2nd Amendment

A

Asguard

Kiss my dark side
Valued Senior Member
i was flicking through an old thread of mads when i noticed something he wrote. The comment was that the surpreme court was going to ratify that a gun is able to be kept for self defense in line with the second ammendment

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.
Click to expand...

where exactly does this say anything about self defence or criminals or anything else. Its quite specific on DEFENCE OF THE STATE, not the person

all the comments from the right about judges making laws from the bench become quite ammusing when you look at what the right wing judges have done to the second ammendment
 
Crunchy Cat said:
This isn't a "right-wing" agenda item.

Here is some history on the ammendment's interpretation:

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/beararms.htm
Click to expand...

ummm, 2008 the US court was openly right wing so how is it NOT a right wing issue?

A side issue, we were talking about using cases from other countries to surport cases in Australia. The comment was made (by the law lecturer) that cases from all common law countries (NZ, Canada and the UK ect) are often used quite successfully in our courts. US cases on the other hand are banned "because you could find a case in a US court to surport any possition", ie the US courts arnt consistant in there rulings and are more likly to be politically motivated than motivated by the law. Ie Miller doesnt actually invalidate the premis of this thread, as the court was stacked with right wing republicans at the time (and as far as i know still is)
 
The law has two parts. The causation and the immunity. Even if the causation no longer exists, the immunity does not dissolve. In other words-- even if it no longer serves the security of the state, the right to bear arms does not disappear. Even liberal courts of years past have upheld this. I believe in the right, many liberal and libertarian minded Americans do. This is just not a "right wing cause", despite you wanting it to be.

~String
 
That's fine but you can't claim to be defending the consitution because your not, the consitution is clear that it is focused on state defense. If you want to argue for person defense either a) make a new ammenedment or b) make a new act but you can't claim to be following the consitution if you ignore its intent anymore than the poor tobbacoo companies who argue free speach to advertise a product that kills millions are defending it, they are just exploiting what exists for a completely different reasons to suit there own selfish ends
 
That's fine but you can't claim to be defending the consitution because your not, the consitution is clear that it is focused on state defense.
Click to expand...

In order for a person to become a part of a states militia they would first and foremost own a weapon to insure that they can help "protect" that state from whatever enemy it has against it. Without a weapon a person doesn't have a fighting chance in helping supply the help needed to defend that states rights whatever they might be. If that person happens to use that same weapon to protect his family from a intruder into his home then that's all part of simply having a weapon at hand when needed.
 
Nice try but a volly firefighter doesn't provide his own truck, a volly ambo doesn't provide his own defib. The organization does that
 
I'm further left than the Dems...and I believe in the individual right to own guns.
I think it was intended as the ultimate check on an out of control government.
I dunno, I was just talking to a lady who's been stalked and raped repeatedly by the same guy.
The second time he would have caught a belly full of 12-gauge buckshot, were it me...I would have arranged to have been been sitting there with the lights off, waiting.
 
Last edited:
chimpkin said:
I'm further left than the Dems...and I believe in the individual right to own guns.
I think it was intended as the ultimate check on an out of control government.
I dunno, I was just talking to a lady who's been stalked and raped repeatedly by the same guy.
The second time he would have caught a belly full of 12-gauge buckshot, were it me...I would have arranged to have been been sitting there with the lights off, waiting.
Click to expand...

thats nice, now show me any writings by those who wrote the consitutional ammendment SHOWING that. It doesnt matter what YOU belive, only what the constitution says, acording to people like mad anything else is judges making laws.
 
Asguard said:
Nice try but a volly firefighter doesn't provide his own truck, a volly ambo doesn't provide his own defib. The organization does that
Click to expand...

The volly firefighter must supply his own transportation to the firehouse in order to get to where the fire is, without that transportation he couldn't be of much help. The volly ambu must take life saving medical courses to be of any help and without those educational courses he wouldn't be of much help either. So both of those examples you gave were in need of other things besides themselves in order to be of any real help just as a citizen would need a weapon to be of help in safe guarding the states rights.
 
Last edited:
paid for and surplied by the organisation they work for, and if you argued that a militia men needed own transport sure but your not, your arguing equiptment which is provided. I work as an emergency service volly, i have friends who are CFS, SES and other vollies. Equiptment and training are provided by the organisation
 
Asguard said:
That's fine but you can't claim to be defending the consitution because your not, the consitution is clear that it is focused on state defense. If you want to argue for person defense either a) make a new ammenedment or b) make a new act but you can't claim to be following the consitution if you ignore its intent anymore than the poor tobbacoo companies who argue free speach to advertise a product that kills millions are defending it, they are just exploiting what exists for a completely different reasons to suit there own selfish ends
Click to expand...
Does anyone else find it amusing that a foreigner is lecturing us about our own Constitution? And he doesn't even have a law degree!

I'm not a gun lover but I regard them as a necessary evil. A year or two ago when I was looking up information about WWII I came across some reminiscences from one of the top Japanese military officers. They were discussing the best way to win the war and one general suggested that once they had beaten down our offensive force and then our defensive force, the best thing to do would be simply to invade the country.

The fellow who was being interviewed said that he responded: "No one can ever invade the United States. There is a gun behind every blade of grass."
 
*yawn* sure whatever, you think that if you took out the regular defence forces that you could stand up to ANY countries defence forces? You think that your 9mm hand gun will stand up to a tank? a mig\F14 (and yes you have sold them to everyone). I dont know if its paranoia or what with you guys.

As for my country i suggest you look at the country of origion of this website again, if memory serves it is still owned by a canadian company (Dave definitily was) and run out of the UK i belive. In other words its an international website, if you dont like that people other than US citizians are talking about the US then go join a nationalist US website. Furthermore i have posted ALOT of Australian threads and they disapear and if i can rember the quote from mad "there just isnt any interest in discussing Australian issues". So we get used to discussing US ones and you get your nickers in a twist about that too. Guess you are like that texian who thinks the world is US shaped
 
You think that your 9mm hand gun will stand up to a tank?
Click to expand...

There's an opening at the top of the tank which can be broken into and then that 9mm would be of some help but a moltov coctail would be easier to put into the tank.;)
 
are you serious? you seriously think you and a rable could stand up to a proffessional, equipt, moden army, navy and airforce?
 
How ammusing, the L&O i happened to have recorded was S8 Ep5 Nullification about one of these so called malitias that are so "vital" for your defence. Seems the attitudes of the people HERE are stuck in the stone age, or maybe the middle ages. The "bastion of democracy" aparently doesnt know what democracy actually MEANS. Power is in the vote, not in a gun

Anyway this is all irrelivent because once again the consitution talks about defence of the state, if guns are so important for other reasons why are they not listed? once again you talk about judicial advocasy in other threads but thats exactly what you are advocating here.
 
Asguard said:
are you serious? you seriously think you and a rable could stand up to a proffessional, equipt, moden army, navy and airforce?
Click to expand...

It's possible to engage them to the degree necessary to steal better armaments.

And the constitution only means what the Supreme Court interprets it to mean, and they have interpreted it to mean an individual right to own guns.
 
Asguard said:
That's fine but you can't claim to be defending the consitution because your not, the consitution is clear that it is focused on state defense.
Click to expand...

Well, American law scholars and the Supreme Court for the past 200 years disagrees with you. As a non American, I'll take your opinion seriously when you come over here and study American law and--perhaps--become a resident.

Asguard said:
If you want to argue for person defense either a) make a new ammenedment or b) make a new act but you can't claim to be following the consitution if you ignore its intent anymore than the poor tobbacoo companies who argue free speach to advertise a product that kills millions are defending it, they are just exploiting what exists for a completely different reasons to suit there own selfish ends
Click to expand...

You're just blathering again.

Again, as a non US resident and non US citizen, I care about what you think I should do as an American citizen about as much as I care about what you eat for dinner each night. As if--ASGUARD SAYS SO--and all American jurisprudence goes out the window.

Apparently whatever moron is teaching you about US law, left out the part that the US Supreme Court has the right to interpret the ambiguities of the Constitution. This is just such a case.

~String
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top