|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
October 1, 2012, 08:23 AM | #51 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 20, 2011
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,185
|
^^^ +1 for the two previous posts!!!
__________________
This is my gun. There are many like her, but this one is mine. I'm not old. I'm CLASSIC! |
October 1, 2012, 09:37 AM | #52 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
|
I disagree that we can leave the Bill of Rights as is and still have our rights preserved. Why?
__________________
Molon Labe Last edited by BGutzman; October 1, 2012 at 11:35 AM. |
October 1, 2012, 09:52 AM | #53 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 20, 2011
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,185
|
So you are suggesting that some of the military are under the control of the executive branch of the govt. and some are under the control of the judicial branch? What happens when they go head to head? Civil war. The SCOTUS is appointed for life. Basically as an Emperor or King to call the shots of all our lives. Not a good idea if you ask me. As it is now we can oust the politicians with our votes if used correctly. SCOTUS is in for life (as are many criminals haha). This is why your vote for President is more important than many people realize. The President appoints Supreme court justices for life so they are in power far longer than the prez that appointed them.
I believe executive orders should be more limited than they obviously are, because as we see they can be abused.
__________________
This is my gun. There are many like her, but this one is mine. I'm not old. I'm CLASSIC! |
October 1, 2012, 09:55 AM | #54 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 6,141
|
Silly me! I thought the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to protect the United States (the security of the free state).
__________________
Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands! Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag, and return us to our own beloved homes! Buy War Bonds. |
October 1, 2012, 09:59 AM | #55 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 20, 2011
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,185
|
Read correctly 2A was meant to restrict the power of the federal government over the people.
__________________
This is my gun. There are many like her, but this one is mine. I'm not old. I'm CLASSIC! |
October 1, 2012, 10:23 AM | #56 |
Junior member
Join Date: December 5, 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 708
|
__________________
What happened to: "We, the People are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts — not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution.’’ — Abraham Lincoln |
October 1, 2012, 10:28 AM | #57 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
That's because you insist on seeing the prefatory clause as the singular meaning, a view which is not and has never been the majority opinion of the writers, ratifiers, courts or majority of Americans.
|
October 1, 2012, 10:30 AM | #58 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 16, 2006
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Posts: 301
|
I often wonder what is to be gained by limiting citizen's access to firearms. Often the idea of public safety comes up based on the actions of people who seek to engage in criminal or harmful activity. But in the end, these ideals are fruitless as those targeted are the least likely to adhere to these ideals. And so we end up removing the rights of the masses to address the actions of the few, which I believe is really the true intent.
|
October 1, 2012, 10:37 AM | #59 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 20, 2011
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,185
|
One of my most basic ideas is "If you ain't doin' somethin' wrong then you don't need to worry about me and my gun." This is why I am suspicious of anyone advocating gun control laws.
__________________
This is my gun. There are many like her, but this one is mine. I'm not old. I'm CLASSIC! |
October 1, 2012, 11:50 AM | #60 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 6,141
|
Even the supreme court has minority opinions.
__________________
Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands! Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag, and return us to our own beloved homes! Buy War Bonds. |
October 1, 2012, 11:58 AM | #61 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
|
Well great idea or not the SCOTUS does need a way to take action to ensure that laws that are struck down are not being enforced despite the rulings. Chicago being a prime example of where SCOTUS seems to need some kind of physical enforcement..
Im open to other ideas but as things are it seems hardly acceptable that Chicago can endlessly add or subtract a word or two and then it takes another decade of court battles.... For rights to have meaning they need to be usable in the majority of your life.... not decades after you have turned to dust.
__________________
Molon Labe |
October 1, 2012, 12:06 PM | #62 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 12, 2011
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 1,315
|
Call me simplistic, but in my mind, a well regulated militia means a militia that shoots well. So a law that impedes the use of arms, or practice of the shooting public is just wrong. It's all the little rule makers that make this place
the PITA that it can be. |
October 1, 2012, 12:11 PM | #63 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 20, 2011
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,185
|
BGutzman: I agree that it is not right for laws to be tied up for years in court before enforcement or enforced at the discretion of the executive branch of the govt. such as immigration laws that we have heard so much about in recent times. Wish I had a good answer for the problem, but I know I don't.
__________________
This is my gun. There are many like her, but this one is mine. I'm not old. I'm CLASSIC! |
October 1, 2012, 12:38 PM | #64 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 6,141
|
You are simplistic. That was one of the problems of the militia. As a military force, they had their shortcomings. Whether or not they could shoot straight is one thing but standing up in battle is where they came up short.
__________________
Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands! Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag, and return us to our own beloved homes! Buy War Bonds. |
October 1, 2012, 01:01 PM | #65 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Quote:
Let's stop with the hyperbole and general politics and stick with the question at hand.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
October 1, 2012, 02:54 PM | #66 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 13, 2006
Posts: 8,288
|
I posted a couple of links to youtube 911 tapes of women on the 911 line as a home invasion was taking place.One was protecting her baby.Both shot and killed the invader .
I realize many folks have the good sense to not click on every link presented,no telling what you will get. My point,these women were not included in any definition of militia,yet were in situations of gravest extreme,and and exemplify the most fundamental meaning of the Second Amendment.I am in my home and some SOB broke in to do me or my child harm.I had a shotgun,I used it.I am alive,they are dead. This drivel about militia is irrelevant.Those who advocate corrupting the Liberty to Keep and Bear Arms also are advocating these women and others like them be defenseless. Whether or not they had training to meet some bureacrats expectation and get their ticket punched,they were armed when seconds count and the police were minutes away.They knew,one way or another,to call 911 and excersize appropriate restraint,yet acted when the situation became grave. With red tape infringement,likely we would have three victims and perhaps a couple more murder/rapers walking the streets. Our Bill of Rights is about limiting government and preserving individual liberty. Wrong decisions by SCOTUS and other corruptions aside,the purpose of the Bill of Rights is preservation of INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY. Its not about "for the greater good" its not about "the collective justice" I hope you all will remember that. |
October 1, 2012, 03:59 PM | #67 | |
Member in memoriam
Join Date: April 9, 2009
Location: Blue River Wisconsin, in
Posts: 3,144
|
Quote:
__________________
Good intentions will always be pleaded for any assumption of power. The Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern will, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters. --Daniel Webster-- |
|
October 1, 2012, 08:22 PM | #68 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 7, 2008
Posts: 550
|
A better example of why we should leave the 2nd Amendment alone than "The Battle of Athens", would be hard to find, IMHO.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncdXfUAkMUI
__________________
In my hour of darkness In my time of need Oh Lord grant me vision Oh Lord grant me speed - Gram Parsons |
October 1, 2012, 08:54 PM | #69 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 21, 2010
Location: Rome, NY
Posts: 941
|
"Well great idea or not the SCOTUS does need a way to take action to ensure that laws that are struck down are not being enforced despite the rulings. Chicago being a prime example of where SCOTUS seems to need some kind of physical enforcement.."
That would entail a police force for the SCOTUS. Once SCOTUS has ruled, they are done with it until another case is presented to them and accepted for adjudication. The proper way to enforce a SCOTUS decision is to file civil suit against the offending agency. That is what groups like the NRA do and they seem to do a darn good job. There are slips, but overall the civil suit route is usually successful as not many judges will scoff at SCOTUS.
__________________
Jim Page Cogito, ergo armatum sum |
October 1, 2012, 08:57 PM | #70 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 23, 2009
Posts: 3,963
|
I have yet to see a cogent argument that can convince me the Second Amendment is about the military having the right to have weapons.
|
October 1, 2012, 09:36 PM | #71 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,468
|
Quote:
And for that reason I think the Constitution as amended by the Bill of Rights does what it intended to do very well. The problem isn't the Constitution; the problem is judges who can't read, and judges who deliver creative/expansionist rulings in order to further their personal agendas. Case in point: Marijuana. The Constitution assigns to the Federal government the task/role of regulating interstate commerce. Fine -- that's all well and good. But it took a VERY tortured application of the interstate commerce clause for the Supreme Court to rule that marijuana grown in a state, sold in the same state, and consumed in that same state was nonetheless in INTERSTATE commerce because by NOT importing marijuana from out of state, the growers and vendors in that state AFFECTED interstate commerce by NOT engaging in it. Huh? And that's the problem. The Founders never envisioned a government and a judiciary that is so corrupt and so morally and intellectually bankrupt that such a ruling could ever be handed down. |
|
October 2, 2012, 06:57 AM | #72 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 6,141
|
Why couldn't they? There were already state governments and some might suggest that state governments are more corrupt than the federal government ever would be. I also question any suggestion of moral bankruptcy without further description of what is meant.
The military isn't mentioned in the 2nd amendment; the militia is, which were state troops. Remember also that militias had existed long before there was a national government. Remember too, there was a national government before there was the constitution.
__________________
Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands! Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag, and return us to our own beloved homes! Buy War Bonds. |
October 2, 2012, 07:10 AM | #73 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 11, 2008
Location: Upper Michigan, above the Mackinac Bridge
Posts: 568
|
Aguila, that is exactly what I was getting at. The founding fathers couldn't have foreseen all of the technology etc. . . therefore they couldn't get specific with their wording. Everything you said is what I was getting at. Obviously you said it much better and more detailed, but I am on the same page. It was written to protect individual freedoms from the oppression of government. That's what they fought for.
The problem is that with using such vague wording, interpretations can change over time and intentionally or not, enforcement is then changed. |
October 2, 2012, 07:39 AM | #74 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 21, 2010
Location: Rome, NY
Posts: 941
|
Qtiphky: It's good they were not more specific because then instead of "arms" they have said "muskets" or "swords" etc. Then we'd be stuck with using muskets. As a matter of fact, I have heard anti's argue that we only have right to muskets, etc as it is.
__________________
Jim Page Cogito, ergo armatum sum |
October 2, 2012, 08:06 AM | #75 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 17, 2005
Location: Swamp dweller
Posts: 6,187
|
TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
Subtitle A - General Military Law Quote:
Tain't between the age of 17 & 45
__________________
NRA Life Member, NRA Chief Range Safety Officer, NRA Certified Pistol Instructor,, USPSA & Steel Challange NROI Range Officer, ICORE Range Officer, ,MAG 40 Graduate As you are, I once was, As I am, You will be. |
|
|
|