The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old October 1, 2012, 08:23 AM   #51
KMAX
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 20, 2011
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,053
^^^ +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!
KMAX is offline  
Old October 1, 2012, 09:37 AM   #52
BGutzman
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?

  1. The SCOTUS on takes a handful of cases a year and infringements of all kinds of rights are passed in very many bills yearly.
  2. Until the SCOTUS can find a way to handle more cases or we define an absolute limitation on the size and power of bills that can be passed no amount of rulings is ever going to catch up.
  3. To my mind someone who is much better at words than I am needs to formulate an amendment that prohibits the re-instatement of laws with one or two word changes that cause the entire case to have to be fought through court over and over again... -see Chicago, California etc..
  4. States and mayors seek to defy rulings and law and they feel they can tell you what your rights are at will with no repercussions... unless we place some number of the military under SCOTUS control there is no way to enforce any ruling if our politicans choose to ignore it.
  5. The number of laws on the books is so vast that no one can know them all and that alone is a threat to freedom...
  6. Presidental imperial decree known as executive order could be used at any point to create a variety of gun rights problems... I believe this should be unconstitutional, laws need to be passed by congress, not the president. Its just a symantics game as is...
__________________
Molon Labe

Last edited by BGutzman; October 1, 2012 at 11:35 AM.
BGutzman is offline  
Old October 1, 2012, 09:52 AM   #53
KMAX
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 20, 2011
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,053
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!
KMAX is offline  
Old October 1, 2012, 09:55 AM   #54
BlueTrain
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 5,825
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.
BlueTrain is offline  
Old October 1, 2012, 09:59 AM   #55
KMAX
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 20, 2011
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,053
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!
KMAX is offline  
Old October 1, 2012, 10:23 AM   #56
Chuckusaret
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
Chuckusaret is offline  
Old October 1, 2012, 10:28 AM   #57
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,367
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueTrain View Post
Silly me! I thought the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to protect the United States (the security of the free state).
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.
Brian Pfleuger is online now  
Old October 1, 2012, 10:30 AM   #58
mayosligo
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.
mayosligo is offline  
Old October 1, 2012, 10:37 AM   #59
KMAX
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 20, 2011
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,053
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!
KMAX is offline  
Old October 1, 2012, 11:50 AM   #60
BlueTrain
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 5,825
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.
BlueTrain is offline  
Old October 1, 2012, 11:58 AM   #61
BGutzman
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
BGutzman is offline  
Old October 1, 2012, 12:06 PM   #62
Strafer Gott
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 12, 2011
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 1,118
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.
Strafer Gott is offline  
Old October 1, 2012, 12:11 PM   #63
KMAX
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 20, 2011
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,053
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!
KMAX is offline  
Old October 1, 2012, 12:38 PM   #64
BlueTrain
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 5,825
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.
BlueTrain is offline  
Old October 1, 2012, 01:01 PM   #65
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,062
Quote:
The problem with that is our current idiot politicians could completely rewrite the entire Constitution.
Please tell us exactly how they could do that. There is no mechanism to "rewrite" the Constitution short of another Convention. Even if that were an option, you'd never get a majority of states to agree to it.

Let's stop with the hyperbole and general politics and stick with the question at hand.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old October 1, 2012, 02:54 PM   #66
HiBC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 13, 2006
Posts: 3,521
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.
HiBC is offline  
Old October 1, 2012, 03:59 PM   #67
Old Grump
Member in memoriam
 
Join Date: April 9, 2009
Location: Blue River Wisconsin, in
Posts: 3,144
Quote:
But I'm missing the part of where the milita was edited out and now includes everyone. I dont have a problem with people carrying as long as they are qualified, tested, and checked.. But how are people determining they have the right?
Are you from New Jersey or California or just a life long liberal Democrat? The second amendment does NOT need changing, editing or reinterpreting.
__________________
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--
Old Grump is offline  
Old October 1, 2012, 08:22 PM   #68
pnac
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 7, 2008
Posts: 329
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
pnac is offline  
Old October 1, 2012, 08:54 PM   #69
JimPage
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 21, 2010
Location: Rome, NY
Posts: 628
"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
JimPage is offline  
Old October 1, 2012, 08:57 PM   #70
kilimanjaro
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 23, 2009
Posts: 1,648
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.
kilimanjaro is offline  
Old October 1, 2012, 09:36 PM   #71
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,212
Quote:
Originally Posted by Qtiphky
When they wrote the Constitution they couldn't have envisioned very many of the things that have happened within our Federal Government and the restrictions that they have placed on our every day lives. Won't go into them as they have mostly been covered.
I sort of disagree with what I think your premise is here. Certainly the Founders could not have envisioned the specifics of much of what we encounter today. Things like telephones (wiretaps), computers (search warrant to download your hard drive), cell phones (does a cop need a warrant to look at your cal registry?) and a lot of other technology were clearly not on the radar. But ... there is really nothing in the Bill or Rights that's technology-dependent. The fundamental concept of the Constitution was to place limits on the power of the Federal government. The Federal government was not supposed to do anything not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. And the Bill of Rights was not intended to be an exhaustive list of the rights of the People. It was a list of the most important rights, but by enumerating those rights the Founders certainly did NOT intend to cancel all other fundamental human/civil rights.

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.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old October 2, 2012, 06:57 AM   #72
BlueTrain
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 5,825
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.
BlueTrain is offline  
Old October 2, 2012, 07:10 AM   #73
Qtiphky
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 11, 2008
Location: Upper Michigan, above the Mackinac Bridge
Posts: 554
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.
Qtiphky is offline  
Old October 2, 2012, 07:39 AM   #74
JimPage
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 21, 2010
Location: Rome, NY
Posts: 628
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
JimPage is offline  
Old October 2, 2012, 08:06 AM   #75
Don P
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 17, 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,772
TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
Subtitle A - General Military Law
Quote:
PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA

Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Where does it leave us old geezers like me being 60?
Tain't between the age of 17 & 45
__________________
NRA Life Member, NRA Range Safety Officer, IDPA Safety Officer
As you are, I once was, As I am, You will be.
Don P is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:15 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.12765 seconds with 7 queries