Welcome To The Wild West??? by deepgirl187

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Welcome To The Wild West???

POSTED BY: DEEPGIRL187
UPDATED: Tuesday, December 21, 2021 10:51
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 4671
PAGE 3 of 3

Monday, June 30, 2008 7:45 AM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
You're just a mouthpiece for the greenie-weenies. Get a horse, you petulant pie hole.
I fart methane in your general direction.

But seriously, are the majority of peeps killed with guns killed with unregistered weapons?

Curious Chrisisall

Glad to see you've maintained your sense of humor. Seriously, if you can't laugh at this world, you'll go mad from the screaming...

A horse? Nah... not enough horsepower. I'll never make it as a Greenie; I *try* to lessen my impact on the environment, but I like steak and bacon, and I still like racing my cars. Racing tires that get tossed every few races will never win friends on the green side of the fence.

As for the registered-vs-unregistered gun crimes, I honestly have no idea. I do know that Texas doesn't require me to register my guns, and I haven't - but I also haven't committed any crimes with them, either! I'm not sure if statistics have even been compiled on whether or not registered or unregistered guns were used - or whether that's even the salient point; it might be handier to know whether legally-obtained or illegally-obtained guns were used in the majority of those gun crimes, and precisely what kind of "gun crimes" we're even looking at.

I question some of the basic premise of the gun-crimes statistics, too, but that's only because I've seen people too often skew statistics to support their own agendas - on all sides of the issues. For instance, if you have one glass of wine with dinner, and then go out and get hit by a car, that counts as an "alcohol-related" accident in the statistics. I wonder how many of those "gun crimes" in the stats are actually crimes committed with guns, but I don't have the statistics on hand right now to say one way or another.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

The Myrmidons were an ancient nation of very brave and skilled warriors as described in Homer's Iliad, and were commanded by Achilles. - Wikipedia

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 30, 2008 7:46 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Obviously Cit-head either hasn't read, or has failed to comprehend the massive amount of already-posted background info which shows that both historically and traditionally the american "militia" is the whole body of the people with their own weapons of military nature and quality.

Look at it historically.

The Minute Men
The Green Mountain Boys
The Over The Mountain Men

These were just a few, who simply responded to the call of a threat with their own equipment and weapons, it's a common theme throughout the entire founding period that prettymuch EVERYBODY in this country was armed comparitively to professional soldiers, it's part of the founding bedrock of this country, that our primary intended bulwark against any form of tyranny was that we the people should outgun any forces under the control of this Government, and thus ONLY be ruled by consent of the governed, not force of arms.

Also, The Battle of Kings Mountain forever put paid to the concept that Militia was not an effective fighting force when properly motivated, and brought into sharp focus to the simple reality that as long as americans were personally armed on parity with foreign militaries we would NEVER need fear them - this point was not at all lost on our Founders as they were present during the time it happened, and certain of them pointed out that if so well armed, our citizens need never fear the Government either, because as long as they outgunned it, it could never force them to become it's servants, Madison in particular was very explicit on the subject as already posted above.

That's the wonderful thing about having recorded those debates and speeches for posterity, there is no NEED to guess, there is no ambiguity, the Founders were quite explicit about what the hell they meant in very painstaking detail.

They fully intended the average citizen to outgun any standing army, and the idea of ANY limit on possession or ownership of weapons outside of that right being forfeit by conviction of a crime under due process of law - would have made them nauseated to even think of it.

As for "who is the militia", since folks seem to be ignoring the words of our founders, how bout the revelant freakin law code then ?

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000311---
-000-.html
TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311Prev | Next § 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.

I don't see where it could possibly be clearer than that, military service or enrollment is NOT a condition of the "Militia" of the United States, and by the letter of the law includes all non-excepted males of 17-45.

Add to that, the fact that historically, the Militia is supposed to provide their own weapons, gear and ammunition, it's a damned tricky thing to do when possession of such has been outlawed, innit ?

I attribute no great wisdom to the body of the Supreme Court, for the very reason that they're quite willing to distort the meaning of the Constitution for political gain whenever they please - and in this case, no wisdom was required to make the decision, simply sufficient literacy to read the explainations of the very people who wrote the document in the first place, something anyone with even the most basic of educations can also do.

If anything at all, and grudgingly so, I would attribute to them a modicum of sense, and a small, strange portion of moral courage to admit something that bench has been passionately denying for over a hundred years, or, alternatively, it could just be more of the usual hypocrisy of those holding a public office, only time will tell, for IF that properly individual right is to be enforced and defended, and IF they mean to carry through with this decision, then the BATFE is going to need some restructuring, and a LOT of weapons restricting laws will need to be struck from the books as UnConstitutional.

And folks, I shall believe THAT, only when I see it happen.

Ponder it - States cannot revoke or alter a Constitutional Right, and do you really, REALLY think that they will cease to do so at this point ?

We will see, for mine own... I ain't holdin my breath, I'll tell ya that much.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 30, 2008 7:53 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

Ponder it - States cannot revoke or alter a Constitutional Right

Sure they can- if the money's right.

DeadPresidentsisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 30, 2008 7:57 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Oops, missed a bit on that last post.

The STATE Constitutions and what they say regarding the matter.
http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statedat.htm
====================================
1776 North Carolina: That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

1776 Pennsylvania: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power.

1777 Vermont: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State -- and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.

1780 Massachusetts: The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.

1790 Pennsylvania: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

1792 Kentucky: That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

1796 Tennessee: That the freemen of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence.

1799 Kentucky: That the rights of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

1802 Ohio: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State; and as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be kept up, and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to the civil power.

1816 Indiana: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State, and that the military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power.

1817 Mississippi: Every citizen has a right to bear arms, in defence of himself and the State.

1818 Connecticut: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.

1819 Maine: Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms for the common defence; and this right shall never be questioned.

1819 Alabama: That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defence of himself and the state.

1820 Missouri: That the people have the right peaceably to assemble for their common good, and to apply to those vested with the powers of government for redress of grievances by petition or remonstrance; and that their right to bear arms in defence of themselves and of the State cannot be questioned.

1832 Mississippi: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defence of himself and of the State.

1834 Tennessee: That the free white men of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence.

1835 Michigan: Every person has a right to bear arms for the defence of himself and the State.

1836 Texas: Every citizen shall have the right to bear arms in defence of himself and the republic. The military shall at all times and in all cases be subordinate to the civil power.

1836 Arkansas: That the free white men of this State shall have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence.

1838 Florida: That the free white men of this State shall have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence.

1842 Rhode Island: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

1845 Texas: Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in lawful defence of himself or the State.

1850 Kentucky: That the rights of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned; but the General Assembly may pass laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed arms.

1850 Michigan: Every person has a right to bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.

1851 Ohio: The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.

1851 Indiana: The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State [military subordination clause removed].

1857 Oregon: The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power[.]

1859 Kansas: The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be tolerated, and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.

1865 Missouri: That the people have the right peaceably to assemble for their common good, and to apply to those vested with the powers of government for redress of grievances by petition or remonstrance; and that their right to bear arms in defence of themselves and of the lawful authority of the State cannot be questioned.

1865 Georgia: 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.

1865 Florida: Clause omitted.

1868 Texas: Every person shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defence of himself or the State, under such regulations as the legislature may prescribe.

1868 North Carolina: 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; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up, and the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

1868 Florida: The people shall have the right to bear arms in defence of themselves and of the lawful authority of the State.

1868 South Carolina: The people have a right to keep and bear arms for the common defence. As, in times of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained without the consent of the General Assembly. The military power of the State shall always be held in subordination to the civil authority and be governed by it.

1868 Mississippi: All persons shall have a right to keep and bear arms for their defence.

1868 Georgia: A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free people, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but the general assembly shall have power to prescribe by law the manner in which arms may be borne.

1868 Arkansas: The citizens of this State shall have the right to keep and bear arms for their common defense.

1870 Tennessee: That the citizens of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime.

1875 Missouri: That the right of no citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power, when thereto legally summoned, shall be called into question; but nothing herein contained is intended to justify the practice of wearing concealed weapons.

1875 North Carolina: 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; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up, and the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. Nothing herein contained shall justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons, or prevent the Legislature from enacting penal statutes against said practice.

1876 Colorado: The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons.

1876 Texas: Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.

1877 Georgia: [Militia clause deleted.] The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but the General Assembly shall have power to prescribe the manner in which arms may be borne.

1879 Louisiana: 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 abridged. This shall not prevent the passage of laws to punish those who carry weapons concealed.

1885 Florida: The right of the people to bear arms in defence of themselves and the lawful authority of the State, shall not be infringed, but the Legislature may prescribe the manner in which they may be borne.

1889 Washington: The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.

1889 Wyoming: The right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the state shall not be denied.

1889 South Dakota: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state shall not be denied.

1889 Montana: The right of any person to keep or bear arms in defense of his own home, person, and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but nothing herein contained shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons.

1889 Idaho: The people have the right to bear arms for their security and defense; but the Legislature shall regulate the exercise of this right by law.

1890 Mississippi: The right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but the legislature may regulate or forbid carrying concealed weapons.

1891 Kentucky: All men are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned: First: The right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties. . . . Seventh: The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State, subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons.

1895 South Carolina: 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. As, in times of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained without the consent of the General Assembly. The military power of the State shall always be held in subordination to the civil authority and be governed by it.

1896 Utah: The people have the right to bear arms for their security and defense, but the legislature may regulate the exercise of this right by law.

1901 Alabama: That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.

1907 Oklahoma: The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power, when thereunto legally summoned, shall never be prohibited; but nothing herein contained shall prevent the Legislature from regulating the carrying of weapons.

1912 Arizona: The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the State shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men.

1912 New Mexico: The people have the right to bear arms for their security and defense, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons.

1945 Missouri: That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons.

1959 Hawaii: 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.

1959 Alaska: 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.

1963 Michigan: Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.

1968 Florida: The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the state shall not be infringed, except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law.

1970 Illinois: Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

1971 North Carolina: 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; and, as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained, and the military shall be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. Nothing herein [word omitted] shall justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons, or prevent the General Assembly from enacting penal statutes against that practice.

1971 New Mexico: No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons.

1971 Virginia: That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

1974 Louisiana: [Militia clause deleted.] The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged, but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person.

1978 Idaho: The people have the right to keep and bear arms [qualifiers omitted], which right shall not be abridged; but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to govern the carrying of weapons concealed on the person nor prevent passage of legislation providing minimum sentences for crimes committed while in possession of a firearm, nor prevent the passage of legislation providing penalties for the possession of firearms by a convicted felon, nor prevent the passage of any legislation punishing the use of a firearm. No law shall impose licensure, registration or special taxation on the ownership or possession of firearms or ammunition. Nor shall any law permit the confiscation of firearms, except those actually used in the commission of a felony.

1982 Nevada: Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes.

1982 New Hampshire: All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state.

1984 North Dakota: All individuals are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation; pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness; and to keep and bear arms for the defense of their person, family, property, and the state, and for lawful hunting, recreational, and other lawful purposes, which shall not be infringed.

1984 Utah: The individual right of the people to keep and bear arms for security and defense of self, family, others, property, or the state, as well as for other lawful purposes shall not be infringed; but nothing herein shall prevent the legislature from defining the lawful use of arms.

1986 West Virginia: A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and state, and for lawful hunting and recreational use.

1986 New Mexico: No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms.

1987 Delaware: A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use.

1987 Maine: Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms [for the common defence omitted] and this right shall never be questioned.

1988 Nebraska: All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights; among these are life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the right to keep and bear arms for security or defense of self, family, home, and others, and for lawful common defense, hunting, recreational use, and all other lawful purposes, and such rights shall not be denied or infringed by the state or any subdivision thereof. To secure these rights, and the protection of property, governments are instituted among people, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

1990 Florida: (a) The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the state shall not be infringed, except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law. (b) There shall be a mandatory period of three days, excluding weekends and legal holidays, between the purchase and delivery at retail of any handgun. For the purposes of this section, "purchase" means the transfer of money or other valuable consideration to the retailer, and "handgun" means a firearm capable of being carried and used by one hand, such as a pistol or revolver. Holders of a concealed weapon permit as prescribed in Florida law shall not be subject to the provisions of this paragraph. (c) The legislature shall enact legislation implementing subsection (b) of this section, effective no later than December 31, 1991, which shall provide that anyone violating the provisions of subsection (b) shall be guilty of a felony. (d) This restriction shall not apply to a trade in of another handgun.

1994 Alaska: 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. The individual right to keep and bear arms shall not be denied or infringed by the State or a political subdivision of the State.

1998 Wisconsin: The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose.
============================

Gee, notice any recurring THEME here ?
Yanno, like that pesky oh-so-hated SELF DEFENSE thing ?
Not only not abridged, denied or restricted, so many statements that this right shall not even be QUESTIONED.

Does that bring the perspective a lil closer, maybe ?

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 30, 2008 7:58 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

(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

That last part needs changin' anyway...in the days of the Founding Fathers, 45 was pretty gorram old- life expectancy weren't much more than that, now we got peeps like Rambo still blowin' s**t up at 60+.

Just sayinisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 30, 2008 7:59 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Okay then, just don't go makin' them sound like their poo don't smell is all.

Wouldn't think of it. However, in the area of Constitutional Law I figure that their poo smells just a bit less than mine or your's.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 30, 2008 8:02 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Obviously Cit-head either hasn't read, or has failed to comprehend the massive amount of already-posted background info which shows that both historically and traditionally the american "militia" is the whole body of the people with their own weapons of military nature and quality.

Obviously Frem-infirma hasn't read his own cites

. Nor what I've written, but nothing new there, he's the first to do it, and the first to bitch about it...

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 30, 2008 8:03 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

Gee, notice any recurring THEME here ?
Yanno, like that pesky oh-so-hated SELF DEFENSE thing ?

This country has gone so blatantly overboard with the limiting and regulation of self-defense...it's like a psuedo-utopian nightmare IMO.

Turns the other cheekisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 30, 2008 8:09 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
[ in the area of Constitutional Law I figure that their poo smells just a bit less than mine or your's.

Then how do you explain the closeness of the vote- if ever there was a clear black and white, the unconstitutionality of the DC gun ban was it. Clearly, some on the Supreme Court don't seem to understand the Constitution as well as you may believe. Or they do, but want to play fast & loose with it.

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 30, 2008 8:21 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Cit, I rather think that the plain and simple fact that I can find the revelant bits of discussion in what amounts to well over a hundred and some pages worth of discussions and speeches would likely be an indicator that I am somewhat familiar with the source material, perhaps ?

Seriously, try reading some of it yourself, they really were very clear about it, in depth and detail - the right to possess and carry weapons was so generally assumed that initially they felt no specific need to codify it into law since Madison and others felt that no one would dare stoop so low as to defy it, something that earned him quite a verbal stripping at the hands of the AntiFederalists, who were only somewhat mollified by the addition of the Bill of Rights, since they firmly believed that over time those enumerated rights were the ONLY ones that would wind up protected and the Ninth Amendment would wind up completely ignored, and history has once again proven them entirely correct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Cons
titution
Ninth Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Regardless, BOTH sides of the debate felt it extremely important to codify that right due to the very principles our nation was founded on, the consent of the governed, resting on the bedrock of the fact that the citizens outgunned the forces of Government, and should that ever change, the people would wind up it's slaves and servants instead of it's masters.

Madisons primary argument was that it was so universally understood and assumed that it did not NEED to be pointed out, and once you understand where he was going with that, which is easy enough since both sides were not arguing over whether or not the right existed, they were only arguing over the level of protection it needed, you might begin to understand how basic that thing was to them at the time - almost beneath the level of mention was the assumption that everyone had the right to possess weapons, as much as they had the right to possess pants.

They'd be appalled that it was ever even called into question, much less debated.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 30, 2008 8:27 AM

JONGSSTRAW

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
[ in the area of Constitutional Law I figure that their poo smells just a bit less than mine or your's.

Then how do you explain the closeness of the vote- if ever there was a clear black and white, the unconstitutionality of the DC gun ban was it. Clearly, some on the Supreme Court don't seem to understand the Constitution as well as you may believe. Or they do, but want to play fast & loose with it.

LOL! That's a hoot Chris...You think Ruth Darth Vader Ginsburg gives a rat's behind about the Constitution? Her legal background from the ACLU involves sending threatening letters about lawsuits to schools if they call something Christmas instead of Holiday... or defending Nambla in their quest to rape every child in America. There is no Supreme Court now...it's just 4 Libs & 4 Cons...with Kennedy the Moderate. He's the most powerful man in America right now.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 30, 2008 8:31 AM

KHYRON

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Then how do you explain the closeness of the vote- if ever there was a clear black and white, the unconstitutionality of the DC gun ban was it.

Been wondering the same thing myself (the closeness of the vote I mean, not how Geezer will explain it).

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

This isn't my signature. I have to type this every time I make a post.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 30, 2008 8:33 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Cit, I rather think that the plain and simple fact that I can find the revelant bits of discussion in what amounts to well over a hundred and some pages worth of discussions and speeches would likely be an indicator that I am somewhat familiar with the source material, perhaps ?

Do you want me to answer, or this other Citizen who you're arguing with?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 30, 2008 8:55 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Then how do you explain the closeness of the vote- if ever there was a clear black and white, the unconstitutionality of the DC gun ban was it. Clearly, some on the Supreme Court don't seem to understand the Constitution as well as you may believe. Or they do, but want to play fast & loose with it.

Notice I said "...just a bit less...".

I really don't know. I read pretty much the entire decision and the dissenting arguments don't seem to hold much water, as well as being answered very well in the majority finding. I'd like to think that the dissenting justices were actually defending their understanding of the 2nd Amendment, But the fact that they're the four most Liberal on the Court makes me wonder if they didn't have an agenda.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 30, 2008 9:18 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
the fact that they're the four most Liberal on the Court makes me wonder if they didn't have an agenda.

EXACTLY!!! Agenda trumps objective interpretation. You'll get the same thing only reversed on something like abortion. These peeps go to a school that costs a pretty penny, memorize s**t, and come out deciders of truth & justice?
Right.
It's all about ego, pal.

& moneyisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 30, 2008 10:00 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Agenda trumps objective interpretation.

In some cases it may, since we're all human and can't avoid being subjective to some extent, based on our beliefs. But someone's gotta decide points of constitutional law, and it should probably be folk who are at least well trained and experienced. We can't just throw up our hands and say that since no one can be perfectly objective (except perhaps you and me

) nothing should ever be decided.

If you have any suggestions on some system that might be more objective than the Supreme Court, I'd be glad to hear it, 'cause I got nothin' better to suggest right now.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 30, 2008 10:08 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

If you have any suggestions on some system that might be more objective than the Supreme Court, I'd be glad to hear it, 'cause I got nothin' better to suggest right now.

It's not the court that I have issues with, it's how justices get picked & paid.
1) Make Justices get paid no more than an average attorney, but with a better retirement package.
2) Select them based on test scores (tests for knowledge of Constitution, ability to be objective, disdain of corruption, etc.).

Know-it-allisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 21, 2021 10:51 AM

JAYNEZTOWN

Lightfoot doubles down on public safety strategy as gun violence soars in 2021

https://wgntv.com/news/chicagocrime/lightfoot-doubles-down-on-public-s
afety-strategy-as-gun-violence-soars-in-2021/

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE