Supreme Court Upholds Gun Right

bells your never going to win this argument. I have tried and even tiassa seems to be what we would concider a right wing gun nut here on this issue.

for some reason in the US they dont seem to see being politically informed as the real protection against tirany rather than how many AK's one has. The political optunity that howard used after port authur was one of the best decisions he ever made. To manipulate public sentiment like that for the good of the country rather than (as he usually did) for his own good was amazing to watch.

give thanks every day that we live in a country where the worst vilonce to ever happen against the state was the eurica stockade. We have always found solutions through politics rather than through vilonce
 
Bells said:
It's a rodent BR. A rodent.

I guess in hard times where meat is scarce you'd have to consider looking at other sources, but could that even apply these days in the US?
Click to expand...

No hard times, just good old fashioned eats.

Now, so is Rabbit, it is raise as a meat animal, and makes a dam fine meal to.


Bells said:
What of honest citizens who have no restrictions placed on them, who purchase such weapons and then go a bit cuckoo in the head and decide to use it to kill others?
Click to expand...

So, over a what if?, you are willing to give up your constitutional rights?
Now remember that the Police have no duty to protect you, that is a Supreme Court Ruling, and law.

They only have to act after the law has been broken, and legally cannot do anything until they see a criminal act.

So until the Police know that a law has been broken, and they arrive, what are you going to do? Curl up in a ball and die? Not me.

There are all kinds of what if's, but when you need to protect your self, it is up to you to do so, the Police can't get involved until they know a crime has been committed, and even if you call them, how long is it going to be before they arrive.

As shown by the North Hollywood shoot out, criminal don't obey the law in the first place, and the Virginia Tech shooting, shows that waiting for the Police, and not having the ability to defend yourself, only gets you killed.


Bells said:
And the weapons purchased by those police officers could also be purchased by citizens who look honest and have an outstanding record, but plan to use them to hurt or kill others, including officers.
Click to expand...

You have to go through a back ground check to purchase any weapon, and that has been law since 1994.

Yes, and those are exactly the type of weapons that are protected by the second amendment.

Now, just what would have been the out come of North Hollywood, if those weapons were not available to the Police through the Sporting Goods Store, that sell such weapons to the public?

A lot of dead Police Officers, and citizens to.

Bells said:
What of those fine, upstanding citizens who are currently stockpiling legally purchased weapons waiting for Armageddon and their time to rise against the State because they dislike the fact that the Government has given minorities equal rights? Go visit some of those sites and frankly, the fact that such individuals are allowed to walk into a gun store and buy their weapons, so that they are ready for the "race war" is quite frightening. Some postulate how long it would be before a black president is assassinated and discuss openly the types of weapons they have and how exactly they would bring down a democratically elected Government because it goes against their racist beliefs. Some even discuss how they might have to kill off some whites who are in the pockets of the blacks and the Jews to ensure they achieve racial purity. You don't have a problem with such individuals arming themselves to the teeth legally?

One man's view of tyranny won't be shared by others, BR.
Click to expand...

Remember New Orleans?

The Anarchy?

And who is preaching a race war? Carl T. Rowan, a Liberal of your strip, Louis Farrakhan, another favorite of the liberal crowd, La Raza, La Mecha, and the Aztalan movement.

There is a old saying in the Boy Scouts, BE PREPARED.

Bells said:
You don't have a problem with such individuals arming themselves to the teeth legally?
Click to expand...

Why do you have a problem if it is done legally? In have black friends who I assist in the selection of firearms, and they are arming themselves because that don't want to be killed by their fellow blacks because they are sucessfull, and have been labled as oreo's.

There is more talk in the black community about race war, than there is in the white community. There is more talk of killing the oreos in the black community than whites, talking about killing whites.

And the biggest danger is not the Black, it is Islam, they have one goal and one goal only, and that is the conversion of the world to Islamic servitude.
 
And here I thought the ideology behind the belief of one's right to bare arms was to protect one's self against a tyrannical Government. But here you are saying that it's not your Government or those who preach racial hatred that is a threat to your society, but Muslims. I'm betting the founding fathers never intended for the right to bare arms to cover that supposed eventuality. Tell me BR, are you arming yourself just in case the Muslims decide to revolt and take over the US Government?:rolleyes:

And even if such a thing were to happen, wouldn't it be up to the military to defend the nation?
 
It's a mental illness

No, Bells. Some people are just itching for an excuse to shoot Muslims.
 
This thread shows that most people ( mostly americans) don't understand what the second amendment means or the context with which it was written.
 
pjdude I'm sorry but because i disagree with it doesn't mean i don't understand it.

Yes the citizens kicked out the British (and set off the french revolution as a bi product i might add) but they also lead to the civil war.

Political solutions are always better than open war as our country shows. We have the longest running continuous democracy in the world

We have never fought our own either. Yes there was a VERY minor rebelion in victoria pre federation but we achived our "freedom" through legislation rather than bloodshead

Political apathy is a bigger threat to indervidual freedom than the lack of weapons is
 
Political apathy is a bigger threat to indervidual freedom than the lack of weapons is
Click to expand...
Your making the same mistake everyone makes about the second amendment. Its about protecting the state. The second amendment is not about protecting the indevidual it is about protecting the state. It was written to insure the new country would be able to defend its self. The War of 1812 is a prime example.
 
pjdude, your right, im linking the second amendment to the words in the delcoration of independence.

However who honestly thinks that a couple of farmers with AK47's is EVER going to be more effective than the Navy with destroyers, the Airforce with F22's and the Army with tanks

That argument just holds no weight at all
 
Asguard said:
pjdude, your right, im linking the second amendment to the words in the delcoration of independence.

However who honestly thinks that a couple of farmers with AK47's is EVER going to be more effective than the Navy with destroyers, the Airforce with F22's and the Army with tanks

That argument just holds no weight at all
Click to expand...

I agree with you. the second amendment is in dire need of being updated. Trying to apply something that was written 200 years ago within a certain context and than applying that today is moronic. But the right wing in the states will not allow it to be brought up to date.
 
Tiassa said:
No, Bells. Some people are just itching for an excuse to shoot Muslims.
Click to expand...
Ah, like al Qaeda itches:

And blows up Muslims.

And chops off their heads.

And roasts them over open flames.

And rapes them.

And that's just the hardcore Muslims.

We have our guns to kill them and any other fascistic idiot of a mind to step beyond their natural ability to persuade in a gentleman's fashion.

Punk.
 
pjdude1219 said:
This thread shows that most people ( mostly americans) don't understand what the second amendment means or the context with which it was written.
Click to expand...

The Second Amendment, covers several points;

1. It give the People the weapons, and ability to remove a tyrannical government, and defend the Constitution.

2. It is also for a common defence of the Nation, that can be carried out in time of war, or insurrection.

3. It guarantees access, to the weapons, needed for self defence to the common people.

The right of the people to defend themselves, the Nation, and the Constitution is what the 2nd Amendment is all about.

Tiassa It's a mental illness

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, Bells. Some people are just itching for an excuse to shoot Muslims.
Click to expand...

Now Tiassa do some research into the Islam, it is a religion of conquest, it has always been so.

Dar'al Harb (or Dar'ul Harb -arab. House of War): All countries and areas, in which Moslems do not have the power yet. In Islam the world is uncompromisingly divided between dar al-Islam, the House of Islam, and dar al-Harb, the House of War, where infidels have not yet been subjugated to Islam. The Jihad is the “struggle” to expand Islam, to create the conditions where Moslems may rule, and Islam may prevail. It has no end, until its goal is reached, whatever periods of quiescence must be observed. The deceptive Islam means Peace is thus part of the Jihad.

Dar'al Islam (or Dar'ul Islam -arab. House of Peace): All countries in the present or in the past to be Islamic controlled. Therefore also Spain, the Balkans and Israel belong to dar-al-Islam. Whenever Moslems talk about Islam as peaceful, they really mean the entire world ruled by Allah, nothing less. Places or lands of infidels aren't so pacified until they are ruled solely by the Sharia.

Dawa (Dawad or D'awa): Request to join Islam, last ultimatum before 'legitimate' conquest by force.
 
So clearly the second Amendment is for a Muslim government in the United States.

The mind boggles.

And these are the idiots who are going to have guns.
 
pjdude1219 said:
I agree with you. the second amendment is in dire need of being updated. Trying to apply something that was written 200 years ago within a certain context and than applying that today is moronic. But the right wing in the states will not allow it to be brought up to date.
Click to expand...
You're missing the point of today's lesson.

The 2nd Amendment specifically was written to permit us to protect ourselves from morons who would argue the belief that we really don't need the 2nd Amendment.

Some people 200 years ago were way smarter than you. They could see you coming.

So can we.

Feeling lucky?
 
When the first Congress convened for the purpose of drafting a Bill of Rights, it delegated the task to James Madison. Madison did not write upon a blank tablet. Instead, he obtained a pamphlet listing the State proposals for a bill of rights and sought to produce a briefer version incorporating all the vital proposals of these. His purpose was to incorporate, not distinguish by technical changes, proposals such as that of the Pennsylvania minority, Sam Adams, or the New Hampshire delegates. Madison proposed among other rights that "That right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person." I n the House, this was initially modified so that the militia clause came before the proposal recognizing the right. The proposals for the Bill of Rights were then trimmed in the interests of brevity. The conscientious objector clause was removed following objections by Elbridge Gerry, who complained that future Congresses might abuse the exemption to excuse everyone from military service.

The proposal finally passed the House in its present form: "A well regulated militia, being necessary for the preservation of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." In this form it was submitted into the Senate, which passed it the following day. The Senate in the process indicated its intent that the right be an individual one, for private purposes, by rejecting an amendment which would have limited the keeping and bearing of arms to bearing "For the common defense".

The earliest American constitutional commentators concurred in giving this broad reading to the amendment. When St. George Tucker, later Chief Justice of the Virginia Supreme Court, in 1803 published an edition of Blackstone annotated to American law, he followed Blackstone's citation of the right of the subject "of having arms suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law" with a citation to the Second Amendment, "And this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government." William Rawle's "View of the Constitution" published in Philadelphia in 1825 noted that under the Second Amendment: "The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by a rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both." The Jefferson papers in the Library of Congress show that both Tucker and Rawle were friends of, and corresponded with, Thomas Jefferson. Their views are those of contemporaries of Jefferson, Madison and others, and are entitled to special weight. A few years later, Joseph Story in his "Commentaries on the Constitution" considered the right to keep and bear arms as "the palladium of the liberties of the republic", which deterred tyranny and enabled the citizenry at large to overthrow it should it come to pass.

Subsequent legislation in the second Congress likewise supports the interpretation of the Second Amendment that creates an individual right. In the Militia Act of 1792, the second Congress defined "militia of the United States" to include almost every free adult male in the United States. These persons were obligated by law to possess a firearm and a minimum supply of ammunition and military equipment. This statute, incidentally, remained in effect into the early years of the present century as a legal requirement of gun ownership for most of the population of the United States. There can by little doubt from this that when the Congress and the people spoke of a "militia", they had reference to the traditional concept of the entire populace capable of bearing arms, and not to any formal group such as what is today called the National Guard. The purpose was to create an armed citizenry, which the political theorists at the time considered essential to ward off tyranny. From this militia, appropriate measures might create a "well regulated militia" of individuals trained in their duties and responsibilities as citizens and owners of firearms.
 
sounds like the origional drafter wouldnt have expected normal citizans to have weapons at all

You always skip over the "well regulated" portion of that which means that the STATE regulates the millarty and who is armed
 
Yet another jurist, Justice Story (appointed to the Supreme Court as an Associate Justice by James Madison in 1811), wrote a constitutional commentary in 1833 ("Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States"). Regarding the Second Amendment, he wrote (source):

The next amendment is: "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 importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.
 
More Evidence Supporting an Individual Right

After James Madison's Bill of Rights was submitted to Congress, Tench Coxe (see also: Tench Coxe and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, 1787-1823) published his "Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution," in the Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 He asserts that it's the people (as individuals) with arms, who serve as the ultimate check on government:

As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.
"A search of the literature of the time reveals that no writer disputed or contradicted Coxe's analysis that what became the Second Amendment protected the right of the people to keep and bear 'their private arms.' The only dispute was over whether a bill of rights was even necessary to protect such fundamental rights." (Halbrook, Stephen P. "The Right of the People or the Power of the State Bearing Arms, Arming Militias, and the Second Amendment". Originally published as 26 Val. U. L.Rev. 131-207, 1991).
Earlier, in The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788, while the states were considering ratification of the Constitution, Tench Coxe wrote:

Who are the militia? are they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American...The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
 
Buffalo, I wouldn't worry about Bells and Asguard. A lot of my fellow Australians have been brainwashed into believing that guns are of the devil.

I think it is also appropriate for me to point out that anti-gun laws are discriminatory against those who live in rural areas. But hey, who cares about those jerks in the country?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top