NationStates Jolt Archive

Now pay attention. It has been posted several times. Federal law states there IS a militia.

The militia comes in 2 parts, the organized and unorganized. The organized militia of the states are their National Guard forces. The unorganized militias are the body of the people, generally from 18-45 (18-60 here). Some states have another part to their organized militia

Example from Virginia (http://www.virginiadefenseforce.org/)

I think something like 26 states have these. They act as sort of a reserve to the National Guard. When the Guard leaves these guys pick up on their in-state missions. They're not allowed to deploy out of state.

Example of how one state defines their militia.

The organized militia of this state taken collectively shall be known as the state military establishment and constitutes the armed forces of this state. The organized militia consists of the army national guard, the air national guard, and the defense force when actually in existence as provided in this act. The unorganized militia consists of all other able-bodied citizens of this state and all other able-bodied citizens who are residents of this state who have or shall have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, who shall be age 17 or over and not more than age 60, and shall be subject to state military duty as provided in this act.

I would hardly call the National Guard a militia, as they would have reacted to the massive infringement of rights the US government has been doing to its people.

And, wow, one state. Thats such a large scale..almost even a larger scale than when it used to be in EVERY state.

One? I was raising an example... But since you're so hell-bent on getting your wee-wee slapped:

Massachusettes (http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/33-2.htm)
New York (http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/menugetf.cgi?COMMONQUERY=LAWS)
Connecticut (http://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/pub/Chap504.htm#Sec27-2.htm)
Arizona (http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/26/00121.htm&Title=26&DocType=ARS)
Idaho (http://www3.state.id.us/cgi-bin/newidst?sctid=460010002.K)
Washington (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=38.04.030)
Rhode Island (http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/Statutes/TITLE30/30-1/30-1-5.HTM)
Missouri (http://www.moga.state.mo.us/statutes/C000-099/0410000050.HTM)
New Jersey (http://lis.njleg.state.nj.us/cgi-bin/om_isapi.dll?clientID=13387051&Depth=2&depth=2&expandheadings=on&headingswithhits=on&hitsperheading=on&infobase=statutes.nfo&record={D80E}&softpage=Doc_Frame_PG42)

I haven't sidestepped or bactracked:

Here, look, my first ever post in the thread:



Compared to my recent argument, just a post or so ago:




Clearly, to claim I sidestep or backtrack, is disingenuous, at best.

And since "tendancy" means:

ten·den·cy Audio pronunciation of "tendency" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tndn-s)
n. pl. ten·den·cies

1. Movement or prevailing movement in a given direction: observed the tendency of the wind; the shoreward tendency of the current.
2. A characteristic likelihood: fabric that has a tendency to wrinkle.
3. A predisposition to think, act, behave, or proceed in a particular way.
4.
1. An implicit direction or purpose: not openly liberal, but that is the tendency of the book.
2. An implicit point of view in written or spoken matter; a bias.


And I've shown that firearm support does NOT have a "tendancy" towards "Fundamentalist Christian" areas nor them being "NRA strongholds" you are wrong.

You have also just shown that you have backstepped from stating that NRA strongholds tend towards FC which you have equated to anti-gay bigotry to "suggesting" it.

"Stated"? A strong word. Suggested, perhaps.

Now pay attention. It has been posted several times. Federal law states there IS a militia.
Now pay attention. It has been posted several times. The Constitution DEFINES the Militia. There is NO informal Militia. The Constitution body defines the Militia as being under control of the states with training prescribed by the Feds. The 2nd states plainly "well regulated". Obviously NOT no regulation. Now who makes regulation----the Government.

Where exactly does the Constitution say ANYTHING about an informal Militia?

NOWHERE

Now pay attention. It has been posted several times. The Constitution DEFINES the Militia. There is NO informal Militia. The Constitution body defines the Militia as being under control of the states with training prescribed by the Feds. The 2nd states plainly "well regulated". Obviously NOT no regulation. Now who makes regulation----the Government.

Where exactly does the Constitution say ANYTHING about an informal Militia?

NOWHERE

No, the Constitution does NOT define what exaclty the militia is.It does not say there CAN'T be an "informal" militia. There IS an "unorganized" Militia by federal law and many state constitutions as well as the "Right of the People". You may want to read the rest of the Constitution as well as what a prefatory subordinate clause is.

Edit: Since you probably won't, here:

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm#2

C. "A Well Regulated Militia, being Necessary to the Security of a Free State"

A feature of the Second Amendment that distinguishes it from the other rights that the Bill of Rights secures is its prefatory subordinate clause, declaring: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, . . . ." Advocates of the collective-right and quasi-collective-right interpretations rely on this declaration, particularly its reference to a well-regulated militia. On their interpretation, the "people" to which the Second Amendment refers is only the "people" in a collective, organized capacity as the state governments, or a small subset of the "people" actively organized by those governments into military bodies. "People" becomes interchangeable with the "State" or its "organized militia."

This argument misunderstands the proper role of such prefatory declarations in interpreting the operative language of a provision. A preface can illuminate operative language but is ultimately subordinate to it and cannot restrict it.

Wholly apart from this interpretive principle, this argument also rests on an incomplete understanding of the preface's language. Although the Amendment's prefatory clause, standing alone, might suggest a collective or possibly quasi-collective right to a modern reader, when its words are read as they were understood at the Founding, the preface is fully consistent with the individual right that the Amendment's operative language sets out. The "Militia" as understood at the Founding was not a select group such as the National Guard of today. It consisted of all able-bodied male citizens. The Second Amendment's preface identifies as a justification for the individual right that a necessary condition for an effective citizen militia, and for the "free State" that it helps to secure, is a citizenry that is privately armed and able to use its private arms.

Hell, even US v Miller recognized it:

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. (108)

Now pay attention. It has been posted several times. The Constitution DEFINES the Militia. There is NO informal Militia. The Constitution body defines the Militia as being under control of the states with training prescribed by the Feds. The 2nd states plainly "well regulated". Obviously NOT no regulation. Now who makes regulation----the Government.

Where exactly does the Constitution say ANYTHING about an informal Militia?

NOWHERE
Let's be fair here. If the second ammendment were as clear as all that, we wouldn't be arguing about it.

And since "tendancy" means:

ten·den·cy Audio pronunciation of "tendency" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tndn-s)
n. pl. ten·den·cies

1. Movement or prevailing movement in a given direction: observed the tendency of the wind; the shoreward tendency of the current.
2. A characteristic likelihood: fabric that has a tendency to wrinkle.
3. A predisposition to think, act, behave, or proceed in a particular way.
4.
1. An implicit direction or purpose: not openly liberal, but that is the tendency of the book.
2. An implicit point of view in written or spoken matter; a bias.


And I've shown that firearm support does NOT have a "tendancy" towards "Fundamentalist Christian" areas nor them being "NRA strongholds" you are wrong.

You have also just shown that you have backstepped from stating that NRA strongholds tend towards FC which you have equated to anti-gay bigotry to "suggesting" it.

I give up.

You aren't interested in actual debate, you'd rather score some kind of pyrrhic victory from false accusations and strawman fallacies.

Whatever. I've got more important things to do than constantly address your dishonesty/disingenuousness/lack of comprehension... whichever one it is.

No, the Constitution does NOT define what exaclty the militia is.It does not say there CAN'T be an "informal" militia. There IS an "unorganized" Militia by federal law and many state constitutions as well as the "Right of the People". You may want to read the rest of the Constitution as well as what a prefatory subordinate clause is.
Where does the Constitution allow for an informal Militia?

Where does the Constitution allow for an informal Militia?

Amendment IX

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

Unless you're trying to say that we are only allowed things that ARE written.

Show me where it disallows it.

I give up.

You aren't interested in actual debate, you'd rather score some kind of pyrrhic victory from false accusations and strawman fallacies.

Whatever. I've got more important things to do than constantly address your dishonesty/disingenuousness/lack of comprehension... whichever one it is.

And here's the sidestepping. Have a nice day.

And here's the sidestepping. Have a nice day.

Cassandra lives again?

"People" becomes interchangeable with the "State" or its "organized militia."
)
Thank you for giving me the perfect quote

Thank you for giving me the perfect quote

If you want to support a collective/communistic view of the world and take my arguement out of context.

If you want to support a collective/communistic view of the world and take my arguement out of context.
I can't help it if you don't read your own quotes.

I own over 25 guns of all types. I can't remember when I started using guns. I hunted before I went to kindergarten. But people who don't have an understanding of our rights vs. our privilages keep me from joining NRA or wishing to be thought of as a "gun person". Any reading of the Constitution demands regulation. Only a totally unthoughtful person would demand no regulation. The founding Fathers were anything but unthoughtful.

Declare victory if you wish. Your arguments have become so silly as to inflict boredom. Look forward to a reasonable debate someday.

Regulation? Yes. There is no reason to provide our convicted fellons with an unrestricted access to military hardware. There's no reason not to require a person prove compotence with a given weapon before they are allowed to own it.

The trouble is that the right to self-defence is an inalienable right, and placing blanket restrictions on certain kinds of weapons, and unreasonable regulations that actually prevent interested parties who aren't criminally deranged from owning weapons is infringing on said inalienable right.

The weapons your gang bangers use are military style weapons intended to kill other people, which is really closer to the intent of the second ammendment than your hunting tangent.

Precious, precious quote.

Gangbangers are fulfilling the intent of the Second Amendment.

Let's be fair here. If the second ammendment were as clear as all that, we wouldn't be arguing about it.

THe courts have found the Second Amendment to be exactly that clear.

they may be wrong, but they are nigh universal in agreeing with Good Lifes.

Amendment IX

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

Unless you're trying to say that we are only allowed things that ARE written.

Show me where it disallows it.

Surely you aren't imply that the 9th allows for an informal militia which is then protected as the "well-regulated militia" of the 2nd.

I can't help it if you don't read your own quotes.

I own over 25 guns of all types. I can't remember when I started using guns. I hunted before I went to kindergarten. But people who don't have an understanding of our rights vs. our privilages keep me from joining NRA or wishing to be thought of as a "gun person". Any reading of the Constitution demands regulation. Only a totally unthoughtful person would demand no regulation. The founding Fathers were anything but unthoughtful.

Declare victory if you wish. Your arguments have become so silly as to inflict boredom. Look forward to a reasonable debate someday.

In fairness, Kecibukia has not argued for no regulation whatsoever of weaponry.

To the contrary, he has ridiculed that position.

I can't help it if you don't read your own quotes.

I do read my own quotes. Obviously you didn't read the entire thing.

I own over 25 guns of all types. I can't remember when I started using guns. I hunted before I went to kindergarten. But people who don't have an understanding of our rights vs. our privilages keep me from joining NRA or wishing to be thought of as a "gun person". Any reading of the Constitution demands regulation. Only a totally unthoughtful person would demand no regulation. The founding Fathers were anything but unthoughtful.

Now show me where I endorsed no regulation. Please, beat your strawman some more.

Declare victory if you wish. Your arguments have become so silly as to inflict boredom. Look forward to a reasonable debate someday.

Declare victory? Once again, stop beating this strawman and show me where I did. At least I've actually presented sources to my arguements.

Surely you aren't imply that the 9th allows for an informal militia which is then protected as the "well-regulated militia" of the 2nd.

I'm stating that the constitution does not DISALLOW "informal" militia's and clearly states that things that aren't stated don't necessarily mean they aren't allowed.

In fairness, Kecibukia has not argued for no regulation whatsoever of weaponry.

To the contrary, he has ridiculed that position.

Thank you. I'm sure that strawman appreciates so many coming to his defense. :)

Front page story in the Tacoma News Tribune (http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/story/5670555p-5085163c.html) yesterday was how someone was bitching about how the sight of knives, swords, throwing stars, etc was "un-nerving" and should be banned. Maybe the sporting goods stores could sell them, but you should have to show a good reason for one They went on to say that there is no spate of attackes nor has anyone been killed....but........it' just so UN-NERVING......

Fie on the "Unnerved" Sheep.

With all due respect and apologies to Pastor Martin Niemöller.

When they came for the machineguns,
I remained silent;
I was not a machinegun owner.

When they locked up the "assault rifle" owners,
I remained silent;
I was not a "assault rifle" owners.

When they came for the hangun owners,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade handgun owner.

When they came for the machete owners,
I did not speak out;
I was not a machete owners.

When they came for me and my pocket knife,
there was no one left to speak out.

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

Then there will be no more Sheepdogs. Only Wolves.

Let's be fair here. If the second ammendment were as clear as all that, we wouldn't be arguing about it.
The second is perfectly clear. It's those who argue that is says more than it does because of personal predjudice that we pick on.

With all due respect and apologies to Pastor Martin Niemöller.


Apologies are definitely due.

The second is perfectly clear. It's those who argue that is says more than it does because of personal predjudice that we pick on.

Like those who argue a subordinate prefatory clause gives the state a "right".

The NRA came into being the day that the KKK was outlawed. That's not a coincidence.

Where does the Constitution allow for an informal Militia?

It doesn't have to. Because it doesn't disallow it. Funny thing, really.

That being said, any "informal" militia that decides to go to war with the US could be held for treason. So, an informal militia would be one that serves for the Republic, but not necessarily for the Government. Or some such.

The NRA came into being the day that the KKK was outlawed. That's not a coincidence.

The KKK was outlawed? Really? Care to prove that?

Care to show where the NRA endorses disarming minorities?

The NRA came into being the day that the KKK was outlawed. That's not a coincidence.

The KKK still exists.

In fact, their national headquarters is not too terribly far away from where I live.

It doesn't have to. Because it doesn't disallow it. Funny thing, really.

That being said, any "informal" militia that decides to go to war with the US could be held for treason. So, an informal militia would be one that serves for the Republic, but not necessarily for the Government. Or some such.

Since when do you have a "right" to everything the Constitution doesn't expressly disallow?

The KKK was outlawed? Really? Care to prove that?

Care to show where the NRA endorses disarming minorities?

I believe TC is referring the the Klu Klux Klan Act of 1871.

http://www.answers.com/topic/section-1983

But it didn't really outlaw the Klan per se.

It does happen to be the case that the NRA was started in 1871.

I don't know of any evidence of direct causation/correlation, however.

The KKK still exists.

In fact, their national headquarters is not too terribly far away from where I live.

Lot's of illegal things still exist. Like Crystal Meth. Or, perhaps the KKK is no longer illegal. I don't know. What I do know is that Charelton Heston is a sexist bigot.
If you want to dispute the connection between the KKK and the NRA, talk to Michael Moore. Perhaps he's not entirely trusted by right-wingers, but I think he has a lot to say.

Lot's of illegal things still exist. Like Crystal Meth. Or, perhaps the KKK is no longer illegal. I don't know. What I do know is that Charelton Heston is a sexist bigot.
If you want to dispute the connection between the KKK and the NRA, talk to Michael Moore. Perhaps he's not entirely trusted by right-wingers, but I think he has a lot to say.

Although I like Michael Moore and -- contrary to what some my expect -- his movies have helped convince me of the more pro-gun view [Bowling is not as anti-gun as some think], you'll find he is considered the anti-Christ my many pro-gunners.

Lot's of illegal things still exist. Like Crystal Meth. Or, perhaps the KKK is no longer illegal. I don't know. What I do know is that Charelton Heston is a sexist bigot.
If you want to dispute the connection between the KKK and the NRA, talk to Michael Moore. Perhaps he's not entirely trusted by right-wingers, but I think he has a lot to say.

It's true - he has a lot to say. Most of it is BS, but it doesn't stop him from saying it. The KKK was never strictly illegal, and never dissolved as a legal entity. Its activities were severely curtailed by that specific act, however.

Although I like Michael Moore and -- contrary to what some my expect -- his movies have helped convince me of the more pro-gun view [Bowling is not as anti-gun as some think], you'll find he is considered the anti-Christ my many pro-gunners.

I found Bowling to be quite more pro-gun than most people think myself. Glad to see I'm not alone.

For the records of this thread, I am all for gun rights.

I believe TC is referring the the Klu Klux Klan Act of 1871.

http://www.answers.com/topic/section-1983

But it didn't really outlaw the Klan per se.

It does happen to be the case that the NRA was started in 1871.

I don't know of any evidence of direct causation/correlation, however.

I'm quite familiar w/ the act. I've heard the KKK=NRA BS many times. Saying it made them "illegal" however, is like saying the NRA is for unregulated firearms.

He obviously isn't aware that Heston hasn't been the NRA president for some time. It is currently Sandra Froman.

All i know is that a strongly oppose the second ammendment. Only cops and the millitary should have guns.

All i know is that a strongly oppose the second ammendment. Only cops and the millitary should have guns.

You mean the definition of a police state? Howabout the criminals? They seem not to care about the laws.

Since when do you have a "right" to everything the Constitution doesn't expressly disallow?

Aye, poor wording on my part.

I should have added as long as it isn't illegal, which as far as I know "informal" militias aren't so. But meh, I could be wrong.

You mean the definition of a police state? Howabout the criminals? They seem not to care about the laws.

Exactly! How is a criminal to do his job of intimidating the populace if he has no means with which to enforce such fear? And if there is no such fear, the people will see no reason behind having police or a military. Or a government at all! And does the government want that? NO! They want you to live in mortal fear. To never wander far from their teat. To remind you, everyday, why it is that you need the government. To show you that the entire nation stands upon the precipice of oblivion. That nothing but chaos and disorder and death stand around the other corner if you get rid of the government.

Exactly! How is a criminal to do his job of intimidating the populace if he has no means with which to enforce such fear? And if there is no such fear, the people will see no reason behind having police or a military. Or a government at all! And does the government want that? NO! They want you to live in mortal fear. To never wander far from their teat. To remind you, everyday, why it is that you need the government. To show you that the entire nation stands upon the precipice of oblivion. That nothing but chaos and disorder and death stand around the other corner if you get rid of the government.

Is your name "V"?

Since when do you have a "right" to everything the Constitution doesn't expressly disallow?

That's how rule of law works.

That which is not expressly forbidden to the people is allowed.

That which is not expressly permitted to government is forbidden.

All i know is that a strongly oppose the second ammendment. Only cops and the millitary should have guns.

Then you are pure evil.

That's all there is to it.

Anyone who wants to remove the citizenry's ability to defend itself against government has renounced his moral right to exist.

Is your name "V"?

God I hope not.

Maybe it's 'Vee'? Or 'Vi'? I don't think I could live with a one letter name. It would be like Madonna. Only one-seventh as good. Or Prince. Back when Prince was known by an unpronouncible symbol and known as The Artist Formerly Known as Prince.

That's how rule of law works.

That which is not expressly forbidden to the people is allowed.

That which is not expressly permitted to government is forbidden.

You have law and the Constitution a bit confused.

The Constitution does not give you a right to anything not expressly forbidden in the Constitution.

Or do I have a Constitutional right to murder?

That's not what you said earlier:

No, but it doesn't contradict it, either.

An individual is not a criminal until after he has committed a crime.

Please learn to think, collectivist subhuman.

You have law and the Constitution a bit confused.

No, I don't. You simply don't understand two things:
1) The meaning of the phrase "the rule of law"
2) The full scope of what I was saying

Mmmm...this should be interesting...watching someone try to school the Cat-Tribe...

No, but it doesn't contradict it, either.

An individual is not a criminal until after he has committed a crime.

Please learn to think, collectivist subhuman.

Please learn not to flame.

Regardless, you did contradict yourself. Nice try, though.

No, I don't. You simply don't understand two things:
1) The meaning of the phrase "the rule of law"
2) The full scope of what I was saying

Oh, then do elucidate.

this should be interesting.

Regardless, you did contradict yourself. Nice try, though.

Except, I didn't, as I proved in the referenced post.

Please learn to read, subhuman collectivist.

Fine. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

I'm waiting for instruction from you on "the law."

Except, I didn't, as I proved in the referenced post.

Please learn to read, subhuman collectivist.

Yay!

*Throws on flame-proof suit*

Anyone have some spare napalm?

aww. it looks like the fires are put out! :(

"Gun Control? It's the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. If I'm a bad guy, I'm always gonna have a gun. Safety Locks? You will pull the trigger with a lock on, and I'll pull the trigger. We'll see who wins."

-Sammy "the Bull" Gravano, Mafia turncoat, asked about gun control in an interview in Vanity Fair

I just love that quote.

As I understand the Constitution, if the document doesn't say the State can do it, then the State is expressly not allowed to do so.

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights I have always understood to be limits on the powers of the State,( it has no rights) and a basic listing of the rights of the people.

I just love that quote.

One should alwasys base public policy on the views of gangsters.

As I understand the Constitution, if the document doesn't say the State can do it, then the State is expressly not allowed to do so.

That would be true regarding the federal government.

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights I have always understood to be limits on the powers of the State,( it has no rights) and a basic listing of the rights of the people.

You contradict yourself. Either the Constitution enumerates the powers of the federal government or it does not. Certainly the Federal Government is limited to the powers given it in the Constitution -- I think that is what you mean. State governments are limited by state constitutions and by the 14th Amendment.

One should alwasys base public policy on the views of gangsters.

Better than basing public policy on the views of lawyers.

;)

Better than basing public policy on the views of lawyers.

;)

:D

No, I don't think I am contradicting myself. If it ain't mentioned in the Constitution, then the Federales can't do it.

Think about what Gravano is saying. It won't matter to people like him if you ban people from having the means to defend themselves, all that will mean is that it will be easier for him to do whatever he damned well pleases with your property or your life. Cause he will ALWAYS have access to a firearm.


Quote:
Originally Posted by The Cat-Tribe
One should alwasys base public policy on the views of gangsters.

Better than basing public policy on the views of lawyers.



Isn't that a redundancy?

No, but it doesn't contradict it, either.

An individual is not a criminal until after he has committed a crime.

Please learn to think, collectivist subhuman.

Now Troll in a can, that is not what you said. You said the Government is there to protect you from criminals. Then you said that the government is not there to stop crimes beforehand but to punish the transgressors. Therefore, the Government is NOT "protecting" you from criminals, only punishing them afterwards.

That, little man, is a contradiction.

No, I don't think I am contradicting myself. If it ain't mentioned in the Constitution, then the Federales can't do it.


*sigh* Then the Constitution enumerates the powers of the federal government.

(And the Constitution is very broad in doing so, btw. Check the interstate commerce clause and the necessary and proper clause, for example.)

*sigh* Then the Constitution enumerates the powers of the federal government.

(And the Constitution is very broad in doing so, btw. Check the interstate commerce clause and the necessary and proper clause, for example.)

Cat's right people.

The Bill of Rights are protections against the Federal government.

They didn't apply to the states until the 14th Amendment at all.

Thus, a state could technically deny those protections before.

(I know this has been mentioned, but I feel like commenting anyway...) I've always found it bizarre that the American Civil Liberities Association does not fight for the civil liberity of gun ownership. I think the name of the organization is more than a bit misleading...

As for the NRA: yes, organizations that set out to protect civil liberities are necessary to keep those freedoms intact. Competing interests, with anti-gun groups in this case, exist to balance their actions. This is why handguns are legal, but automatic assault weapons are illegal.

(I know this has been mentioned, but I feel like commenting anyway...) I've always found it bizarre that the American Civil Liberities Association does not fight for the civil liberity of gun ownership. I think the name of the organization is more than a bit misleading...

As for the NRA: yes, organizations that set out to protect civil liberities are necessary to keep those freedoms intact. Competing interests, with anti-gun groups in this case, exist to balance their actions. This is why handguns are legal, but automatic assault weapons are illegal.

*sigh*

There are more liberties than just guns. The NRA, Second Amendment Foundation, etc, are more than enough to lobby on this single issue.

What is the ACLU's position on gun control?
The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons, nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration. For more information, please read our statement on gun control (http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html).

Militias no longer exist, so technically we cant have weapons.

Militias no longer exist, so technically we cant have weapons.

T'aint so.

*sigh*

There are more liberties than just guns. The NRA, Second Amendment Foundation, etc, are more than enough to lobby on this single issue.
Yes, but the right to bear arms is a civil liberity, nonetheless, and it would only make sense that an organization that claims its goal is to protect civil liberities would not take a neutral stance on the extensions of such a liberity. That doesn't mean I expect them to fight for the right to bear arms without any sort of regulation, but I would, in the context of their actions in other cases surrounding civil rights, expect to read of them, from time to time, stepping in when laws seem to unrightly restrict one's right to own a gun based on their standards of gun ownership.

In other words, I would expect the ACLU to take a more pro-active role in legally defending a stance on gun control.

*sigh*

There are more liberties than just guns. The NRA, Second Amendment Foundation, etc, are more than enough to lobby on this single issue.
I am compelled to point out that the quote you put up from the ACLU is dishonest when it claims that the organization is neutral on the issue.

The quote itself clearly states that the ACLU believes that there is no individual right to bare arms. If that is a neutral stance, maybe I'm not clear on the definition of neutrality.

Thank you for giving me the perfect quote
MMMmmmm, smell that fresh cherry-picked quote.

The full quote On their interpretation, the "people" to which the Second Amendment refers is only the "people" in a collective, organized capacity as the state governments, or a small subset of the "people" actively organized by those governments into military bodies. "People" becomes interchangeable with the "State" or its "organized militia." All that's doing is stating the position of the collective right's argument. It is not giving it any validity, which for some odd reason you seem to think is happening.

All i know is that a strongly oppose the second ammendment. Only cops and the millitary should have guns.

So basicly, you want to deny hunters the ability to put meat (the kind not sold in stores) in their freezers? You want to deny competitive target shooters the ability to participate in their sport? You want to take away someone's ability to defend their life and/or the lives of their family from an attacker willing to kill? What happens when the police can't be everywhere at once?

Exactly! How is a criminal to do his job of intimidating the populace if he has no means with which to enforce such fear? And if there is no such fear, the people will see no reason behind having police or a military. Or a government at all! And does the government want that? NO! They want you to live in mortal fear. To never wander far from their teat. To remind you, everyday, why it is that you need the government. To show you that the entire nation stands upon the precipice of oblivion. That nothing but chaos and disorder and death stand around the other corner if you get rid of the government.

I was wondering something. Just how do you plan on getting/keeping the firearms out of the hands of criminals? Did you know that it is possible for people to make their own firearms? It isn't as hard as you might think. What kind of policies will it take to get ALL the firearms off the streets?

I am compelled to point out that the quote you put up from the ACLU is dishonest when it claims that the organization is neutral on the issue.

The quote itself clearly states that the ACLU believes that there is no individual right to bare arms. If that is a neutral stance, maybe I'm not clear on the definition of neutrality.

I am compelled to point out that the ACLU maintains a position of neutrality.

It does not advocate for the point of view that there is no individual right to bear arms. It does not advocate for or against gun control legislation. It is neutral because its opinion is that there is no individual right to be advocated for.

The ACLU does nothing for either side of the issue. That is neutrality.

No, I don't. You simply don't understand two things:
1) The meaning of the phrase "the rule of law"
2) The full scope of what I was saying
Oh, then do elucidate.

this should be interesting.

*whistles while he waits*

Militias no longer exist, so technically we cant have weapons.

Funny, the US Government would disagree with you, as would the following states:

Virginia, Texas, New Hampshire, Colorado, North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, Geogia, Alabama, Lousiana, Mississippi, Arkansas, Missouri, Iowa, Idaho, Michigan, Indiana, Hawaii, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island, West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Washington, Oregon, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, Alaska and Massachusettes.

All of which define one or more forms of Militia within the context of their civil defense and military titles.

I am compelled to point out that the ACLU maintains a position of neutrality.

It does not advocate for the point of view that there is no individual right to bear arms. It does not advocate for or against gun control legislation. It is neutral because its opinion is that there is no individual right to be advocated for.

The ACLU does nothing for either side of the issue. That is neutrality.
By stating they believe in the collectivist view they are no longer neutral. It's like the israeli-arab conflict. Just because you take no action for one party or the other does not mean you are neutral if you state which side you believe is right.

By stating they believe in the collectivist view they are no longer neutral. It's like the israeli-arab conflict. Just because you take no action for one party or the other does not mean you are neutral if you state which side you believe is right.

No, but nice try. Stating they believe in the collectivist view explains why they take no action.

They are neutral in their actions and in ther view on gun control. They do not lobby or litigate for either side. They take no side on whether gun control is desirable.

No, but nice try. Stating they believe in the collectivist view explains why they take no action.

They are neutral in their actions and in ther view on gun control. They do not lobby or litigate for either side. They take no side on whether gun control is desirable.
The very fact that the ACLU, which has spent so much time advocating for civil rights and liberties, declares that there is no such individual right as weapon ownership, does significantly influence the way many people view the issue.

Because the organization is so influential, the only way it could have retained neutrality in terms of the results of it's actions would be to not say one way or the other. By coming out in favor of the collectivist view, they have taken a very non-neutral stance, and people who believe in the ACLU are effected by that stance.

The very fact that the ACLU, which has spent so much time advocating for civil rights and liberties, declares that there is no such individual right as weapon ownership, does significantly influence the way many people view the issue.

Because the organization is so influential, the only way it could have retained neutrality in terms of the results of it's actions would be to not say one way or the other. By coming out in favor of the collectivist view, they have taken a very non-neutral stance, and people who believe in the ACLU are effected by that stance.

I never said they were neutral on their view of the Second Amendment. They are neutral on the view of gun control and in their actions.

As for the ACLU's persuasive powers, you already had every regional US Court of Appeals declaring the collectivist view as well as the ABA and experts ranging from Chief Justice Burger to Judge Robert Bork.

You'd rather the ACLU ignored the issue that seriously consider it and make a reasoned decision?

Just because you don't like the conclusion they reached doesn't mean they haven't maintained their neutrality.

Just because you don't like the conclusion they reached doesn't mean they haven't maintained their neutrality.
You're right. The fact that I don't like the conclusion is not what means they haven't maintained their neutrality. The fact that they've reached a conclusion at all is what means they haven't maintained their neutrality.

State governments are limited by state constitutions and by the 14th Amendment.

And Article 1 Section 10.

I know you know this, but others might not.

Then you are pure evil.

That's all there is to it.

Anyone who wants to remove the citizenry's ability to defend itself against government has renounced his moral right to exist.

The TUIB Objectivist Dictionary --

Evil : (1) Any person who disagrees with what TUIB thinks;(2) Any thing, concrete or abstract, including reality, which contradicts TUIB's Objectivist ideology.

Human : (1)A person who, by virtue of supporting TUIB's Objectivist ideology deserves to exist, or possesses any other moral rights.

It's a convenient morality you got there, kid. Replace "TUIB" with "Stalin", and "Objectivist" with "Communist", and you have the philosophy of Iosef Stalin.

I don't have a problem with TUIB. He seems like a smart adolescent, who's had the misfortune of becoming enamored of a foolish philosophy.

On guns, I'm all for them. If you need a gun right now and dont have one, you're screwed anyway. After the week is up, I figure anybody without a record of violent crime or severe mental illness should be able to have any damn gun they want. If you wave your gun in somebodies face, it will be a race between the police and myself to see who kills you first.

In other words, I would expect the ACLU to take a more pro-active role in legally defending a stance on gun control.

The ACLU generally only weighs in on an issue when there is an actual abuse of civil liberties. Perhaps if a law is passed restricting gun ownership by a well-ordered militia, the ACLU will be there. A bunch of right-wing gun nuts plotting the overthrow of the ZOG does not a militia make.

Now Troll in a can, that is not what you said. You said the Government is there to protect you from criminals. Then you said that the government is not there to stop crimes beforehand but to punish the transgressors. Therefore, the Government is NOT "protecting" you from criminals, only punishing them afterwards.

That, little man, is a contradiction.

No, it's not.

You're refusing to think.

What part of "they are not criminals until after they have committed a crime" do you not understand?

It's a convenient morality you got there, kid. Replace "TUIB" with "Stalin", and "Objectivist" with "Communist", and you have the philosophy of Iosef Stalin.

While the form is similar, the substance is what makes all the difference between pure evil and pure virtue.

No, it's not.

You're refusing to think.

What part of "they are not criminals until after they have committed a crime" do you not understand?

Keep beatin' that horse.

I'm still waiting for my law lessons.

No, it's not.

You're refusing to think.

What part of "they are not criminals until after they have committed a crime" do you not understand?

Which has nothing to do w/ the topic. Even so, the majority of crimes are NOT committed by 1st offenders. You stated that the gov't is there to protect you from criminals. If they are not protecting you from crime, they are not protecting you from criminals.

Seems like the only one not thinking here is you. You can stick your fingers in your ears and yell "Ayn Rand, Ayn Rand, Ayn Rand" all you want. It still doesn't negate the fact that you haven't presented a shred of evidence to support yourself.

Which has nothing to do w/ the topic. Even so, the majority of crimes are NOT committed by 1st offenders. You stated that the gov't is there to protect you from criminals. If they are not protecting you from crime, they are not protecting you from criminals.

Seems like the only one not thinking here is you. You can stick your fingers in your ears and yell "Ayn Rand, Ayn Rand, Ayn Rand" all you want. It still doesn't negate the fact that you haven't presented a shred of evidence to support yourself.

Come now. If you don't blindly follow the every dribble from Ayn Rand's mind, you are a subhuman collectivist. Don't try to deny it.

Come now. If you don't blindly follow the every dribble from Ayn Rand's mind, you are a subhuman collectivist. Don't try to deny it.

I am ashamed. :(

I am ashamed. :(

Maybe you can take law lessons too! :cool:

But I'm still waiting for mine. :(

And, the NRA strongholds also tend to be the Fundamental Christian strongholds.

What it seems to come down to is "It's okay for me to be prejudiced about who Bob want's to marry, but it's unconstitutional for Bob to question my suitability to be armed".

I guess that's why I know a Jewish NRA member...:rolleyes:

I guess that's why I know a Jewish NRA member...:rolleyes:

Work on your reading comprehension. Consider the words "strongholds" and "tends."

The existence of a Jewish NRA member does not disprove G_n_I's claim. Other evidence may do so, however.

Then the majority is wrong, isn't it?

No. You are wrong.

While the form is similar, the substance is what makes all the difference between pure evil and pure virtue.

Certainly. After you drink the Kool-Aid.

Work on your reading comprehension. Consider the words "strongholds" and "tends."

The existence of a Jewish NRA member does not disprove G_n_I's claim. Other evidence may do so, however.

perhaps we need to draw them a venn diagram

perhaps we need to draw them a venn diagram

We don't need your collectivist subhuman diagrams.

We don't need your collectivist subhuman diagrams.

aww, but i already drew one up

http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/273/venn2ep.jpg



oh, and
"we don't need your collectivist anti-collectivism"

aww, but i already drew one up

http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/273/venn2ep.jpg



oh, and
"we don't need your collectivist anti-collectivism"

Where do I fit on the chart? I'm neither Jewish, Gay, or Christian. I'm so alone. :(

So where do I fit in on that?

Seeing as I'm not a Fundie.

Not Jewish.

Not Gay.

And I'm neither a pacifist nor a Christian (although I could be crazed).

But I still support the individual right to purchase firearms. And light armored vehicles.

>>
<<

Where do I fit on the chart? I'm neither Jewish, Gay, or Christian. I'm so alone. :(

We'll be alone together. :(

Where do I fit on the chart? I'm neither Jewish, Gay, or Christian. I'm so alone. :(

shut up and be a rugged individualist.

(OK, I'll hold you. But just this once.)

shut up and be a rugged individualist.

(OK, I'll hold you. But just this once.)

:fluffle:

aww, but i already drew one up

http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/273/venn2ep.jpg



Now prepare for the critics of your diagram. Maybe Tangled Up In Blue can teach you too.

But I still support the individual right to purchase firearms. And light armored vehicles.

You're forgetting about aircraft carriers and nuclear weapons. Really, why should there be any limitations

You're forgetting about aircraft carriers and nuclear weapons. Really, why should there be any limitations

Actually you can own light armored vehicles. The trick is that they have to have wheels, not tracks, and they cannot be armed. :p (You can own tracked vehicles and even tanks, too, but you can't drive them down the interstate, due to Federal (I believe) law.)

Barry Goldwater (well, Karl Hess wrote it, but Sen. Goldwater said it) said it best:

Barry Goldwater?

Are you familiar with the logical fallacy of the appeal to authority?

Actually you can own light armored vehicles. The trick is that they have to have wheels, not tracks, and they cannot be armed. :p (You can own tracked vehicles and even tanks, too, but you can't drive them down the interstate, due to Federal (I believe) law.)

Yes you can. Here are some examples:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1957-FERRET-TANK-EXCELLENT-CONDITION-RUNS-GREAT_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQcategoryZ80765QQitemZ4633836894QQrdZ1

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/FV432-ARMORED-PERSONNEL-CARRIER_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQcategoryZ80765QQitemZ4633876006QQrdZ1QQsspagenameZWDVW

:D

Barry Goldwater?

That is not an appeal to authority.

Quoting someone does not constitute the fallacy of an appeal to authority.

For something to constitute a fallacious appeal to authority, the argument must be along the lines of "X said Y, therefore Y must be true".

I said no such thing.

I simply said that Goldwater put it *best*--not that his saying it made it true.

That is not an appeal to authority.

Quoting someone does not constitute the fallacy of an appeal to authority.

For something to constitute a fallacious appeal to authority, the argument must be along the lines of "X said Y, therefore Y must be true".

I said no such thing.

I simply said that Goldwater put it *best*--not that his saying it made it true.

Are you finally ready to teach me that lesson about "the law"?

Are you finally ready to teach me that lesson about "the law"?
Yes. About "the Law" - I fought it, and the law won :D