NationStates Jolt Archive

thought i would address amadinejad's original post by giving a bit of depth to the issue. firstly, according to the US Code, "the militia" implies no formal affiliation, as it is all able-bodied US citizens over the age of 17.

Secondly, the second amendment doesn't say that only people in the militia may keep and bear arms, it says that because such a militia is necessary, anyone may keep and bear arms. Additionally, people who say it refers to a collective right don't get the intent of the Amendment or the Bill of Rights as a whole. Firstly, the intent of the amendment was to give people a way of discouraging government excesses, so it follows that only allowing the government to have them violates that. Secondly, everything in the Bill of Rights is individual rights, as that was the intent of it. Any amendment there is as important as any other, and people who say that we don't need guns don't realize that without them you see a government against which there can be no credible resistance. Call me a conspiracy nut, or a survivalist, I don't care. But I know that when a government gets rid of guns it gets rid of the last safeguard of all the other rights of the individual. Thus, private gun ownership is critical to the ongoing freedom of people anywhere.

That's why leftist policies are inherently non-conducive to freedom. The left believes in collectivism, under which the individual and any freedoms he might have are unimportant. Collectivism is about absolute control, and there is no greater threat to a collectivist or statist government's absolute control than a motivated, armed populace.

thought i would address amadinejad's original post by giving a bit of depth to the issue. firstly, according to the US Code, "the militia" implies no formal affiliation, as it is all able-bodied US citizens over the age of 17.

Secondly, the second amendment doesn't say that only people in the militia may keep and bear arms, it says that because such a militia is necessary, anyone may keep and bear arms. Additionally, people who say it refers to a collective right don't get the intent of the Amendment or the Bill of Rights as a whole. Firstly, the intent of the amendment was to give people a way of discouraging government excesses, so it follows that only allowing the government to have them violates that. Secondly, everything in the Bill of Rights is individual rights, as that was the intent of it. Any amendment there is as important as any other, and people who say that we don't need guns don't realize that without them you see a government against which there can be no credible resistance. Call me a conspiracy nut, or a survivalist, I don't care. But I know that when a government gets rid of guns it gets rid of the last safeguard of all the other rights of the individual. Thus, private gun ownership is critical to the ongoing freedom of people anywhere.

That's why leftist policies are inherently non-conducive to freedom. The left believes in collectivism, under which the individual and any freedoms he might have are unimportant. Collectivism is about absolute control, and there is no greater threat to a collectivist or statist government's absolute control than a motivated, armed populace.

Do you honestly think that civilians with hunting rifles, hand guns and a few AK could stand up to the complete might of a modern, mechanized army? The point of militias warding off tyranny has been rendered moot by modern advances in technology. Say what you will about leftism, but I can tell you that you have much more important things to worry than wether or not the governmetn wants you to register your guns. Has the 2nd amendment stopped our government from flagrant corruption, abuse of power, and trampling of our civil liberties? No, it has not.

Do you honestly think that civilians with hunting rifles, hand guns and a few AK could stand up to the complete might of a modern, mechanized army? The point of militias warding off tyranny has been rendered moot by modern advances in technology. Say what you will about leftism, but I can tell you that you have much more important things to worry than wether or not the governmetn wants you to register your guns. Has the 2nd amendment stopped our government from flagrant corruption, abuse of power, and trampling of our civil liberties? No, it has not.

People with weapons can do a heck of a lot of damage despite modern technology. Iraq should have taught you that lesson.

Do you honestly think that civilians with hunting rifles, hand guns and a few AK could stand up to the complete might of a modern, mechanized army?
Which is why the civilians should amass much more advanced weaponry.

People with weapons can do a heck of a lot of damage despite modern technology. Iraq should have taught you that lesson.

The point is that democracy requires eternal vigilance, not reacting after the crap has hit the fan.

Do you honestly think that civilians with hunting rifles, hand guns and a few AK could stand up to the complete might of a modern, mechanized army? The point of militias warding off tyranny has been rendered moot by modern advances in technology. Say what you will about leftism, but I can tell you that you have much more important things to worry than wether or not the governmetn wants you to register your guns. Has the 2nd amendment stopped our government from flagrant corruption, abuse of power, and trampling of our civil liberties? No, it has not.

He says while excersizing his freedom of speech.

You seem to think that taking up arms is the first thing that should be done. You also assume the the "modern mechanized army" would, as a whole, support a tyrannical gov't. You also don't seem to realize just how many people w/ "hunting rifles" (accurate and relatively long range) there are in the US. You also assume those would be the only weapons that the patriots would be able to obtain during a conflict.

Lots of assumptions on your part.

The point is that democracy requires eternal vigilance, not reacting after the crap has hit the fan.

The word is internal not eternal.

The word is internal not eternal.

No, I meant "eternal". Everyone must always remain vigilant in protecting democracy by participating in it. Ignore your rights, and they'll go away.

He says while excersizing his freedom of speech.

You seem to think that taking up arms is the first thing that should be done. You also assume the the "modern mechanized army" would, as a whole, support a tyrannical gov't. You also don't seem to realize just how many people w/ "hunting rifles" (accurate and relatively long range) there are in the US. You also assume those would be the only weapons that the patriots would be able to obtain during a conflict.

Lots of assumptions on your part.

He is forgetting about Molotov Cocktails, explosives, and many other nasty surprises that the citizenry can cook up that would make Iraq look tame in comparison.

The point is that democracy requires eternal vigilance, not reacting after the crap has hit the fan.

That is correct. However, if democracy fails, the need to reassert it is present in an armed citizenry.

He says while excersizing his freedom of speech.

You seem to think that taking up arms is the first thing that should be done. You also assume the the "modern mechanized army" would, as a whole, support a tyrannical gov't. You also don't seem to realize just how many people w/ "hunting rifles" (accurate and relatively long range) there are in the US. You also assume those would be the only weapons that the patriots would be able to obtain during a conflict.

Lots of assumptions on your part.

I never assumed anything. My point was that the 2nd amendment is jingoistic issue that masks the real problems. I live in Montana, and happen to own a hunting rifle, and can definitely tell you that though it may be deadly, it can't stop a tank.

I never assumed anything. My point was that the 2nd amendment is jingoistic issue that masks the real problems. I live in Montana, and happen to own a hunting rifle, and can definitely tell you that though it may be deadly, it can't stop a tank.
And thus, this is why you might want to keep some RPGs around.

And thus, this is why you might want to keep some RPGs around.

Well, perhaps, but I have quite a few neighbors I wouldn't trust with a potato gun, let alone an RPG.

I never assumed anything. My point was that the 2nd amendment is jingoistic issue that masks the real problems. I live in Montana, and happen to own a hunting rifle, and can definitely tell you that though it may be deadly, it can't stop a tank.

It's not designed to. It can, however, take out the commander or driver of said tank.

Thought some more gravedigging was in order.

Are you suggesting those guys who tried robbing that bank in LA a few years ago using fully automatic AK-47s and body armor didn't get them at the local gun store!?

Proposterous!

There are very few gun stores where you can actually get full auto weapons. Low-quality body armor can be bought at about any surplus store.

It's not designed to. It can, however, take out the commander or driver of said tank.

Is this before or after I get close enough to hit the drivers head, say at least 800 yds away, well withing the range of the infantry cover and the onboard machine guns.

Low-quality body armor can be bought at about any surplus store.
Or the internet.

Well, perhaps, but I have quite a few neighbors I wouldn't trust with a potato gun, let alone an RPG.
I know the type. But the same problem exists with any weapons in their hands.

Is this before or after I get close enough to hit the drivers head, say at least 800 yds away, well withing the range of the infantry cover and the onboard machine guns.
Might I suggest a larger rifle? Perhaps a MacMillan TAC-50?

Is this before or after I get close enough to hit the drivers head, say at least 800 yds away, well withing the range of the infantry cover and the onboard machine guns.

Infantry: Also targets.

On board machine guns: Need to be crewed and aimed at targets.

More assumptions.

You can nit-pick all you want. Millions of people w/ firearms would make a difference. You can believe that or not, makes no difference.

Edit: you should read up on the Soviet-Afgani war. What they started w/ and what they ended w/.

You can believe "I'm wrong" all you want. Doesn't make it true.

I also won't "break a law" to test it. I'ld take it to court w/o breaking it. Kind of like the illegal actions of NOLA that was stopped by the courts. No collectivity there.

You're posts of a few cases and your interpretations of them are just that, interpretations. I've posted other interpretations. The case laws do not blatantly state collectivity. The founding fathers did not promote collectivity. You did not prove this at all even though you made the claim. The lower courts claimin collectivity seem to be the ones "getting out of line" by jumping on the anti-gun bandwagon and ignoring all the historical precedent and the very clear ideas set down by the FF's.

Have a nice day.
No standing to sue. You don't have it then, you wouldn't have it without breaking the law. The wiretapping case will get tossed by the supreme court on jurisdictional grounds, much as the newdow case got tossed.

But do go ahead and file a lawsuit. Put your money where your mouth is dear. Get back to us on that.

No standing to sue. You don't have it then, you wouldn't have it without breaking the law. The wiretapping case will get tossed by the supreme court on jurisdictional grounds, much as the newdow case got tossed.

But do go ahead and file a lawsuit. Put your money where your mouth is dear. Get back to us on that.

So the San Fran ban was not stopped by a lawsuit? Really?

You've yet to support any of your allegations.

Get back to me on those.

So the San Fran ban was not stopped by a lawsuit? Really?

You've yet to support any of your allegations.

Get back to me on those.
Fuck off dear. The san fran ban was stopped not on second amendment grounds but on grounds that it conflicted with state laws, which is an entirely different jurisdicational game.

In order to sue in federal court to enforce a right, you need to be able to show actual injury (not hypothetical), nor can you sue on behalf of other people (this is why abortion cases for the longest time never made it to the supreme court). Even so, you still would lack standing because the second amendment is a state, not an individual, right.

wow, did you just get pumped up at the thought of expressing your all awesome internet powers of complying? thats really sad dude...get a real life.

And talking like that will get you in a load of trouble later in life. You talk like that to anyone in the real world and you will wind up in major trouble.


Flame: Expressing anger at someone in uncouth ways with OOC (out-of-character) comments (i.e. swearing, being obnoxious, threatening etc). It does to watch what you post IC (in-character) as well unless the other posters know you're not serious. You do not need to curse to be a flamer. Erudite slams while maintaining a veneer of politeness can also be considered flaming. Flaming in the forums should be reported in the Moderation forum, in the game itself, through Getting Help Page.

Fuck off dear. The san fran ban was stopped not on second amendment grounds but on grounds that it conflicted with state laws, which is an entirely different jurisdicational game.

In order to sue in federal court to enforce a right, you need to be able to show actual injury (not hypothetical), nor can you sue on behalf of other people (this is why abortion cases for the longest time never made it to the supreme court). Even so, you still would lack standing because the second amendment is a state, not an individual, right.

Such language.

Oops. You said there was no right to sue and then gave non-second examples. Keep trying.

Not one of the SCOTUS cases you mentioned listed it as a "state right". Neither Miller, nor Cruishank nor Presser. It has been lower courts that have incorrectly asserted a "state or collective" "right". Lower courts that have actually researched the history of the second see otherwise.

Once again:

The Second Amendment does not grant to the people the right to keep and bear arms, but merely recognizes the prior existence of that right and prohibits its infringement by Congress.

These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.

You have still yet to show any "collective state" arguements from the 1700's like you so claimed.

You still have yet to show my belief in "liberal conspiracies" like you claimed.


You've yet to show where the "right to privacy", a standing case law precedent, is in the constitution or Common Law.

Such language.

Oops. You said there was no right to sue and then gave non-second examples. Keep trying.

What? You cited a case claiming second amendment jurisdication which doesn't exist. You were wrong.

Not one of the SCOTUS cases you mentioned listed it as a "state right". Neither Miller, nor Cruishank nor Presser. It has been lower courts that have incorrectly asserted a "state or collective" "right". Lower courts that have actually researched the history of the second see otherwise.

Shrug. I was wrong. You can't make that argument in a state case, but you can in a federal case. Still doesn't change the fact that you have to show injury to have standing to sue.

Once again:

The Second Amendment does not grant to the people the right to keep and bear arms, but merely recognizes the prior existence of that right and prohibits its infringement by Congress.

Nothing of the sort. Cruikshank says as much. You mean that there exists a right in english common law to bear arms (there is) but that right is neither absolute nor as binding as an amendment

You've yet to show where the "right to privacy", a standing case law precedent, is in the constitution or Common Law.
Changing topics? If you wish to make this a right to privacy discussion, the right to privacy exists as an implied right given by the 1st, 4th, 14th and 5th amendments. They create zones of privacy around a person. \


As for your 9th amendment objections:
The Ninth Amendment obviously does not create federally enforceable rights.

They were presented nothing that proved it did. Hence the line:

In the absence of any evidence

Round and round we go.


The supreme court sent it back to the lower court to decide the case in light of the new test. They had no interest in deciding if the weapon had a ligitimate use or not, that's a matter for the lower court. Even so, that's irrelevent to the main point of this. The Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"

This has been upheld as recently in the supreme court as 1980.

Meh. I don't care about gun laws. If I want to get a gun to protect my home, I can get one whether it's legal or not.

What? You cited a case claiming second amendment jurisdication which doesn't exist. You were wrong.

Really? I said that? It's nice when you can change context back and forth and say others are doing so.

Shrug. I was wrong. You can't make that argument in a state case, but you can in a federal case. Still doesn't change the fact that you have to show injury to have standing to sue.

Nothing of the sort. Cruikshank says as much. You mean that there exists a right in english common law to bear arms (there is) but that right is neither absolute nor as binding as an amendment

Huh? What? You're the one that keeps claiming that I said it was "absolute". Never said that. You kept claiming the case law says it's a "collective right" when they say no such thing. Now you're trying to dodge the fact that you were wrong the entire time.

Changing topics? If you wish to make this a right to privacy discussion, the right to privacy exists as an implied right given by the 1st, 4th, 14th and 5th amendments. They create zones of privacy around a person. \

You're the one that said the only precedents on rights are those listed in the constitution and english common law. I asked where the precedent for the right to privacy was. Now it can be "implied"? That's a change from what you said earlier.

Pretty much from a legal standpoint. The bill of rights and english common law rights.

In response to:"Unless you're trying to say the ONLY rights we have are those listed in the BOR? "

Sounds like a little judicial hypocrisy going on. They can create "implied" rights but one that cleary says "the people" is supposedly a "collective" one? Selective incorporation anyone?


You've also snipped the other questions that you've made claims on.

I find it interesting that you state you don't question long standing judicial precedent but refuse to answer whether you would have supported the long standing precedent that blacks were not "people" as defined by the courts.
Would you have questioned them?


As for your 9th amendment objections:

Source it. You've also snipped the 10th. How convienent. And typical.

The supreme court sent it back to the lower court to decide the case in light of the new test. They had no interest in deciding if the weapon had a ligitimate use or not, that's a matter for the lower court. Even so, that's irrelevent to the main point of this. The Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"

This has been upheld as recently in the supreme court as 1980.

And since the defendant was dead, there wasn't a possibility of a new trial nor did the court establish a "test" while at the same time making a judgement on that particular weapon while being factually wrong at the same time. It DID make a judgement on it. Should I quote it again so you can ignore it again?

You keep neglecting that point.

Round and round we go.

Meh. I don't care about gun laws. If I want to get a gun to protect my home, I can get one whether it's legal or not.

Which is why bans are pointless.

Really? I said that? It's nice when you can change context back and forth and say others are doing so.

So the San Fran ban was not stopped by a lawsuit? Really?


Huh? What? You're the one that keeps claiming that I said it was "absolute". Never said that. You kept claiming the case law says it's a "collective right" when they say no such thing. Now you're trying to dodge the fact that you were wrong the entire time.

Cruikshank states that there does not exist an individual right to bear arms. That proves me right. Period.


You're the one that said the only precedents on rights are those listed in the constitution and english common law. I asked where the precedent for the right to privacy was. Now it can be "implied"? That's a change from what you said earlier.

The right to privacy is in the constitution. You just aren't looking hard enough. Read Griswald or Roe some time, I don't feel like explaining it to you.



In response to:"Unless you're trying to say the ONLY rights we have are those listed in the BOR? "

Sounds like a little judicial hypocrisy going on. They can create "implied" rights but one that cleary says "the people" is supposedly a "collective" one? Selective incorporation anyone?

They didn't create a right to privacy, again. It's existed. Read the opinions.


You've also snipped the other questions that you've made claims on.

Don't really give a damn.

I find it interesting that you state you don't question long standing judicial precedent but refuse to answer whether you would have supported the long standing precedent that blacks were not "people" as defined by the courts.
Would you have questioned them?

Bad case law, overturned 10 years later.



Source it. You've also snipped the 10th. How convienent. And typical.
Doe v. Bolton.

The 10th amendment isn't relevant and isn't at issue in gun control, as it would reserve the right to restrict arms to the states.

And since the defendant was dead, there wasn't a possibility of a new trial nor did the court establish a "test" while at the same time making a judgement on that particular weapon while being factually wrong at the same time. It DID make a judgement on it. Should I quote it again so you can ignore it again?

You keep neglecting that point.

Round and round we go.
You can quote it. You're reading it wrong. The case was remanded to the lower court for the point of judging if the weapon had a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia. The fact that the person was dead doesn't change the fact that the reasonable relationship test isn't applicable. Nor does it really matter if the shotgun is or isn't related to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia for the purpose of determining if there is a restriction upon individual gun ownership. The fact remains, any factual argument as to the correctness of the miller case re: actually relevant to PoE of the militia aside, that if a weapon is not related to the efficiency or preservation of a well regulated militia it can be banned without second amendment issues.

[DM headbangs]


By Vic Ryckaert
vic.ryckaert@indystar.com

Police say a would-be robber is in jail this morning after a customer foiled the suspect’s attempted hold-up of a restaurant on the Westside.

William McMiller Jr., 40, was arrested on an initial charge of robbery after he demanded money and threatened to shoot a cashier at the Kentucky Fried Chicken, 2801 W. 16th Street, at about 3:20 p.m. Thursday, according to Indianapolis police reports.

McMiller, records show, is being held in the Marion County Jail on $80,000 bond.

McMiller, police said, ordered a bucket of chicken then told cashier Deanne Slaughter: “Give me the money before I shoot you.”

The suspect held his hand in his back pocket as if reaching for a gun, police said, then lifted his foot to jump over the counter.

Paul Sherlock, a customer sitting in the dining room, approached and pointed a Taurus 9-mm handgun towards the suspect’s back.

The suspect raised his hands over his head, police said. Sherlock ordered him to lean against a window with his hands up until police arrived.

Police found a long screwdriver, not a gun, in McMiller’s pocket.

Sherlock had a valid gun permit, police said.

And talking like that will get you in a load of trouble later in life. You talk like that to anyone in the real world and you will wind up in major trouble.


Oh my god dude, you really need to get over yourself, and what do you mean later in life? do you have any Idea who I am? how old I am? where I am? even what sex I am? seriously, lose the power trip, people who can't control themselves (ie. your insatable lust for control, or at least force others or force the helping of others to submit) like youself are the ones who find themselves in a world of hurt in the so called "real world." Loosten up a bit and have fun. this is the internet.

Do you honestly think that civilians with hunting rifles, hand guns and a few AK could stand up to the complete might of a modern, mechanized army? The point of militias warding off tyranny has been rendered moot by modern advances in technology. Say what you will about leftism, but I can tell you that you have much more important things to worry than wether or not the governmetn wants you to register your guns. Has the 2nd amendment stopped our government from flagrant corruption, abuse of power, and trampling of our civil liberties? No, it has not.

Yes, becuase as way back in the 1700's, no-one believed that, "the unorganized rabble in arms" of the colonies could never ever hope to defeat the diciplined might and firepower of the British Empire.

Which is why bans are pointless.
Preciesly.

I beg to differ. We should ban small guns and legalize big ones. You can't hide an AK-47 under your shirt...people might get suspicious...

I beg to differ. We should ban small guns and legalize big ones. You can't hide an AK-47 under your shirt...people might get suspicious...

Thats true, though I own a handgun, its very rare for an assault rifle to be used in crime, typically it is a hand gun of a smaller calibre.

You've yet to show where the "right to privacy", a standing case law precedent, is in the constitution or Common Law.

Its generally taken that the fourth admendment I believe grants the right to privacy, but does not say so in explict terms because of at the time it was written.
In Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), the Supreme Court ruled that there is no search unless an individual has an "expectation of privacy" and the expectation is "reasonable"—that is, it is one that society is prepared to recognize.- don't know where its from someone saved it on this computer with some other government things.

Cruikshank states that there does not exist an individual right to bear arms. That proves me right. Period.

No, it does not. Period. It states that it is an natural right not granted by the Constitution. (Try reading the rest next time)

You know, kind of like freedom of press is not granted, or religion, or speech.

It says nothing about it being a "states right" or a "collective right".

But it does talk about individual rights, something else you've selectively edited:

It simply furnishes an additional guaranty against any encroachment by the States upon the fundamental rights which belong to every citizen as a member of society.

Hmm, no collective arguement there.

Why don't you take a few more lines out of context to try and prove me wrong.


The right to privacy is in the constitution. You just aren't looking hard enough. Read Griswald or Roe some time, I don't feel like explaining it to you.

Right, it's "implied". Convienent. First you say that the only rights we have are the ones listed and quote a justice saying the 9th doesn't provide protections but then say the right to privacy IS in the constitution but only implied. Where is it "implied"? Oh, that's right, mostly by the 9th. At least according to the justice you took out of context. See below.



They didn't create a right to privacy, again. It's existed. Read the opinions.

That is correct, The right existed, just like the right of the people to KBA, not the states.


Don't really give a damn.

Of course you don't , because you were completely wrong and are unable to admit it. Just like the case law stating it's a "collective right".

Bad case law, overturned 10 years later.

Oh, so now the precedent set in the constitution 75 years earlier and continued for that time is "bad case law"? How convienent. Forgetting the 3/5ths compromise are we? Did another case "overturn it" or was it a constitutional amendment? Are you now saying you would have questioned it even though it was clearly constitutional according to case law?

And yet you defend cases that are based on innacurate information , selectively edit quotes to take them out of context and condemn me for alledgedly stating some case law is bad and questioning the justices.



Doe v. Bolton.

that's rich, you use a case recognizing rights to try and diminish rights. Why don't you try quoting the rest of the paragraph? Here, I'll do it for you:

It merely says, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." But a catalogue of these rights includes customary, traditional, and time-honored rights, amenities, privileges, and immunities that come within the sweep of "the Blessings of Liberty" mentioned in the preamble to the Constitution. Many of them, in my view, come [410 U.S. 179, 211] within the meaning of the term "liberty" as used in the Fourteenth Amendment.

What does that mean? That the rights are already there.

Oh, and look, a little farther down the paragraph by the same justice:

All of these aspects of the right of privacy are rights "retained by the people" in the meaning of the Ninth Amendment.

Nice way to be completely disingenuous.

The 10th amendment isn't relevant and isn't at issue in gun control, as it would reserve the right to restrict arms to the states.

But it is relevent. It states that there are powers not listed in the constitution. Just like the 9th says there are rights not listed. Something you've alternately argued that there are and aren't. As previous cases stated that the states could not universally restrict arms, you would be wrong again.

You can quote it. You're reading it wrong. The case was remanded to the lower court for the point of judging if the weapon had a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia. The fact that the person was dead doesn't change the fact that the reasonable relationship test isn't applicable. Nor does it really matter if the shotgun is or isn't related to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia for the purpose of determining if there is a restriction upon individual gun ownership. The fact remains, any factual argument as to the correctness of the miller case re: actually relevant to PoE of the militia aside, that if a weapon is not related to the efficiency or preservation of a well regulated militia it can be banned without second amendment issues.

Round and round we go. I'm reading it wrong. Odd. Numerous cases disagree as well as the DOJ.

The fact remains that the SCOTUS made a decision on a particular firearm w/ incorrect information and didn't provide any basis for the "test".

The fact remains that you can stick you fingers in your ear and go "LALALALA" all you want, but they did not claim collectivity, as you earlier claimed and that, w/ no actual test being made, they just opened the door for hostile gov't and courts to ban whatever they feel like, as history has shown, making the "test", effectively pointless.

Since you like vagaries, I guess you support the restrictions on the 1st amendment like the McCain-Feingold act. They've been judged constitutional after all. Do political ads present a "clear and present danger"?

Now I'm sure you'll dodge this question as well.

You, like all others before you, refuse to answer the question as to what firearms DO relate to the effectiveness of the militia. I wonder why that is?

You may also want to keep up w/ recent events. The federal lawsuit in NOLA has been upheld due to the state falling under the 2nd.

http://www.katc.com/Global/story.asp?S=5289736

Its generally taken that the fourth admendment I believe grants the right to privacy, but does not say so in explict terms because of at the time it was written.
In Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), the Supreme Court ruled that there is no search unless an individual has an "expectation of privacy" and the expectation is "reasonable"—that is, it is one that society is prepared to recognize.- don't know where its from someone saved it on this computer with some other government things.

Sure, it's "implied". It's also been recognized as a natural right. However, certain individuals have claimed that rights of "the people" are not actually of "the people" and that the only rights we have are the ones directly listed in the constitution and Common law. This has ussually been supported by very selective editing of SCOTUS cases.

Sure, it's "implied". It's also been recognized as a natural right. However, certain individuals have claimed that rights of "the people" are not actually of "the people" and that the only rights we have are the ones directly listed in the constitution and Common law. This has ussually been supported by very selective editing of SCOTUS cases.

Which is wrong, becuase the entire constitution was written, for "the people" and im sure the people who wrote it didnt foresee such nitpicking that goes on these days, we should take into simpler terms, what it says, because it was written at a simpler time. Simpler people.

He said he was a Republican and a neo-con.

Means he's not Liberal.

Jumping down Liberal throats in this thread is pointless as the OP is not Liberal.

Knee-jerk reactionaries make me chuckle.

He said it, so it must be true. :rolleyes:

I'm a Martian Dolphin. I said it, so it must be true. :p

Just because he thinks he's a Republican or a neo-con doesn't mean he is. You can't be something you're not.

your kind of a dumbass arent you?Flaming.

wow, did you just get pumped up at the thought of expressing your all awesome internet powers of complying? thats really sad dude...get a real life.Flamebaiting.

See, no matter how much "rebuttal" or "explantions" I use. No matter if I'm right or not, he will never change his opinion. Biggest rule of arguing is that no-one wins, because most of the time people wont change theyre opinion even if they know they're wrong. So I'll just simply insult them and make myself win to myself, and not give a shit.:)If you really think that, then you shouldn't be posting on controversial topics in NationStates General.

Please refamiliarize yourself with NationStates rules (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=416023).

Barbaric Tribes: Official Warning - Flaming and Flamebait. Forumbanned 3 days.

As a side note: There's a difference between changing your opinion and saying you're wrong; the second is what almost nobody will do.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."
NationStates Forum Moderator

i agree with the guy who started the forum but a little less extreme, i just got back from luxurious arco idaho where almost everybody has a shot gun or some assault rifle or rifle, they use there hunting guns for hunting and their killing guns for target practice, in idaho theirs almost no gun violence at all so i think in really rural areas ppl can have and own all sorts of guns, but in urban areas only allow hunting guns bc ppl who live in the city occasionaly go hunting :mp5:

i agree with the guy who started the forum but a little less extreme, i just got back from luxurious arco idaho where almost everybody has a shot gun or some assault rifle or rifle, they use there hunting guns for hunting and their killing guns for target practice, in idaho theirs almost no gun violence at all so i think in really rural areas ppl can have and own all sorts of guns, but in urban areas only allow hunting guns bc ppl who live in the city occasionaly go hunting :mp5:

But why should someone who lives in a city be barred from owning the same types of guns that people in rural areas can have? People in the city (like me) occasionally go target shooting, too.

Ok, considering the excellent legal support for the right to keep and bear arms I've seen from Kecibukia, and the extreme leftist, statist rhetoric I've seen from CSW, I feel it is necessary to make the issue of SCOTUS irrelevant and say that the Second Amendment reinforces an existing human right: the right to self-defense, which is in any sane, intelligent, rational analysis a corollary of the right to life.

Given the logic we see from CSW, we should not be allowed to defend ourselves, and considering that implicit in the right to life is the right to defend that life, we should also ban life.

In the context of law, which CSW and Kecibukia are both zealously pursuing, it is important to see that gun laws don't work. Only one murder has ever been committed with a legally owned machine gun since the NFA was written, and it was by a police officer. No murders have occurred involving legally acquired short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns or silencers since the NFA was written in any record I've come across. Additionally, to say that the Second Amendment grants the right to a state, it is vital to note that every other right in the Bill of Rights refers to the individual. But by CSW's logic, we must also accept that only the state has the right to freedom of speech, assembly, press, religion, petition, freedom frox excessive bail and fines, freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, freedom from being forced to house soldiers be it in peacetime or wartime, freedom to not be deprived of property without due process of law, or any other fundamental freedoms in the Bill of Rights.

I regret that in my argument I stooped to CSW's level and was forced to speak at such length as he does, and with equal use of emphasis, though I appeal to reason and him to irrational, knee-jerk emotion.

To conclude, it saddens me that people like CSW can want the government to write laws that not only infringe on rights granted in the founding document of our country, but infringe on basic human rights to boot.




P.S. I would just like to say that, IMHO, with this speech, just about every argument I've ever heard in favor of the elimination of the right to bear arms has been totally, completely and absolutely PWNED!!!!!!!

P.P.S. I'm not being vain, it's just that I have yet to see a totally rational, non-circular argument in favor of gun control that stands up to intelligent, logical analysis.