these for? Civilians shouldn't have access to that kind of killing power. We have GOT to get them off the streets. Just remember, the next time a child takes one to school and kills some of his classmates with one, that I warned you.

[anonymous44]

175. lol

hahahaha nice one

[Garbo]

169. And military-lookalike vehicles.....

If military lookalike weapons are dangerous, then so are those old jeeps driving around......

Come to think of it, lets ban lookalike tents to......

[mjones]

172. Psychos...

Anyone who wants to own guns like those is a psychopath and will probably end up killing someone.

[anonymous44]

176. don't think so.

my dad owned ak for 40+ years and he never killed anyone.
i still have his ak and an ar for 12 years and i haven't killed anyone.

[anonymous44]

177. .

http://www.sightm1911.com/lib/ccw/rage.htm

[UpsideDownFlag]

188. .

sightm1911? eh?

[p0sitivevibez]

227. NEVER

I am still in disbelief and shock that ANYONE cant sit here and say those guns should be allowed. Ashcroft goes after bongs because their "dangerous" and then allows these? Come on people!! These guns were made for 2 applications- military/police (should be allowed) and CRIME. Anyone that says assault weapons are not the choice of criminals is a freakin idiot. As an American and a relative of many law enforcmeant officers, I say that allowing these weapons to become leagal is not only dangerous, but TREASONOUS to the American people and law enforcment officers everywhere. More criminals. Thank the right wing for makings us all very very very very very very very unsafe in our own country.

[MrBenchley]

228. Welcome to the gungeon

Lots of luck....you'll need it. Prepare to be told that nobody shares your opinion (although in fact 80% of American voters, pretty much every liberal or moderate you've ever heard of, and all of the Democratic presidential candidates who ran in the primaries, including our winning ticket of Kerry and Edwards do.)

[FeebMaster]

229. There you go with your 80% again.

Why 80% this time instead of 66%? or 60%? What's really funny is you can't even get 80% of DUers to agree with you on these polls. Or 66%. Or 60%.

[MrBenchley]

230. Cry me a river, feeb.....

[FeebMaster]

231. Why should I cry you a river?

We'll just add this to the list of DU polls that didn't go well for the pro-control folks.

[anonymous44]

232. lol

haha

[Wickerman]

238. Sorry - this one got away from me

I was out of town most of the day, forgot to brief Ronz. It really had nothing to do with any bias on my part, in case you were wondering...