|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
March 1, 2009, 08:43 PM | #76 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 12, 2008
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 612
|
Carlosr77,
Wow, thanks for sharing. You are a living example of why the 2nd amendment is so important to a free country. |
March 1, 2009, 10:59 PM | #77 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: January 30, 2009
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 566
|
Quote:
Quote:
Although... the people wouldn't have to actually own guns to make the tyrant hesitate, would they? The tyrant would just have to think they might own guns. So, 2A preserves the people's capacity to make symbolic gestures that may or may not be taken seriously. |
||
March 1, 2009, 11:10 PM | #78 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
Quote:
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted." Anonymous Soldier. |
|
March 2, 2009, 01:20 AM | #79 | ||||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,446
|
Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman
Quote:
Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman Quote:
Originally posted by Tenessee Gentleman Quote:
Quote:
Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman Quote:
Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman Quote:
Originally posted by Kleinzeit Quote:
Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman Quote:
Last edited by Webleymkv; March 2, 2009 at 01:27 AM. |
||||||||
March 2, 2009, 01:15 PM | #80 | |||||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I think your quote here: Quote:
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted." Anonymous Soldier. Last edited by Tennessee Gentleman; March 2, 2009 at 05:50 PM. Reason: spelling |
|||||||||
March 2, 2009, 03:49 PM | #81 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 30, 2009
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 566
|
I'm wondering how universally applicable is the "guard against tyrannous government" justification of 2A. Meaning: is this logic attributable in part merely to the peculiarities of the American disposition, to the unique circumstances of America's creation, and to the traditions that have followed from this? Or is the argument intended as a universal principle? (So far, it has been being defended as if it were.)
So here's what I'm thinking: There are many people in other countries who see the USA as a tyrannical power or as one which is capable of becoming tyrannous. Some of those people believe that it is necessary for them to arm themselves as a check against the possibility of this happening. When they see the USA attempting to disarm nations or to limit their capacity to arm themselves, they see this as a confirmation of tyranny, as a tyrannous attempt to create the conditions under which the USA can become yet more tyrannous. It could be argued that the USA simply isn't being tyrannous and that these people have got it all wrong. But the USA, it could be countered, has no more right to make that determination on behalf of other nations than the US government has to make it on behalf of the American populace. I'm not trying to be facetious. Part of the reason I ask is that other nations do watch this 2A debate and do ask themselves whether the USA can really walk the walk. Whether we intend it or not, 2A has implications that go far beyond our shores. |
March 2, 2009, 10:12 PM | #82 | ||||||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,446
|
Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman
Quote:
Quote:
Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman Quote:
Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman Quote:
Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman Quote:
Quote:
Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman Quote:
Also, the militia, the Unorganized Militia included, was not abandonded as to do so would negate the government's ability to institute a draft. You see, COTUS does not grant the government the ability to conscript the people into the military; it only grants the ability to call forth the militia. By redefining the people, or at least a large segment of them, as the militia, the government is able to legally conscript that segment into the military. The government is therefore unable to completely abandon the concept of the militia without also abandoning its legal authority to conscript a segment of the people into the military should that be needed. Since the people have been conscripted into the military multiple times within the last century, it is impossible that the institution of the Militia, the Unorganized Militia included, was abandoned over 100 years ago. Thusly, because the people are still legally considered to be the militia and because the Miller decision specifically defined the purpose of the Second Amendment as ensuring that the Militia can be equipped to defend the country, it must be concluded that, legally at least, the Second Amendment's purpose is to guarantee that the people are able to be equipped in order to defend the country. While you may argue that the militia is not the same institution that it was at the time the Constitution was drafted, the fact remains that by legal definition the Unorganized Militia remains a part of the Militia. Because the Unorganized Militia, and thusly the people, remain a part of the Militia and because the purpose of the Second Amendment, as defined by SCOTUS, is to equip the militia so that it may defend the country, deductive reasoning dictates the the purpose of the Second Amendment is to equip the people to defend the country. Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman Quote:
Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman Quote:
Originally posted by Tenessee Gentleman Quote:
I reject this mentality and instead subscribe to what could be called the "Dog-pack" philosopy. While individual members of society are selected to lead and bear specific duties that ensure the well being of the "pack," each and every member of society bears both the right and duty to ensure not only his own well being, but that of the "pack" as well. This duty extends to the use of arms should that be necessary. |
||||||||||
March 2, 2009, 10:22 PM | #83 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,446
|
Originally posted by Kleinzeit
Quote:
|
|
March 2, 2009, 10:49 PM | #84 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Just to put a bit of scholarly history in perspective:
"And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its bur[d]ens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights." Justice Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833) ----- "The right declared was meant to be a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers, and as a necessary and efficient means of regaining rights when temporarily overturned by usurpation. "The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than the mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in doing so the laws of public order. "What Arms may be kept. -- The arms intended by the Constitution are such as are suitable for the general defence of the community against invasion or oppression, and the secret carrying of those suited merely to deadly individual encounters may be prohibited." Thomas Cooley, General Principles of Constitutional Law (1880) ----- "The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed; where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once." Silveira v. Lockyer, 328 F.3d 567, 570 (Kozinski, J., dissenting). ----- Two rather distinguished scholars and a current Circuit Judge. All espousing what the purpose of the amendment was and is for, from basically the beginning, middle and current history of the US. Also, please remember that the Heller decision did not in any shape or form, address the prefatory clause. The courts have simply refused to opine on this matter, other than a brief sentence from the Miller decision. Nor do I believe that the Court will ever pass judgment on the prefatory clause within our lifetimes. The reasons for avoiding the clause are purely political; self-defensive and self-serving. No government older than a few decades will ever admit that its citizens have the right and duty as was written into the DOI. Like it or not, the U.S. Constitution was written with that in mind. |
March 3, 2009, 01:41 AM | #85 | |||||||||||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
Quote:
Now, the facts of the first case would be familiar to you based on some of our previous debates about NFA weapons. A man possessed an unregistered NFA weapon and claimed that he was able to have it because he was a "member of the militia" and therefore based on Miller had a constitutional right to have it. He lost. Were say, you for instance, try to own an unregistered NFA weapon and upon arrest by the BATFE claim that your "status" in the "unorganized militia" gave you a constitutional right to have it, do you think Heller would save you from jail? I like how the court in Warin referred to the militia as "the sedentary militia" Heller did not rule on the militia question rather decoupled correctly the right to keep and bear arms from service in the militia. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
An important side note here Webley. I would recommend some more reading on guerrilla warfare and perhaps watch a show on the Military Channel or two. Successfuul insurgencies are not waged by disorganized, poorly armed partisans as the gun culture may lead you to believe. It requires extensive training, leadership, planning, help from an outside source or country and luck to win such a war. The real lesson here is that a mob with guns tend to do more harm than good and when faced by a trained force they normally are slaughtered. I would leave the John Ross books alone. Quote:
Quote:
How about in 1962 with "one man one vote" in Baker vs Carr These institutions and branches were brand new and the Founders couldn't be sure they would work as this was a government never before tried in the world. The reason that the Dr. Strangelove scenarios today are insulting is because we know better after 230 years which the Founders could not know. I have read writings from some of them where they expressed grave doubts about howit would all turn out. They were far from sure. As to the military oaths, no Army before ours answered to the people and the Founders fear was that a large standing Army might pose a threat to their liberty. We have a standing Army today and know better. You see Webley, things change and evolve as we learn. That's why the COTUS was amended 27 times. As I posted a quote in post #80 the Founders had a republican ideal (which btw did not include an unorganized militia) that every able citizen would be armed and by obligation stand up and defend when necessary the state. This was not an option but an obligation. This ideal did take care of the fear of a standing army in that the Founders believed that if the defense of the nation lay mostly in the hands of state militias that no standing army could be a threat to the liberty of all. Al Norris in his post above lays out some good quotes to illustrate this republican ideal. I agree that the COUTUS was written with that ideal in mind. However, the "unorganized militia" that you keep hangin your hat on from 1903 was NOT that ideal. Nevertheless, it didn't work! Here: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I further believe there is no more militia and the people you describe "who wish to be armed in order to "defend liberty" and refuse to join the ranks of the military or police" otherwise known as the modern militia, are nothing more than unauthorized paramilitary organizations who answer to no one and who could be an even greater real danger than any stnding army could ever be. I am beginning to think that your belief that the militia still exists stems from your support of these extralegal entities and I would warn you again about the dangers of: They keep nobody free and might be dangerous to your liberties if you got on the wrong side of them.
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted." Anonymous Soldier. Last edited by Tennessee Gentleman; March 3, 2009 at 10:01 AM. Reason: spelling |
|||||||||||||||
March 3, 2009, 03:54 PM | #86 | ||||||||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,446
|
Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman
Quote:
Quote:
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wba...us_v_oakes.txt Quote:
Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman Quote:
Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman Quote:
Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman Quote:
Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman Quote:
Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman Quote:
Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman Quote:
Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman Quote:
Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman Quote:
Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman Quote:
Also, simply because something has worked for an extended period of time does not guarantee that it will continue to do so as neither you, I, nor anyone else knows what the future holds. History is ripe with systems of government that endured much longer than our own which ultimately failed. There is no way that you, the founders, or I can know whether or not our system of government will continue to work so well. Our system of government is not an experiment that was carried out successfully, but rather a continuing experiment that has thus far been successful. |
||||||||||||
March 3, 2009, 03:55 PM | #87 | |||||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,446
|
Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman
Quote:
Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman Quote:
Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman Quote:
Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman Quote:
Quote:
Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman Quote:
Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman Quote:
Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman Quote:
Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman Quote:
It is because of this dogmaticism that I grow tired of this debate. It has become clear to me that neither of us will sway the other from his position and thusly the debate becomes pointless. You are indeed an intellegent and skilled debater and thus far we have been able to conduct our argument in a respectable fashion. It would seem though that we are drawing dangerously close to a debate of emotion and pure ideology and such a debate is not one in which I wish to participate (and I doubt that you wish to either). Because of this, I choose to leave the field of debate while it still remains on the high road, and I wish you the best Sir. |
|||||||||
March 3, 2009, 04:19 PM | #88 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
An interesting debate and at a high intellectual level! Well done.
Reading about the John Yoo memos - it would seem that the violation of the BOR for expediency was high on his mind. I wondered if he was deterred by Bush's support of the 2nd Amend. Or am I being a trouble maker here?
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
March 3, 2009, 10:13 PM | #89 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
Webley,
It was a good run. I enjoyed it. Thank you Sir. We have discussed things before and it was also enjoyable. I think this one was good and well thought out. Rather than post a lengthy repost (I have some work to do tonight)to numerous points I will close my part of the discussion with Webley on a couple of points. 1) While the militia was a grand republican ideal in the 18th Century and one of the dreams of the Founding Fathers, it soon faded due to the general dislike of military service by the great majority of early American citizens (that even persists today with our All-Volunteer Military) and changed into the professional standing military who serve us today. Though some may argue accurately that a de jure unorganized militia, one unorganized, unarmed, undisciplined, untrained, unsupplied, undeployed, and unwanted as a matter of statute--thoroughly disregarded by Congress, exists in a 100 year old statute today. However, De facto it is clear such a system as our Founding Fathers dreamed of and wrote the 2A partially to protect is a dead letter. I could point out law and court cases to prove that and have done some of that already, however, the most undeniable prove is the mere fact that when you look around in America today you will not see a miltia. Some on TFL will argue that all Americans who own guns are the militia, but that idea flies in the face of any definition one might produce of the militia. Aside from the paramilitary organizations, who call themselves militia and are fading, you won't find them. Like the horse cavalry (still on the statutes) the militia of 1789 was replaced by a modern and professional military. 2) I must confess a bias in that I served in the military for a career and am rather defensive about ideas that I feel attack the integrity of it. Some of my friends who took their oaths to the letter are no longer on this earth because of that fidelity. So, at times I will give voice to hard protests when I read that we must have an "armed citizenry" to protect our liberty against those who have stepped up and submitted to national service because they might be "seduced" to turn against our government and our own people. For sure there are bad apples in every bunch and my service, the US Army has not had a spotless record indeed in its conduct. However, the idea that this service would turn on those through "seduction" it's members have sworn to protect is repugnent to me in the extreme. Others have the right to say such things but I will generally rail against them when they do. BTW I have seen in other countries what "armed citizenrys" can do to their own people and thus when I post a picture as I did in another post it is to warn you that mobs with guns are no friend to freedom. 3) If you want to serve your country with arms, by all means do so. But don't do it in a cheap way. Don't just buy a gun and sit and say "I am in the militia!" Step up to the bar and make the sacrifice, take the oath and serve! That service and sacrifice I say is the real purpose and the heart and soul of the militia that our founders wrote of.
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted." Anonymous Soldier. Last edited by Tennessee Gentleman; March 3, 2009 at 10:25 PM. |
March 3, 2009, 10:14 PM | #90 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
Quote:
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted." Anonymous Soldier. |
|
March 3, 2009, 10:25 PM | #91 |
Junior member
Join Date: January 5, 2005
Location: East Bay NorCal, People's Republik of Kalifornia
Posts: 5,866
|
My issue is why the LEO, mil, etc. are somehow gifted with a different status then the rest of us?
Why, with my Juris Doctrate degree, are people telling me I'm not competent to own, and shoot certain firearms, like machine guns, laws rockets, etc. Sure, I did these things as a Reserve grunt wantabe. Including shooting a 105 MM out of an M60 tank. I'm not much for classes. I think if Bubba wants a machine gun, he should have one. I don't think some ex-mil guy is superior one way or another, to someone like Ross Seyfried, John Linebaugh, Jack Huntington, or myself... |
March 3, 2009, 10:30 PM | #92 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
Quote:
Bubba isn't. So they are entrusted with things like nuclear weapons and such. If Bubba joins up he can have some fun too!
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted." Anonymous Soldier. |
|
March 3, 2009, 10:34 PM | #93 |
Junior member
Join Date: January 5, 2005
Location: East Bay NorCal, People's Republik of Kalifornia
Posts: 5,866
|
Sorry, but, that is the basic argument that we'll disagree on.
Oaths are like TP, at least with our current Congress, and gang members on the streets, trained by the military. I don't hold the military in high regard. I find a VERY negative attitude, and, a one strike, and your out situation with the military. While I have great respect for the folks that actually fought in wars, piece time military is the worst we have to offer... |
March 3, 2009, 10:36 PM | #94 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
Quote:
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted." Anonymous Soldier. |
|
March 3, 2009, 10:41 PM | #95 |
Junior member
Join Date: January 5, 2005
Location: East Bay NorCal, People's Republik of Kalifornia
Posts: 5,866
|
NO. They didn't stand in the Pacific Palisades/West Hollywood/ Brentwood when the bad guys where coming up during the Rodney King riots. When the LAPD, and LAFD had pulled out, the people in these areas were on their own. No PD, no national guard, no army.
Private citizens protected, and stopped gangs from invading their homes, stealing their property, and put up barricades. |
March 4, 2009, 09:44 AM | #96 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,464
|
Quote:
Quote:
It is not the duty of the police, national guard, or any branch of the services to protect you individually. We all benefit inicidentally and in varying degrees from security provided by the state as it sees fit. However, it should not be in the political character of people who consider themselves "free" to any appreciable degree to turn over decisions about personal security or safety to the state entirely. People who take measures to keep themselves or neighbours safe can be derided as "bubbas", but I will guess that the people in the picture that is relentlessly reproduced here enjoyed a low probability of victimisation while that picture was being taken. We can't very well complain about people not showing individual responsibility if we remove the means by which they can demonstrate it.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
||
March 4, 2009, 09:50 AM | #97 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
We have had a good run but the last few posts indicates that our intellectual magazines have run dry and we may start to be throwing sticks.
Thus, on the high road and before the low, I think we are done. I thank TNG, WeblyMKV and Zukiphile for their erudition as the debate continued. GM
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
|
|